Continued Functionality Standard

Victor Zayas a)
Stephen Mahin b)

University of California Berkeley,

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Original Publication Date: December 22, 2017, as the
Seismic Isolation Standard for Continued Functionality

a) Hall of Fame Member, American Society of Civil Engineers

Lifetime Achievement Award, Structural Engineers Association of California
Academy of Distinguished Alumni, University of California, Berkeley
Senior Research Fellow, University of California, Berkeley
Doctorate in Structural Earthquake Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
President, Earthquake Protection Systems, Vallejo, California
b) Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering;
at the University of California at Berkeley

Update Revision Date: May 28, 2021

Page 1 of 56
Continued Functionality Standard “CFS”
This CFS specifies the functionality criteria necessary to reduce earthquake shaking damage
sufficiently to retain post-earthquake functionality. This CFS is the seismic isolator product standard
of Earthquake Protection Systems “EPS”, California. Four million square meters of hospitals, ten
million square meters of structures, and over $400 billion in constructed value of important buildings,
bridges, and industrial facilities have implemented EPS seismic isolators compliant with the
functionality criteria which formed the basis of this CFS. [ATC 2010] https://goo.gl/18gw4b http://bit.ly/3349tP7
ASCE 7, Chapter 1 “Functionality”, states that all essential facilities must have a “reasonable
probability” of retaining functionality after the design earthquake. ASCE 7 Chapters 11 to 22 specify
seismic design criteria for collapse avoidance, not functionality. Chapter 1, Functionality, is achieved
by implementing this CFS together with ASCE 7. This CFS targets 90% reliability of limiting damage
from earthquake ground shaking to less than 2% of the facility replacement cost. Hospitals with
damage less than 2% have been observed to reliably retain post-earthquake functionality, while those
with damage greater than 2% have been observed to have lost post-earthquake functionality. [Choque]
The primary Continued Functionality Criteria are: design strength equal to the seismic demand (R=1);
stiffness to adequately limit structure deformations; and limiting the in-structure accelerations to
functionality levels. These functionality criteria apply equally to structures with or without isolators.
During Ecuador’s 2016 magnitude 7.8 earthquake, 39 out of 50 hospitals lost functionality. During
Chile’s 2010 earthquake, 60 hospitals lost functionality, and 6 hospitals collapsed, [PAHO] [EERI]
[WHO] [Choque] A magnitude 6.8 earthquake in Kobe Japan caused 110 out of 180 hospitals to lose
functionality [Ukai]. When these 209 hospitals lost functionality, few hospitals were left that could
care for the tens of thousands of injured persons, resulting in thousands of people dying. The
earthquake performance data is clear, designing hospitals as ductile structures with Importance
Factors of 1.5, does not deliver post-earthquake functionality, however compliance with this CFS
does deliver post-earthquake functionality. Post-earthquake functionality has been retained by
facilities that implemented Triple Pendulum isolators having 2 to 3 times the displacement capacities
required for collapse avoidance by ASCE 7 Chapter 17. These much larger isolators reduce the in-
structure accelerations and deformations to functionality levels.
Since the 1989 California earthquake, all applications of EPS isolators have retained 100% post-
earthquake functionality for the protected facility. The Elazig Hospital, Bahia Bridge, Texas
Instrument’s Factory, and Chile LNG tanks implemented Triple Pendulum isolators designed
according to the continued functionality criteria which formed the basis of this CFS. When subject
to severe earthquake shaking these facilities suffered damage of less than 2% of replacement costs,
after experiencing earthquakes that caused over 100,000 other facilities to lose functionality, and
hundreds of structures to collapse. http://bit.ly/2KIPx9y http://bit.ly/2MPZjJO Conversely, since the 1999 Turkey
earthquake, over 3000 isolators not compliant with this CFS have suffered failures including isolator
collapses, and substantial damage to buildings, including a hospital where damage exceeded 30%.
https://goo.gl/qRRjbW https://goo.gl/Bsvd1r https://goo.gl/WXICTN https://goo.gl/0TgfxW

For over 80 years the seismic design requirements in building codes have targeted only collapse
avoidance, not functionality. ASCE 7 Chapter 12 specifies that essential facilities be designed for
seismic loads equal to 1/8 of the demands of the ASCE 7 maximum considered earthquakes. Such
“ductile structure” result in widespread loss of post-earthquake functionality, and suffer some
collapses. Consequentially, most hospitals subject to severe earthquake shaking have lost
functionality. [Choque] https://goo.gl/AycD9Z https://goo.gl/4azArF https://goo.gl/AdTZJu https://bit.ly/32CceWr

Page 2 of 56
Ridgecrest California’s new acute care hospital California’s original Olive View Hospital
was designed in accordance with the California collapsed during a magnitude 6.3 earthquake. The
Building Code and OSHPOD hospital criteria, replacement hospital was constructed three times
but not continued functionality. California’s stronger than required by California Building
2019 Magnitude 6.4 earthquake resulted in Code’s OSHPOD criteria. On the day of a 6.7
architectural damage that required closure of earthquake the hospital patients were evacuated,
this hospital building. Thus, a new code and the hospital was closed for 3 months.
compliant critical care hospital was not
available to care for injured persons on the days
it was needed the most. http://bit.ly/31r7HmZ

Elazig Hospital was the nearest hospital to the

epi-center of Turkey’s 2020 M 6.7 earthquake.
The hospital retained 100% functionality while
Christchurch’s seismically isolated Women’s
caring for the injured persons, as directed by the
Hospital was constructed with rubber isolators,
WHO. Designed for Continued Functionality
designed in accordance with structure design
code requirements, but not continued with Triple Pendulum seismic isolators.
functionality. During New Zealand’s 2011
magnitude 6 earthquakes the hospital suffered
earthquake damage exceeding 30% of the
original construction cost. Repairs took 4 years.
Researchers at the University of Christchurch
instrumented the building, and recorded the
isolator displacements and building accelerations
that occurred during the two December 2011 M6
earthquakes. They reported the lead-rubber
isolators “did not displace”, and the hospital The fragile precision manufacturing equipment at
responded “essentially as if it was fixed base” this Texas Instrument’s factory remained fully
[Kuang]. These isolators were designed functional during and after the Philippines 2019 M
according to the structure design code developed 6.1 Earthquake, which forced the adjacent airport
for collapse avoidance, but not functionality. and other buildings to close. This plant produces
https://goo.gl/qRRjbW 60% of Texas Instruments annual earnings.

Page 3 of 56
Damage to architectural components and equipment cause 98% of the losses of functionality.
Buildings lose functionality at earthquake shaking strengths one twentieth of those shaking strengths
that cause structure collapse. For every structure seen in the media that suffered collapse, there were
over 1000 others that remained standing but lost functionality. Most hospitals that lost functionality,
with or without isolators, appeared undamaged from the outside. When hospitals lose functionality
the patients are evacuated to the streets, receive grossly inadequate medical care, and some die.
California’s Ridgecrest critical care hospital tower opened in 2010. The structure complied with the
stringent collapse avoidance provisions of California’s OSHPD hospital code. The 2019 magnitude
6.4 earthquake caused architectural damage requiring closure of the region’s only acute care hospital,
on the very day it was needed most. California’s original Olive View Hospital suffered
collapse during a magnitude 6.5 earthquake. The replacement Olive View Hospital was constructed
with shear walls much stronger than required by code. The replacement hospital suffered no structural
damage during a subsequent magnitude 6.8 earthquake. However, floor accelerations were measured
at over 1.2g, and the replacement hospital was rendered non-functional by extensive damage to
architectural components. The replacement hospital was evacuated on the day of the earthquake, and
remained closed for 3 months. [Chevers] https://goo.gl/oY5Kci Hospital owners have justifiably complained
that they have been required by OSHPD to implement costly construction to increase the seismic
shear strength of hospitals, yet the hospitals still suffered damage and closure. These closures
demonstrate that OSHPD needs to mandate this Continued Functionality Standard.
Christchurch’s seismically isolated Women’s Hospital was constructed with rubber isolators that
complied with NZ’s structure design code, but not functionality criteria. During New Zealand’s 2011
magnitude 6 earthquakes this isolated hospital suffered earthquake damage exceeding 30% of its
original construction cost. The researchers at the University of Christchurch instrumented the
building, and recorded the in-structure accelerations and isolator displacements during two of the
2011 magnitude 6 earthquakes. The researchers reported conclusively that “the lead-rubber isolators
did not displace”, and “the hospital responded essentially as if it was fixed base” [Kuang].
https://goo.gl/qRRjbW Isolators that are designed for compliance with seismic provisions in codes that were
developed to reduce collapse risks of ductile structures are always too stiff to comply with the criteria
herein for limiting in-structure accelerations and structure drifts to Continued Functionality levels.
Because ductile buildings suffer extensive damage, most injured persons must be transported to
hospitals outside the earthquake damaged regions. However, since the ductile structures used to build
the transportation infrastructure are also damaged, and electric power transmission facilities are also
damaged, many people die because they cannot receive the needed medical care. http://bit.ly/31r7HmZ
During the past 22 years, the post-earthquake loss of hospital functionality has resulted in over
200,000 deaths. Consequentially, in 2010 the World Health Organization (WHO) issued directives
that all new hospitals must be constructed to guarantee their functioning at maximum capacity after
earthquakes [WHO, PAHO]. https://goo.gl/AdTZJu
The WHO directives for hospital functionality have been adopted by the health ministries of 194
countries. Design professionals are responsible for complying with the building code and WHO
functionality requirements. When people die because hospitals cannot function after earthquakes,
design professionals can be held criminally liable. Turkey leads the world in implementing Continued
Functionality isolators for hospitals, because during the past 22 years Turkey suffered over 20,000
deaths due to earthquakes. The Elazig Hospital was near the epi-center of Turkey’s 2020 magnitude
6.7 earthquake. It remained 100% functional, saving lives caring for over 1000 people injured by the

Page 4 of 56
Hospital Patients in the Street in the Dark Hospital Patients in the Street in the Dark

Hospital Patients in the Street in the Dark

Hospital Patients in the Street

Hospital Patients in the Street Hospital Patients in the Street

Hospital Patients in the Street Hospital Patients in Tents in the Street

Page 5 of 56
earthquake. The hospital was constructed with Triple Pendulum isolators designed for continued
functionality. Turkey’s 2020 earthquakes caused hundreds of facilities to lose functionality, and
dozens to collapse.
Ecuador’s Bahia Bridge maintained full functionality during Ecuador’s 2016 M7.8 earthquake and
aftershocks. The isolators experienced seismic shear demands more than twice the code maximum
considered earthquake, yet the bridge retained full functionality. The 2016 fault rupture area started
300 kilometers north of the bridge, ruptured directly under the bridge, and ruptured until 100
kilometers south of the bridge. 90% of Bahia’s 4+ story buildings suffered damage exceeding 100%
of replacement costs. Bahia’s only hospital was constructed with shear walls twice as strong as
required by code for collapse avoidance, yet it was one of 39 hospitals evacuated and closed on the
day of the earthquake. The hospitals in the nearby cities of Chone, Portoviejo and Manta suffered
structure collapse. All 39 evacuated hospitals were constructed according to code criteria for collapse
avoidance of essential facilities, but not functionality criteria. The Bahia bridge was used to evacuate
hundreds of severely injured persons, and thousands of residents, from the devastated cities of Bahia,
Chone, Portoviejo, and Manta, thus saving hundreds of lives. http://bit.ly/2YWQHDB http://bit.ly/2MPZjJO
Texas Instruments’ Philippines plant has fragile high precision manufacturing equipment that produce
miniscule electronic micro-processors used in medical devices. This Philippines plant produces 60%
of Texas Instruments’ annual profits. The Triple Pendulum isolators allowed the fragile
manufacturing equipment and facility to retain 100% functionality within minutes after the 2019
magnitude 6.1 earthquake. http://bit.ly/2KIPx9y The adjacent Clark International Airport and other nearby
buildings were completely closed because of earthquake shaking damage. [Texas Instruments]
Two large liquid natural gas tanks in Chile maintained full functionality after Chile’s 2010 Magnitude
8.8 Earthquake, and a Magnitude 7.1 aftershock epi-centered 3 kilometers from the tanks. For these
large liquid natural gas tanks, the leaking of trillions of liters of gas from the concrete tanks would
have caused a fire, explosion and major public catastrophe. These tanks supply the gas used to
generate most of Chile’s electricity, which is essential to hospital functionality. https://goo.gl/AycD9Z The
Elazig Hospital, Bahia Bridge, Texas Instrument’s Factory, and Chile LNG tanks provided the
earthquake performance data that proves that functionality is reliably retained when facilities are
constructed using Triple Pendulum isolators engineered according to the functionality criteria herein.
Major earthquakes all over the world have shown that damage to electrical substation transformers is
the primary cause of loss of electric power for earthquake affected communities. [PEER 1999] Loss
of electric power results in loss of life. Modes of failures for transformers includes anchorage failures,
oil leakage, overturning, tilting, and damage to bushings. In 2011, the US Federal Government’s
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) began to investigate how to reliably protect the functionality
of substation transformers. BPA commissioned a research program at the Multi-Disciplinary Center
for Earthquake Engineering Research, MCEER, to evaluate the feasibility of implementing seismic
isolation to keep transformer units functioning. [Constantinou MCEER 2016] BPA then implemented
Triple Pendulum seismic isolators to protect transformers in the state of Washington.
To date: four utilities in the western United States have either implemented or are in the process of
implementing Continued Functionality Bases for transformers. The nation’s power industry needs to
comply with the code functionality performance requirements for essential facilities, and keep the
electric generation, transmission, and distribution systems functioning immediately after earthquakes.
This CFS is authored by the world’s most recognized experts in post-earthquake facility functionality,
and seismic isolators. This CFS complies with ASCE 7 Chapter 1 Functionality, and WHO mandated

Page 6 of 56
Interior Damage, Hospital de Cauquenes,
Chile 2010, closed and demolished
Interior Damage, Chile 2010

Interior Damage, Chile 2010 Interior Damage, California, 1994

Interior Damage, Chile 2010 Interior Damage, California, 1994

Interior Damage, Hospital Alcivar, Ecuador 2016,

Interior Damage, Chile 2010 “code design hospital” closed and demolished

Page 7 of 56
functionality. In the 40 years since the first isolated building was constructed, dramatic successes
and failures of thousands of isolators have been observed. For continued functionality to become
standard construction practice, and to avoid the major failures that have occurred because of the
thousands of dangerous isolator and damper products that have been sold, all “seismic protective
systems” including isolators, dampers, and BRBs, must comply with this CFS. To implement this
CFS, all isolators, dampers, BRBs, and seismic protective systems must be designed, specified, and
approved by a Seismic Isolation Engineer qualified under this CFS.
Triple PendulumTM isolators for Continued Functionality are the 21st century construction technology
that minimize earthquake damage. The world’s largest governments and corporations in 32 countries
rely on Earthquake Protection Systems (“EPS”) engineered seismic isolators to protect their most
important facilities. EarthquakeProtection.com http://bit.ly/3349tP7 http://bit.ly/2IhE3ZB http://bit.ly/2QvuhFA http://bit.ly/2KIPx9y
http://bit.ly/3qd8Nj1 http://bit.ly/2ABHJoh http://bit.ly/2QvuhFA EPS’ isolators protect over $400 billion in constructed
value of a diverse range of important buildings, bridges, and industrial facilities, and have over 3
decades of proven performance during earthquakes. When designed by EPS Seismic Isolation
Engineers for CFS compliance, Triple Pendulum isolators economically protect contents, non-
structural components, and structures from damage. For the facility owners and occupants, continued
functionality designs have always provided superior performance than ductile structures. EPS now
makes it easy for the design professionals to deliver the code and WHO mandated functionality. EPS
provides construction industry design professionals the products, methods, standards, and engineering
support needed to construct facilities that will reliably function after earthquakes. When EPS is
selected as the Seismic Isolation Engineer, the isolators are designed to limit earthquake damage to
conform to this CFS, and provides a Seismic Isolation Engineering Report signed and stamped by an
engineer. EPS isolators are engineered specific to each application, accommodating the expected
earthquake shaking strength, site soil conditions, selected seismic damage limit, and fragility of
architectural components and contents. EPS guarantees on-time isolator delivery, and also guarantees
its isolator prices are lower than those of any alternate isolators having equivalent capacities,
properties, and reliability as proven by equivalent testing in accordance with this CFS.
Victor Zayas invented pendulum isolators in 1978 as a means to minimize earthquake damage. Since
then, EPS has made ground breaking advancements in seismic isolator materials which are capable
of providing reliable isolator properties for over 50 years in adverse environmental conditions. Triple
Pendulum™ isolators reliably control the seismic response, automatically changing pendulum lengths
and frictions during an earthquake, in response to the instantaneous changes in shaking strength. This
optimizes seismic performance protecting facility contents, architectural components, and structures.
Dr. Zayas’ 1970s PhD thesis on ductile structures was elected to an ASCE Hall of Fame for saving
lives by reducing collapses of structures during earthquakes. Ductile structures are similar to crumple
zones in cars. Allowing controlled damage in the structure absorbs the energy of a collision, thereby
protecting the safety of the occupants. The “crumple zones” in ductile structures reduce collapse risks
by allowing severe damage that causes 100% economic loss, just like the crumple zones in cars.
Unsatisfied with the extensive damage that occurs with ductile structures, Dr. Zayas developed
pendulum isolators capable of absorbing large seismic ground displacements, and thus minimize in-
structure accelerations, and deliver post-earthquake functionality. CFS compliant buildings, bridges,
and industrial facilities retain post-earthquake functionality, and essentially eliminate collapses, and
when engineered by EPS experts they often cost less to build than ductile structures.
Opposing requiring functionality criteria for isolated structures, advocates of rubber isolators have

Page 8 of 56
Christchurch New Zealand 3 days after the 2011 M 3 years after the M 6.3 earthquake, 70% of the
6.3 earthquake, from the street view the downtown downtown Christchurch buildings had been
appears mostly unaffected. Two structures had demolished due to structural and architectural
collapsed, but 70% were later demolished. damage. The average total economic loss was
200% of the original construction cost.

Hospital de Bahia, Ecuador 2016 earthquake, Interior Damage, Hospital de Bahia, Equator 2016,
“code design hospital” closed and demolished “code design hospital” closed and demolished

Ecuador’s 2-kilometer Bahia Bridge maintained

functionality during Ecuador’s Magnitude 7.8
Hospital de Chone, Ecuador 2016 earthquake,
earthquake. All of the hospitals in this region were
“code design hospital” closed and demolished2016
100% losses, yet the bridge retained 100%
functionality. The bridge isolators experienced
seismic shear demands twice the code maximum
considered earthquake. The Hospital de Bahia
located 500 meters from the bridge’s south entrance
was damaged and demolished. This region suffered
Ecuador’s strongest earthquake shaking that
destroyed the Chone, Portoviejo, and Manta
hospitals. In the 24 hours after the earthquake 15
thousand vehicles crossed the bridge evacuating
Hospital de Manta, Equador 2016 earthquake, thousands of injured persons from the devastated city
“code design hospital” closed and demolished of Bahia de Caraquez, saving many lives.

Page 9 of 56
controlled the ASCE 7 seismic isolation code committee and implemented only collapse avoidance
criteria in ASCE 7 Chapter 17 as the performance requirement for seismically isolated structures.
Continued Functionality Criteria
To minimize damage sufficiently to maintain post-earthquake functionality of essential facilities this
CFS is specified as the seismic design standard. The functionality criteria herein have been validated
by studies of hospitals that lost functionality, and those that retained functionality, when subject to
severe earthquakes. [Choque, 2021] https://bit.ly/32CceWr The seismic design provisions in building codes
reduce the risks of structure collapse by allowing extensive damage to ductile structures. Advocates
of rubber isolators have controlled the ASCE 7 and AASHTO seismic isolation code committees and
implemented the same collapse avoidance criteria for isolated structures as for ductile structures.
Ductile moment frame structures suffer significantly more damage than older structures built with
stronger and stiffer lateral force resisting elements such as shear walls or diagonal braces. All essential
facilities, with or without seismic isolators or dampers, shall comply with this CFS. All seismic
isolators, dampers, buckling restraint braces “BRBs,” or any system claiming seismic damage
protection shall result in a structure that satisfies the functionality criteria herein, and their capacities
should be sufficient to retain structure stability for an earthquake 1.5 times the code specified
earthquake having a 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years.
The CFS criteria apply to the earthquake having 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Standard
member capacity factors Φ, as specified by ASCE 7 compatible component standards, shall be used
for the structural member capacities. Utilities and seismic movement joints shall be designed to
remain functional when subject to the displacement demand of the maximum considered earthquake.
Buildings of 1 or 2 stories in ASCE 7 Seismic Design Categories B or C, can typically comply with
the functionality criteria herein without using seismic isolators, dampers, or BRB’s.
This SIS, applied together with the ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads, results in isolators having long
term reliable properties, which are safe from collapse, and have properties that reliably limit seismic
damage to 2% of facility replacement costs. The “Continued Functionality Criteria” are: Seismic
Response Modification Coefficient R= 1.0; the maximum lateral seismic displacements for any
primary vertical load carrying member (excluding isolators) shall not exceed 0.0030 times the
member’s vertical height; the average of the median 5% damped floor spectra accelerations of the
occupied stories, for the period range from 0.05 to 3 seconds, shall not exceed 0.30g; for all non-
structural components throughout the structure, the horizontal seismic design force Fp taken as a fixed
value of 0.4 Wp. This SIS requires isolators having 2 to 4 times the displacement and shear strength
capacities as compared to minimum design values of ASCE 7 Chapter 17. These larger and stronger
isolators assure isolator structural stability and reduce the in-structure accelerations and deformations
to functionality levels.
The CFS functionality criteria were developed to comply with the REDi Rating System Platinum total
loss limit of 2.5%, which includes losses due to damage to structural components, architectural
components, contents, and facility loss of use [ARUP]. The CFS Damage Estimation Curves were
used to create the CFS Damage Criteria Tables, and are used to get the damage estimates for
compliance with the CFS 2% damage limit. The CFS 2% damage limit is for damage to the
architectural components, which leave 0.5% for damage to contents and loss of use, for compliance
with REDi Platinum. The CFS 2% damage limit assumes there is no damage to structural members,
when the CFS Continued Functionality Criteria are implemented in the design of the structure. The
Damage Estimation Curves are based on structure deformations and in-structure accelerations, which
apply equally to structures with or without seismic isolators or dampers. The target damage limits
listed are consistent with the calculated earthquake losses by Terzic and Mahin, UC Berkeley. [Terzic]

Page 10 of 56
 Structure Design Standard Target Limit for Limit for Limit for Limit for
ASCE 7-16 plus CFS Building Average Floor Average of Peak Maximum
or Architectural & Spectra Story Drifts Peak Story
ASCE 7 Only Structural Acceleration Drift
Damage

ASCE 7 plus CFS

Continued Functionality 2% 0.3g 0.002 0.003
10%/50yrs design earthquake

ASCE 7 Chapter 17, no CFS 30% 1.0g 0.015 0.025

ASCE 7 Chapter 12, DE

60% 1.3g 0.020 0.025
10%/50yr design earthquake

ASCE 7 Chapter 12, MCE

100% 1.5g 0.030 0.050
2%/50yr earthquake

Acceleration and Drift Limits to Limit Earthquake Shaking Damage

Target Limit Floor Spectra Average of Max of Peak

Structure Design Criteria for Total Acceleration Peak Story Story Drifts
Applicable Under ASCE 7-16 Building Related Drifts Related Related
Architect & Architect Architect Architect
Structure Damage Damage Damage
Damage
ASCE 7 Plus CFS
2% 1.5% 0.25% 0.25%
Continued Functionality
ASCE 7 Chapter 17, no CFS 8% 10% 10% 10%
ASCE 7 Chapter 12, DE 60% 14% 23% 23%
10%/50yr design earthquake
ASCE 7 Chapter 12, MCE
100% 20% 40% 40%
2%/50yr earthquake

Contributions to Architectural and Structural Building Damage

Damage Limits for Structures

Designed with ASCE 7 plus CFS versus ASCE 7 Only

Page 11 of 56
On occurrence of the design basis earthquake, buildings with or without isolators that comply with
the Continued Functionality Criteria herein, reliability limit earthquake shaking damage to less than
2% of the facility replacement costs. Buildings with or without seismic isolators or dampers comply
with this CFS when structural and seismic analyses compliant with the CFS requirements show them
to comply with the Continued Functionality Criteria herein.
ASCE 7 Chapter 12 specifies the structure design criteria for 84 structure types which are consistent
with the Chapter 1 Target Reliabilities against collapse. The Category F ductile structure types listed
in Table 12.2-1 avoid collapse by allowing large inelastic displacements, and high in-structure
accelerations, that cause substantial damage to structural members, architectural components, and
facility contents. The Chapter 12 cases in the CFS Damage Limit Tables are for an “essential facility”
designed as a non-isolated special moment resisting frame, using the Chapter 12 specified Importance
and R factors. The Chapter 12 “essential facility” damage limits are 60% for the design earthquake,
and 100% for the maximum considered earthquake, consistent with the over 100 hospitals that have
been demolished after earthquakes. The Chapter 12 “essential facility” damage limit of 60% is 30
times more damage than the 2% damage limit required to reliable retain functionality.
The Chapter 17 case is for an “essential facility” with seismic isolators having 3 second period and
30% damping. The Chapter 17 isolated structure damage limit is 30% of replacement cost, 15 times
greater than the 2% limit required for functionality. The Chapter 17 “isolated essential facility”
damage limit of 30% of the replacement cost is consistent with the 30% damage that occurred for the
Christchurch Women’s Hospital constructed with lead-rubber isolators. https://goo.gl/qRRjbW During the
Christchurch 2011 magnitude 6 earthquakes, this isolated hospital suffered 15 times more damage
than the 2% damage limit required for functionality. With seismic isolators, building damage, and
collapse risks, both reduce using more flexible isolators that absorb larger displacements.
Property owners expect that isolated structures and essential facilities will suffer little or no damage
from earthquake ground shaking. The Structure Design Professional and Seismic Isolation Engineer
are responsible to comply with these reasonable owner expectations. Compliance with this SIS
complies with these reasonable owner expectations, and with the post-earthquake functionality of
essential facilities now mandated by ASCE 7 and most building codes worldwide.
Vertical earthquake shaking damage to architectural components can be a primary contributor to the
2% damage limit, but has never caused loss of building functionality when the effects of lateral
shaking have been minimized according to the criteria in this CFS. Vertical seismic isolation of
buildings is strongly discouraged because it can substantially increase collapse and damage risks. For
vertical isolation systems to be effective it is necessary to provide vertical displacement capacities
about ½ of the lateral displacement capacities required by this CFS. The vertical isolation systems
implemented to date have had grossly inadequate vertical displacement capacities, which result in
substantially increasing structure collapse risks. Compliance with the Continued Functionality
criteria herein is not mandatory when seismic isolators are used for the life-safety retrofit to reduce
collapse risks for existing structures. However, all provisions regarding the qualification of
manufacturers and the testing of isolators apply to isolators installed in seismic isolation retrofits.

Seismic Isolator Standard “SIS”

General
This SIS, applied together with the ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads, results in isolators having long
term reliable properties, which are safe from collapse, and have properties that limit building damage
caused by earthquake ground shaking to 2% of building replacement cost. This SIS establishes

Page 12 of 56
Page 13 of 56
REDi Rating System: Resilience Based Earthquake Design Initiative
requirements for the material reliability, manufacture, and testing of seismic isolators. This SIS, and
the structural component standards listed in ASCE 7 Chapter 23, specify the member strength capacity
limits and stiffness that are consistent with the structure safety and reliability intended by ASCE.
ASCE 7 Sections 1.1, 1.3.1.1, and 1.3.1.2 require that the specified minimum design loads be less
than the design load limits specified by an ASCE 7 compatible industry standard for that component
type. This SIS also establishes structure design criteria for a “reasonable probability” of retaining
post-earthquake functionality of essential facilities, in compliance with ASCE 7 1.3.3, Functionality.
There are no isolated structure types listed in ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1. For all structure types not listed
in Table 12.2-1, ASCE 7 Section 12.2.1.1 requires that the Structure Design Professional quantify
probabilities of collapse compliant with ASCE 7 Table 1.3-2. ASCE 7 Table 1.3-2, specifies that
primary structural components in essential facilities should have a “Probability of Failure for loss of
Structural Stability” of less than 2.5%. For all ASCE 7 Seismic Design Categories, the Target
Reliability for Structural Stability, and Chapter 12 Section 12.2.1.1 quantification requirements, are
complied with when the isolators and structures are compliant with this SIS. Isolators having
capacities equal to the ASCE 7 Chapter 17 design displacements and shears, but without this SIS as
the isolator product standard, do not satisfy ASCE 7 Target Reliabilities. ASCE 7 Section 17.8.1.1
requires “Qualification Tests” of isolators to quantify the long term reliability of the isolator
properties and capacities. ASCE 7.17.2.8.4 “Property Modification Factors” requires that the
Qualification Tests quantify the lower and upper bound isolator properties used in design. This SIS
specifies those Qualification Tests. Specifying generic isolators is not permitted by this SIS, nor
ASCE 7 Sections 1.1, 1.3.1.1, and 1.3.1.2, because there are no adequate standards for the materials
and fabrication of generic isolators.
As compared to ASCE 7 Chapter 17 minimums, these functionality criteria require: the structures to
have higher lateral strength and stiffness, and the isolators to have 2 to 4 times the displacement and
shear strength capacities. These substantially larger and stronger isolators assure isolator and
structure stability, and reduce the in-structure accelerations and deformations to functionality levels.
With SIS compliant isolators, structures in ASCE Seismic Design Category D, E and F, at any
structure height, may implement any of the 67 Seismic Resisting Systems listed for Seismic Design
Category C in ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1. With SIS compliant isolators, bridges in AASHTO Seismic
Performance Category B, C, or D, may implement analyses and structural details permitted for
Seismic Performance Category A. For large buildings, bridges, or industrial facilities using structure
types qualified for lower ductility demands typically offsets the cost of the seismic isolators.
Scope
Every seismic isolator installed in a new or existing structure shall comply with the isolator
requirements and tests as specified herein. Every ASCE 7 Category IV structure, and other facilities
for which post-earthquake functionality is intended, shall comply with this SIS. This SIS isolator
product standard is compatible with ASCE 7, AASHTO, and WHO directives for the functionality of
essential structures. This SIS shall be applied together with the ASCE 7-16, or AASHTO. ASCE 7
Chapters 11 to 22 specify seismic design criteria for collapse avoidance, not functionality. This SIS
targets 90% reliability of limiting damage from earthquake ground shaking to less than 2% of the
facility replacement cost, which complies with the ASCE 7 Chapter 1 Functionality requirement for
a reasonable probability of post-earthquake functionality. [Choque] The Continued Functionality
Criteria specified herein apply only to the design and construction of new building structures, and not
to the retrofit of existing buildings for reducing collapse risks, nor to bridges. Functionality criteria
for bridges and transportation system structures are defined separately herein.

Page 14 of 56
 Average % Peak Story Drift Caused Structural Damage Maximum % Peak Story Drift Caused Structural Damage
25 25

20 20
Expected Percentage Damage (%)

Expected Percentage Damage (%)

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.3 0.6 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Average % Peak Story Drift Caused Architectural Damage Maximum % Peak Story Drift Caused Architectural Damage
15 15

12 12
Expected Percentage Damage (%)

Expected Percentage Damage (%)

8 8

4 4

0 0
0.2 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0.2 1 2 3 4 5

Adding up the damage contributions from these 5 curves provides an

Median Floor Spectra Acceleration Caused Architectural Damage estimate of a building's earthquake shaking damage as a percentage of the
20
construction cost to build an equivalent new building on an empty
property. Structural component damage is estimated by summing the
contribution from: (1) the average peak drift ratio for all floors; and (2) the
maximum peak drift ratio for any one floor. The architectural component
15
damage is estimated by summing the contribution from: (3) the average
peak drift ratio for all floors; and (4) the maximum peak drift ratio for any
one floor, and (5) the average for all floors of the median floor spectral
Expected Percentage Damage (%)

acceleration for each floor, of the 0.05-3 second spectral values. The
structure response input values are obtained from response history
10 analysis, that include an accurate representation of the isolator nonlinear
force displacement loop, with other structure components linear. Not
included are the costs from loss of use, damage to contents, or time
required to recover functionality. When building damage is 15%, the loss
of use cost is typically about 30%, and the total economic loss is about
5 45% of the new building construction cost. When repairing building
damage exceeds 33% of the new building cost, buildings are typically
demolished, and the total economic loss is about 200% of the new
building construction cost. These damage estimates apply equally to
buildings with or without isolators or dampers. The damage reductions
0 achieved by properly implemented isolators or dampers, is proportional to
0 0.5 1 1.5
the reductions in structure accelerations and drifts. Isolators or dampers
Median 0.05-3sec Sa(g) implemented for "code compliance" without the CFS, result in little or no
reductions in damage, and often result in very high structure collapse risk.

Damage Estimation Curves: Building earthquake shaking damage

estimate is used to select isolator force displacement loop properties,
structure type, and structure lateral stiffness, to determine compliance
with damage limit applicable to functionality level.

Page 15 of 56
This SIS specifies the isolator factors of safety for shear strength and displacement necessary to
comply with ASCE 7 Target Reliability for Structural Stability. ASCE 7 specified Target Reliabilities
are based on FEMA P695 Methodology [FEMA]. FEMA P695 collapse risk calculations were
performed at the University of California Berkeley [Shao 2017, UCB 2016], and the State University
of New York at Buffalo [Kitayama 2018]. These studies concluded that isolators having capacities
equal to the ASCE 7 Chapter 17 design displacement and shear, without capacity factors of safety,
have FEMA P695 Probabilities of Failure of 40%. Thus, isolators with perfect quality of materials
and manufacturing, but no factors of safety for capacities, have a 40% probability of failure, which is
16 times the 2.5% Probability of Failure limit for primary structural components in essential facilities.
Capacity factors of safety are essential for seismic isolators, as they are for all structural components.
EN15129 is the isolator product standard of the Eurocode. The isolator shear strengths required by
this SIS, as needed for compliance with ASCE 7 Target Reliability for Structural Stability, are 4 to 6
times greater than the isolator shear strengths required by EN15129. EN15129 isolators have
dangerously inadequate shear strength, displacement capacity, and re-centering force, resulting in
FEMA P695 Probability of Failure of over 90%. http://bit.ly/2YW6Xos https://bit.ly/3sOhK2Y http://bit.ly/2OctUPY
https://goo.gl/Mra83H http://bit.ly/2ZInY6L http://bit.ly/3p3FsGP http://bit.ly/3p3FsGP https://goo.gl/e1Auwi
This SIS targets minimizing earthquake shaking damage. Maintaining post-earthquake functionality
of facility operations also requires maintaining post-earthquake electric power and water, and other
operational needs, as specified in REDi [ARUP]. Compliance with SIS criteria is determined by
Response History Procedure analysis performed in accordance with ASCE 7-16 Chapter 12 and this
SIS. Response spectra and static analysis procedures are not sufficient for SIS compliance. This SIS
requires that buildings have structural and architectural details that are compliant with ASCE 7, as
modified by this SIS. According to ASCE 7 Section 1.3.3, a reasonable probability of post-earthquake
functionality criteria is mandatory for Seismic Risk Categories IV buildings. Compliance with
Chapter 12 criteria for Categories IV structures does not deliver a reasonable probability of post-
earthquake functionality, as evidenced by the recurring widespread loss of hospital functionality after
earthquakes. [UCB CFS 2021] During past earthquakes some isolators have substantially eliminated
damage, some isolators resulted in more damage than would have occurred without isolators, and
some isolators have suffered structural collapse. This wide variability in past isolator performance
resulted from not implementing an adequate isolator product standard, and designing isolators for
minimum compliance with ductile structure codes, instead of continued functionality criteria.
https://bit.ly/3sOhK2Y [UCB 2016] This SIS specifies the criteria necessary for isolators to deliver on the
promise of minimizing damage caused by earthquake ground shaking. The SIS requirements for
isolator capacities, properties, and testing shall be implemented in accordance with a certified ISO
9001 quality standard for seismic isolator design, manufacture, and testing.
Every manufacturer of seismic isolation system components shall satisfy the qualification
requirements under this SIS.
This SIS establishes requirements for:
1. Manufacturer’s Qualifications
2. Isolator Qualification Tests
3. Factors of safety for shear strength and displacement to satisfy ASCE 7 Target Reliability
4. Capacity Tests that verify safe shear strength and displacement capacities
5. Target seismic shaking damage limit of 2% of replacement cost
6. Dynamic Property Tests that measure the properties that control seismic shaking damage.
7. Limits to floor spectra acceleration as necessary to limit damage to contents and architectural
components to functionality levels.
8. Limits on structure lateral deformations to limit damage to architectural components

Page 16 of 56
 UC Berkeley Calculated Earthquake Damage
for ASCE 7 Compliant Structures
With and Without Isolators or Dampers

 − ln ( t ) 2 
 
1  2 β 2 
1 e
⇒ Pcollapse =∫ CMR
dt
β 2π 0 t

Probability of Collapse as a Function of CMR

for Total System Uncertainties of 0.2 and 0.85

Page 17 of 56
 9. Seismic Force Reduction R Factors to R=1.0, to avoid damage to structural components
10. Quality Control Tests of each isolator
11. Test Facility Qualifications
12. Seismic isolators as ISO 9001 manufactured products
13. Manufacturer’s Quality Control Program
14. Structure Analysis Requirements
15. Design Requirements For Buildings and Other Structures
16. Design Requirements For Bridges
17. Seismic Isolation Engineer Responsibilities
18. Structure Design Professional Responsibilities
19. Specifications for Construction Documents
Implementations of seismic isolators that reduce damage sufficiently to maintain functionality will
help to change the worldwide construction industry from building only for collapse avoidance, to
building for post-earthquake functionality, and thus avoid the devastating economic losses that have
accompanied all prior major earthquakes. As with all structural component standards, this SIS is
updated as experience with applications and earthquake performance grows. The version with the
latest revision date governs over all prior versions. https://bit.ly/3xbui7C Detailed explanations of the
criteria in this SIS, and the basis thereof, are provided in the Continued Functionality Standard [UCB
CFS 2021]. https://goo.gl/h82Fnk
For facilities with hazardous materials, or especially fragile equipment, project specific design criteria
shall be developed and applied supplemental to those in this SIS. All matters specified in this SIS
shall govern over the provisions in ASCE 7, AASHTO, or any other standard or code document.
ASCE 7 or AASHTO provisions shall govern over any provisions specified in any other standard.
The right to copy or translate this SIS, in whole or in part is granted on the condition that clear
reference and credit is given to this SIS, and its authors.

Definitions
Basic terms used in the SIS are defined below. Other terms, nomenclature, definitions, and symbols
used herein are those of ASCE 7-16.
Seismic Isolator: Any structural component that supports a primary structure vertical load and
accommodates more than 20% of the structures’ lateral seismic displacements.
Continued Functionality Criteria: The structure design criteria necessary to reduce earthquake
shaking damage sufficiently to retain post-earthquake functionality, as specified in this SIS.
DM: Seismic displacement demand for the isolators as defined by ASCE 7-16 Section 17.5.3.1,
considering the maximum considered earthquake demand MCE, or the equivalent 2%/50years
seismic hazard spectra defined by the applicable structure design code.
DD: Seismic displacement demand for the isolators as defined by ASCE 7-10 Eq. 17.5-2, considering
the design earthquake demand DE, or the equivalent 10%/50years seismic hazard spectra defined by
the applicable structure design code.
TM : Isolation system period as defined by ASCE 7-16 Section 17.5.3.2.
Manufacturer: The commercial entity that directly employs on payroll the persons that physically
manufacture the isolators, and procure the isolator materials. The Manufacturer and Seismic Isolation
Engineer, are professionally responsible for the isolator engineering, capacities, and properties.
Manufacturer Qualification Tests: Tests performed to demonstrate the robustness, longevity,
reliability, and dynamic seismic behavior of the Manufacturer’s seismic isolator types and materials,
and effectiveness of the design and manufacturing quality control system.

Page 18 of 56
Hospital Puertoviejo, Ecuador 2016
“code design hospital” closed and demolished Kaiser Permanente Hospital, California 1994,
“code design hospital” closed and demolished

Hospital Alcivar, Ecuador 2016,

“code design hospital” closed and demolished
Original Olive View Hospital, California,
“code design hospital” closed and demolished

Hospital Solca; Ecuador 2016,

“code design hospital” repaired and reopened

Chile Hospital Closed After 2010 Earthquake

“code design hospital” repaired and reopened

Hospital Skabronja, Pisco Peru 2007,

“code design hospital” closed and demolished

Hospital Regional, Ica Peru 2007, Interior Damage, Hospital Talca, Chile 2010,
“code design hospital” closed and demolished “code design hospital” repaired and reopened

Page 19 of 56
Capacity Tests: Tests performed to determine the strength and displacement capacities of specific
isolator model numbers, and their factors of safety.
Quality Control Tests: Tests performed on 100% of all isolators to verify seismic design properties.
Dynamic Property Tests: Tests performed on two representative isolators of each isolator model to
measure dynamic properties over a range of loads, displacements, and number of cycles of loading.
Isolator Model: An isolator of a specific type with uniquely specified capacities or properties.
Isolation System Natural Period: The calculated natural period of free vibration, of lateral cyclic
motion, of a rigid mass supported on all the seismic isolators, where the mass represents the total
design dead load plus seismic vertical load on the isolators.
Manufacturer’s Standards: The Manufacturer’s standards, conforming to the requirements of the
International Standards Organization, ISO 9001, for the manufacture of their isolator products,
including: design, materials, and procedures for manufacturing, testing, and quality control.
Minimum Lateral Displacement Capacity: The required test displacement for the lateral
displacement capacity test, for which the isolator shall remain stable supporting the Maximum IVL
plus WEh at this Minimum Lateral Displacement Capacity, which is equal to the Dm or Dd design
displacement multiplied by the required displacement capacity factor of safety, all as defined in the
isolator capacity testing requirements herein.
Property Modification Factors: λ max = 2.5 and λ min = 0.50 when manufacturer specific values have
been not quantified through SIS specified Qualification Tests.
Seismic Isolation Engineer: The registered professional engineer, expert in the field of seismic
isolation, who is employed full time by the Manufacturer, and takes professional responsibility for
the isolator capacities and properties, and accuracy of the Manufacturer’s isolator tests and submittals.
Structure Design Professional: Structure professional legally responsible for the structure design
and performance, and whom signed and stamped the structural drawings, and who is the engineer of
Record for the project.
IVL (“Isolator Vertical Load”): Three isolator vertical loads representing the minimum, average,
and maximum loads on a specific model of isolator, that result from the design dead load “D” plus
0.5 times the reduced live load “L” defined in ASCE 7-16 4.7 ( or equivalent for AASHTO).
WEh : Vertical isolator load resulting from the effects of horizontal seismic shaking.
WEv : Vertical isolator load resulting from the effects of vertical seismic shaking.
Isolator Manufacturer Qualification Requirements
The qualifications of manufacturers and seismic isolation engineers are essential to the successful
implementations of seismic isolators that achieve the continued functionality objectives. All isolator
manufacturers shall have a currently valid ISO 9001 Certification, certifying that the design,
manufacturer and testing of their seismic isolation products and services satisfy the current
requirements of this SIS, in addition to complying with all other ISO 9001 certification requirements.
To qualify Manufacturers must: state in their promotional materials and product offers that all their
seismic isolators comply with the SIS; and document the compliance methodology in their ISO Quality
Manual. The Manufacturer’s Seismic Isolation Engineer shall sign and stamp the manufacturer’s
qualification documentation, accepting professional responsibility that the isolators and testing
comply with this SIS. The ISO auditor shall verify the manufacturer’s claim to be in compliance with
the SIS. The ISO auditor shall rely on qualified experts for the specific type of seismic isolators to
verify compliance of the materials, manufacture, and testing to the SIS requirements including 50years

Page 20 of 56
 Very strong shear wall building, without
isolators, constructed 2008, damaged in 2010
Chile earthquake, demolished in 2012

San Francisco General Hospital, California

Dangerous European Isolation System failed

during a M7.6 earthquake, causing 100%
economic loss, and very close to total collapse
of 2 kilometers of the Trans European
Motorway. https://goo.gl/Bsvd1r

Essential Industrial Facility, two large LNG

liquid natural gas tanks in Chile are critical for
electricity generation. Designed as Continued
Functionality Platinum, these tanks maintained
full functionality during Chile’s 2010 magnitude
8.8 earthquake, and magnitude 7.1 earthquake
centered 3 kilometers from the tanks. 10,000
other Chile structures lost functionality during The Failed European isolation system was
removed and replaced with EPS pendulum
the 2010 Chile earthquakes. The leaking of
isolators having 4 times the displacement capacity
trillions of liters of gas would have caused a and 3 times the shear capacity. The EPS isolators
major fire, explosion, and public catastrophe. cost 2/3 as much as the European system.

Page 21 of 56
of reliable in-service properties and capacities. The Seismic Isolator Manufacturer and Seismic
Isolation Engineer jointly and severally take professional and legal responsibility for the isolator
components and testing, and the isolation system performance during earthquakes. The
Manufacturer’s specified Seismic Isolation Engineer for an application is authorized to contractually
bind the manufacturer, and the manufacturer is thereby bound to comply with all requirements and
specifications of the Seismic Isolation Engineer.
For each application, the Manufacturer and Seismic Isolation Engineer are professionally and
commercially responsible that the properties, capacities, and reliability of their isolators comply with
the requirements of this SIS. In their ISO Quality Management System, the Seismic Isolator
Manufacturer and Seismic Isolation Engineer shall commit to satisfy the requirements of this SIS for
all isolator products and services sold by them for as long as they maintain a currently valid ISO
certification as a manufacturer of SIS qualified seismic isolation system components. The Seismic
Isolation Engineer shall have at least 10 years’ professional experience working in the design,
manufacture, and testing of the manufacturer’s specific types of isolators. The Seismic Isolation
Engineer shall be qualified as an expert in the materials, manufacture, longevity, and dynamic testing
of the type of isolators to be manufactured and used for construction, and accept the professional
responsibility for the compliance of the Manufacturer’s isolators with this SIS.
The Seismic Isolation Engineer shall be expert in the analysis and design of isolated structures, and
in the architectural and structural component details that accommodate the seismic isolator lateral
displacements, and in the materials and fabrication of the isolators being implemented, and be
available to assist the project design and construction team throughout the design and construction.
The Seismic Isolation Engineer shall submit and sign as the responsible professional engineer, the
Manufacturer’s Qualification Submittal, any commercial isolator offers, plus all the other isolator
reports, submittals, and test data required by this SIS. The Seismic Isolation Engineer shall take
professional and legal responsibility that all isolators delivered to a construction site have the
capacities, properties, longevity, and environmental and aging robustness as specified in the
Manufacturer’s Qualification submittals, and for the accuracy of all contents of all the Manufacturer’s
submitted documents, and all isolator test results used to qualify the manufacturer, and all test results
for Capacity, Dynamic Properties, and Quality Control tests as required herein.
A manufacturer of lead-rubber or pendulum isolators may qualify their isolators for a particular
application by submitting their Seismic Isolation Engineer’s signed and stamped qualification
documentation, with ISO 9001 Certification, that certifies compliance of their Qualification Tests,
Capacity Tests, Dynamic Property Tests, and Quality Control Tests. For lead-rubber or pendulum
isolators, Manufacturer’s Qualification submittals shall include:
1. Results for isolator Qualification Tests as specified herein, as applicable to the manufacturer’s
seismic isolator product line and materials. Qualification Tests shall demonstrate that the
materials and manufacturing methods provide adequate capacities, properties, longevity, and
environmental robustness suitable for a 50-year service life, without the need for maintenance
service except for repairs of damage caused by fire, flooding, or accidents. Test data shall
document the upper and lower bound force displacement loops for 50 years of aging in adverse
environmental conditions. Manufacturers shall demonstrate and document the Property
Modification Factors and upper and lower bound property values in accordance with this SIS and
ASCE 7-16 17.2.8.

Page 22 of 56
Rubber Bearing Test, Rubber Bearing Force Displacement Loop [Yamamoto et al. 2009].
Safe Rubber Bearing with Factors of Safety for Shear Strength and Lateral Displacement

Safe Triple Pendulum Isolator with Factors of Safety for Shear Strength and Lateral Displacement

Safe Triple Pendulum Isolator Force Displacement Test Results

a. Flat Sliding Bearing b. Single pendulum bearing c. Rubber bearing

Unsafe Isolator Types, Having ASCE 7 Chapter 17 Shear and Displacement
Capacities, but Without the Factors of Safety for Shear and Displacement
Necessary for Compliance with ASCE 7 Target Reliability for Structural Stability
[adapted from FEMA P-751 drawing]

Page 23 of 56
2. The fire resistant rating for the isolators offered, based on isolator fire testing as performed and
reported by a certified Underwriters Laboratory “UL”.
3. That the offered isolator capacities, properties, and longevity conform to the isolator criteria as
specified in this SIS , consistent with the upper and lower bound force displacement loops as
specified herein.
4. Rated capacities for the isolator maximum: dynamic seismic compression load; sustained
compression load; uplift displacement or tension load capacity; lateral displacement capacity;
and shear strength capacity; as determined by SIS Capacity Tests.
5. A current ISO 9001 Quality Management Certificate, and ISO Quality Manual [ISO], that
govern the quality and reliability of their isolators, isolator materials, manufacturing procedures,
and testing procedures, as approved for the Design and Manufacture of Seismic Isolation
Systems by an ISO registered and accredited auditor.
6. That all isolators that were tested to qualify under this this SIS were manufactured by the
Manufacturer, in accordance with the Manufacturer’s certified and audited ISO 9001 Quality
Management System.
7. That the Manufacturer’s standards produce isolators which have a quality and reliability that
exceed those generally achieved for generic structure components that are fabricated in
accordance with AISC and ACI, and the corresponding ASTM material standards.
8. For pendulum isolator types submit: test data for: the effects of worse case contamination and ice
on the sliding surfaces; liner wear resulting from 50 years of in-structure movements;
effectiveness of protective covers to keep debris, water, and ice from contaminating the sliding
surfaces; effects of dynamic heating on isolator properties; effects of velocity on the isolator
friction properties; and the effects of liner contact pressure on the isolator friction properties.
9. Lead rubber-isolator types shall be made of natural rubber compliant with ASTM D3184 and
D2227, and have 99% pure lead cores. Submit fire test data for protective covers that provide
the necessary fire rating, and cyclic fatigue test data for 50 years of in-structure movements. The
upper bound force loop for isolators shall include isolator properties obtained from SIS Quality
Control tests performed on new isolators not previously laterally or vertically loaded.
10. Report any isolators sold by the Manufacturer, or designed by the Seismic Isolation Engineer,
which failed the specified isolator tests, or for which approval for installation was denied, or
required isolators to be removed from construction, or which were late in delivery.
11. Any Isolator Manufacturer or vendor, or Seismic Isolation Engineer that failed to satisfy the
requirements of this SIS , or the structure design code requirements, where such failure resulted
in the denial of approval to install their isolators, or required their isolators to be removed from
the construction, and having so failed on 2 different construction applications within a 20 year
period, shall be disqualified under this SIS for 20 years after the last such failure.
Manufacturers of isolators other than lead-rubber or pendulum shall submit significantly more
comprehensive qualification test data that is equivalent in scope and breadth to the complete set of
qualification tests previously completed by Earthquake Protection Systems. Isolators sold as “High
Damping Rubber Isolators” with elastomeric damping greater than 2% are not permitted under this
SIS, because they have been found to have very large variabilities in properties due to scragging,
aging, and temperature, and do not satisfy the requirements herein for 50 years of reliable properties.
All isolator tests that are required under this SIS shall have all been performed on isolators
manufactured by the same Manufacturer that is offering the isolators for installation in the specific
application. No test data from tests performed on isolators fabricated by others may be used for any
qualification or approval of isolators from a particular manufacturer.
For all isolators to be used in construction, the manufacturer shall fix a label on each isolator that

Page 24 of 56
Dangerous EN15129 Isolators Installed at the Muisne Hospital Ecuador

EN15129 Isolators, Fabricated in China, Sold by European Company,

Installed at the Muisne Hospital Ecuador
Page 25 of 56
identifies the model number, the month and year of manufacture, and a production lot sequence
number, such that each isolator produced is uniquely identifiable, and traceable to the Quality Control
Test performed. All isolator tests shall identify the manufacturer, isolator type, model number, month
and year of manufacture, and a production lot sequence number of the tested isolator, and shall be
submitted in reports signed and stamped by the Manufacturer’s Seismic Isolation Engineer, certifying
that the results and data in the reports are accurate.
Qualification data for the testing equipment shall also be submitted, including: (a) a detailed report
of data recording and data reduction and reporting procedures, including all corrections and
adjustments from the raw data measurements, (b) records of calibration of load measuring equipment
using load cells calibrated and certified by an independent calibration agency using National Institute
of Standards and Technology “NIST” traceable certified load cells. Submit records that calibration
checks of load measuring equipment are performed for the testing of isolators for each application of
the manufacturer’s isolators. Instruments for direct measurements of shear and vertical load on the
isolator shall be rigidly connected directly to the isolator. The Manufacturer shall submit compliant
test facility qualifications for those testing facilities used by the Manufacturer, and they shall be
approved as part of the approval of the Qualification of the Seismic Isolator Manufacturer.
Earthquake Protection Systems “EPS” is qualified as a manufacturer under this standard. All quality
manufacturers of seismic isolators are encouraged to offer all their isolators in compliance with this
SIS, in order to establish market confidence that isolators will minimize earthquake shaking damage.

Isolator Qualification Tests

Manufacturer’s Qualification Tests shall be submitted that demonstrate the reliability of the
Manufacturer’s isolator product types, materials, engineering, manufacturing process, and quality
control, as appropriate for each application. For each manufacturer, a minimum of 20 isolator models
shall have been qualification tested at a minimum of three different credible independent testing
laboratories. Results of tests from a manufacturer’s laboratory shall be consistent with those from the
independent government laboratories for tests on the same model isolators, for the manufacture’s
laboratory to be qualified under the SIS . The manufacturer’s Seismic Isolation Engineer shall certify
that submitted Qualification Test data and reports accurately represent the manufacturer’s isolators.
As a minimum, Qualification Tests shall include:
1. Individual isolator test results for lateral force versus displacement for at least six different full
size isolator model numbers produced by that Manufacturer that were tested at a minimum of
three different credible independent testing laboratories.
2. At least six shake-table test programs of at least 6 isolator models by the manufacturer that were
subject to simultaneous bi-directional lateral and vertical shaking, performed at a credible
independent testing laboratory.
3. At least one shake-table test program of full scale isolators that were subject to simultaneous bi-
directional lateral and vertical shaking, performed at a credible independent testing laboratory.
4. Dynamic Property Test results and property variations for isolators used in prior applications that
have dynamic properties equivalent to those offered for a project.
5. Capacity Test results C1 to C6 for isolators used in prior applications that have capacities equal
to or greater than those offered for a project, including: lateral displacement; shear strength,
maximum vertical load; longest isolator effective period; and maximum EDC.
6. Tests to determine the fire resistant rating, based on full size isolator fire testing as performed and
reported by a certified Underwriters Laboratory “UL”.
7. Tests to demonstrate that isolator properties and capacities are reasonably symmetric about the
isolator’s central vertical, in accordance with the Direction of Loading test C2.

Page 26 of 56
Qualification Testing of EPS Pendulum Isolators
50 Isolator Qualification Test Programs
12 Independent Government Laboratories
35 Years of Testing at the World’s Leading Universities
and Earthquake Engineering Research Centers
UCSD – Caltrans SRMD Test Facility, University of San Diego, CA, USA
UCB Richmond Shake Table Laboratory – University of California, Richmond California
SUNY SEESL Laboratory – State University of New York, Buffalo
UCB Richmond Structures Laboratory - University of California, Richmond California
UCB Davis Hall Structures Laboratory - University of California, Berkeley California
SUNY Buffalo Ketter Hall Laboratory – State University of New York, Buffalo
MCEER – Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, USA
PEER – Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, USA
SWRI – Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, USA
WSU – Washington State University Structural Laboratory, Pullman, WA, USA
E-Defense – Three-Dimensional Full-Scale Earthquake Testing Facility, Hyogo, Japan
OTRI – Obayashi Technical Research Institute Earthquake Laboratory, Konan, Japan
KOEE – Kandilli Observatory Earthquake Engineering Laboratory, Istanbul, Turkey
NCREE – National Center for Research in Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan
EERC – Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, USA
NCEER – National center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, USA
HITEC ETEC – Energy Technology Engineering Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Year Independent Test Program Principal

Laboratory Investigators
SUNY Seismic Isolator Technologies for Advanced Prof. Andrew
2020 SEESL Nuclear Reactors Whittaker
UCB, Davis Shake table testing of porcelain electrical Prof. Shakhzod
2018 Hall Structures insulators on Triple Pendulum equipment Takhirov
Laboratory platform for Electric Power Research Institute
2017 Compression shear qualification testing of
UCSD SRMD Triple Pendulum isolators for continued Dr. Huseyin Darama,
Laboratory functionality performance criteria for Turkey ARUP Engineers
hospitals.
2017 UCB, Investigations of effectiveness of Triple Dr. Andreas
Richmond Pendulums isolators for implementation at mid- Schellenberg, Prof
Structures levels of a building. Shake table testing through Tracy Becker, Prof
Laboratory hybrid simulation of the lower building stories. Stephen Mahin

2016 UCSD SRMD International Atomic Energy Association Dr. Andreas

Laboratory qualification testing of Triple Pendulum Schellenberg, Prof
isolators for nuclear power plant applications Stephen Mahin

Page 27 of 56
2016 UCSD SRMD International Atomic Energy Association Dr. Andreas
Laboratory qualification testing of Triple Pendulum Schellenberg, Prof
isolators for nuclear power plant applications Stephen Mahin
2016 UCSD SRMD Compression shear qualification testing of Mike Jones, HNTB
Laboratory Triple Pendulum isolators for application to the Engineers
6th Street Bridge Viaduct, Los Angeles.
2015 MCEER Shake Table Testing of 3D Isolation System Prof. Constantinou
with Triple Pendulum Bearings
2014 MCEER Shake Table Testing of Quintuple Seismic Prof. Constantinou
Isolators

2013 MCEER Shake Table Testing of Triple Pendulum Prof. Constantinou

Isolators

2013 MCEER Testing of Triple Pendulum Bearings – Uplift Prof. Constantinou

Condition
King Lee, KLE
2013 UCSD Agora Garden, Taiwan – Testing of Friction Structural Engineers,
Pendulum Bearings Taiwan
Dr. Huseyin Darama,
2013 UCSD Taipei Performing Arts, Taiwan – Testing of ARUP Engineers
Friction Pendulum Bearings

2012 UCB Testing of various imposed bi-directional

Richmond displacement loading sequences on Triple Tracy Becker,
Shake Table Pendulum Isolators. Prof. Mahin
Laboratory

2012 PEER Torsional response of Friction Pendulum Tracy Becker,

Isolators Prof. Mahin

2012 WSU Testing of Friction Pendulum Bearing for Train Prof. Stanton
Rail Suports

2012 MCEER Shake Table Testing of Electrical Transformer Prof. Constantinou

on Friction Pendulum Isolators

2011 PEER Shake Table Testing of Triple Pendulum Prof. Mahin

Bearings

2011 E-Defense Shake Table Testing of Full-Scale 5-Story Steel Prof. Ryan
Frame Building on Triple Pendulum Bearings

2010 PEER Shake Table Testing of Segmental Bridge Deck Prof. Mahin
on Triple Pendulum Bearings

2009 PEER Shake Table Testing of Liquid Storage Tank on Prof. Mahin
Triple Pendulum Bearings

Page 28 of 56
2009 OTRI Shake Table Testing of Triple Pendulum Obayashi Corpn.
Bearings for Todaji Temple, Japan

2009 UCSD Dumabarton Bridge, CA, USA – Testing of D. Inanamorato

Friction Pendulum Bearings

2009 UCSD Antioch Bridge, CA, USA – Testing of Friction D. Inanamorato

Pendulum Bearings

2008 MCEER Testing of Triple Pendulum Bearings Prof. Constantinou

2008 MCEER Mechanical Behavior of Triple Pendulum Prof. Constantinou

Bearings

2008 MCEER Shake Table Testing of Electrical Transformer Prof. Saadeghvaziri

on Friction Pendulum Bearings

2007 MCEER Testing of Cross Rail Friction Pendulum Prof. Constantinou

Isolators

2006 PEER Shake Table Testing of 3-Story Structure on Prof. Mahin

Triple Pendulum Bearings

2006 UCB Shake table and hybrid simulation testing of

Richmond double pendulum isolators. Dr. Andreas
Shake Table Schellenberg, Prof.
Laboratory Mahin

2005 MCEER Testing of Friction Pendulum Bearings with Prof. Constantinou

Uplift Restraints

2004 KOEE Shake Table Testing of a 3-Story Structure on Prof. Erdik

Friction Pendulum Bearings

2004 MCEER Shake Table Testing of Friction Pendulum Prof. Constantinou

Bearings for Secondary Systems Response

2002 PEER Shake Table Testing of Bridge Structure on Prof. Mahin

Friction Pendulum Bearings

2002 WSU Shake Table Testing of Friction Pendulum Prof. Symans

Bearings

2002 UCSD I-40 Bridge, TN, USA – Testing of Friction Prof. Seible
Pendulum Bearings

Page 29 of 56
2001 UCSD Bolu Viaducts, Turkey – Testing of Friction Prof. Seible
Pendulum Bearings

2000 UCSD San Francisco Bay Bridge – Testing of Friction Prof. Seible
Pendulum Bearings

2000 UCSD Benicia-Martinez Bridge – Testing of Friction Prof. Seible

Pendulum Bearings

1999 PEER Shake Table Testing of Bridge Structure on Prof. Mahin

Friction Pendulum Bearings

1999 NCEER Shake Table Testing of Power Transformer on Prof. Saadeghvaziri

Friction Pendulum Bearings

1998 ETEC Technical Evaluation of Friction Pendulum HITEC, Caltrans

Bearings

1994 NCEER Shake Table Testing of Friction Pendulum Prof. Constantinou

Bearings for Computer Floors

1993 EERC Compression Shear Testing of Friction Pendulum Prof. Mahin

Bearings for Simulated Aging

1993 NCEER Shake Table Testing of Bridge with Friction Prof. Constantinou
Pendulum Bearings

1992 EERC Shake Table Testing of Masonry Structure with Prof. Mahin
Friction Pendulum Bearings

1990 EERC Compression Shear Testing of Full-Scale Friction Prof. Mahin

Pendulum Bearings

1989 NCEER Shake Table Testing of 6-Story Structure with Prof. Constantinou
Friction Pendulum Bearings

1989 EERC Compression-Shear Testing of Low Friction Prof. Mahin

Bearings

1989 EERC Experimental Verification of Friction Pendulum Prof. Mahin

Bearings

1987 EERC Shake Table Testing of a 2-Story Structure with Prof. Mahin
Friction Pendulum Bearings

1986 EERC Compression-Shear Testing of Model Friction Prof. Mahin

Pendulum Bearings

Page 30 of 56
8. Property Modification Factors equal to λ max = 2.5 and λ min = 0.50 shall be used when
manufacturer specific values have been not quantified through SIS specified Qualification Tests.
The Property Modification Factors specified by ASCE 7-16 Section 17.2.8 that are quantified
through testing shall be based on SIS specified Qualification Tests. Laboratory tests of full size
isolators that simulate the effects of environmental contamination of full size isolators shall
represent worst case conditions, and shall be amplified by a 2.0 safety factor for laboratory versus
actual conditions. Sliding isolators require test results for: the presence of contaminated water
containing mud, sand, and rust particles; the presence of ice on the sliding surfaces, and liner wear
due to 3.2 kilometers of cumulative cyclic movements. Elastomeric isolators require test results
comparing Quality Control tests performed as the very first lateral deformations on a new isolator
to Quality Control tests performed after the Dynamic Property Tests have been completed, which
determines the upper bound Property Modification Factor for recovery of new unexercised
isolator properties. Elastomeric isolators also require test results for the effects of aging on the
elastomeric material including ultra violet degradation effects, and tests for degradation of the
elastomer to steel adhesive; and cycle fatigue due to due to 3.2 kilometers of cumulative cyclic
movements. The effects of aging as measured from tests of actual 25 years old or older full size
isolators may be linearly scaled to represent 50 years of aging, without added safety factors. The
effects of aging and environmental exposure effects shall be based on tests of full size isolators,
and simulated aging based on material sample tests is not permitted. Lower and upper bound
isolator modeling properties shall also be consistent with the in-structure performance of the
manufacturer’s isolators during all cases where the manufacturer’s isolators experienced actual
earthquakes, which represent the combined effect of in-service aging and environmental exposure
effects. Upper bound lateral force versus displacement properties shall exceed the lateral force
versus displacement isolator behavior as observed during earthquakes having displacement
demands less than DD/5. Lower bound lateral force versus displacement properties shall be less
than the lateral force versus displacement isolator behavior as observed during earthquakes having
displacement demands greater than DD. No added factor of safety is required for lower or upper
bound properties for aging and environmental exposure effects when based on data from
earthquake performance having displacement demands less than DD/5, and having displacement
demands greater than DD
Isolator Capacity Tests
This SIS is the ASCE compatible component standard for seismic isolators. ASCE 7 requires all
structural members to comply with adequate component standards that are written for the specific
type of structural member. ASCE compatible component standards are developed to satisfy Target
Reliabilities for Structural Stability under the ASCE 7 Maximum Considered Earthquake loads. The
structural component standards AISC, ACI, AWS, and SIS, specify member capacity factors of safety
that exceed the design loads by factors of safety that vary depending on the type of member and
consequence of failure. Member capacity factors specified in this SIS, or any other component
standards, do not change with different project applications. The member capacities specified in
ASCE compatible component standards are adequate for the majority of typical applications. The
member capacities of most members in most applications, including the factors of safety, typically
end up 2 to 4 times greater than the ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads.
The Manufacturer’s rated capacities for vertical loads and uplift, and shear strength and lateral
displacement, shall not exceed those values obtained through the results of these Capacity Tests. A
minimum of 12 different isolator models made by the Manufacturer shall be Capacity Tested in
accordance with this SIS. For each application, the Seismic Isolation Engineer and Structure Design
Professional are responsible that the capacities of the isolators satisfy ASCE performance objectives

Page 31 of 56
 Pasadena City Hall, California
Apple Headquarters, California
1 mile circumference, Continued Functionality
Platinum. 700 Triple Pendulums.

USA Federal Court House, San Francisco

Shell Offshore Platform, Russia

New York Tappan Zee Bridge

Two LNG Export Tanks, Mexico

3 Below Ground LNG Tanks in Greece

LNG Export Tanks in Peru

Page 32 of 56
and this SIS. Reliable component standards protect the Structure Design Professional, yet the member
capacities as specified in this SIS or any component standard are not always sufficient for every use
of the component in every configuration of application. The Capacity Tests specified herein are
performed on two isolators of each model having different rated capacities for vertical load, shear
strength, or lateral displacement. The isolator vertical deflections, vertical loads, lateral
displacements, and lateral loads shall be continuously recorded and reported for all loadings and
displacements specified by the Capacity Tests. Results from each Capacity Test shall be traceable to
the fixed label on the isolator tested. Isolator structural damage is permitted and expected during these
Capacity Tests. Capacity Tested isolators may not be used for construction.
C1-DD Seismic Properties: Perform 3 complete lateral loading cycles in combined compression and
shear, maintaining an average compression load sustained during the three cycles not less than the
average IVL. The amplitude of the cyclic lateral displacement shall not be less than DD. The duration
to complete the 3 cycles shall not be more than 3.1 times the isolation system natural period.
C2-Direction of Lateral Loading. Perform one complete lateral loading cycle at an amplitude not
less than DD, maintaining an average compression load not less than the average IVL, with the isolator
rotated 45 degrees clockwise from the direction of the above Design Seismic Properties test, and then
repeated again with the isolator rotated 90 degrees. The effective stiffness and damping measured at
the 45 or 90 degree directions shall not differ by more than 15% from the first direction of loading.
C3-DM Seismic Properties and Minimum Restoring Force: Perform 3 complete lateral loading
cycles in combined compression and shear. Maintain an average compression load sustained during
the three cycles not less than the average IV. The amplitude of the cyclic lateral displacement shall
not be less than DM. The lateral force at DM shall be at least 1.025 times the lateral force at DD. The
duration to complete the 3 cycles shall not be more than 3.1 times the isolation system natural period.
C4-Combination of Maximum Design Vertical Load, Lateral Displacement, and Rotation:
Perform one complete lateral loading cycle at an amplitude not less than +/- 1.15 DM, with the isolator
vertically loaded not less than 1.2 Maximum IVL plus WEh plus WEv. At the +1.15 DM and -1.15
DM displacements, there shall be imposed rotations of the upper isolator plate relative to the lower
isolator plate, at the rated relative rotation capacity but not less than 1 degree, applied in the direction
of rotation that occurs during seismic loading. The isolator force displacement loop representing the
lower bound properties used for the MCE structure analysis shall not have greater shear strengths
than the force displacement loop obtained for this one fully reversed cycle. The force-deflection loop
for this fully reversed cycle shall have a positive incremental force-carrying capacity for all
incremental displacements away from the isolator’s un-displaced position, and shall satisfy the
minimum Lateral Restoring Force as specified in ASCE 7-16.17.2.4.4.
C5-DM Lateral Displacement Plus Maximum Upward Displacement: Starting at the laterally un-
displaced position, apply the average IVL, and then the isolator is displaced to not less than +DM,
then the maximum upward displacement (or maximum tension load) is imposed and the isolator is
displaced back to the starting position, then the average IVL is re-applied and the isolator is laterally
displaced to an amplitude not less than -DM, then the maximum upward displacement is imposed and
the isolator is displaced back to the starting position, then the average IVL is applied and one complete
lateral displacement cycle at not less than +/- DM is performed. The isolator shall remain capable of
supporting the specified vertical load for at least 3 seconds at the DM displacement. This test should
not result in a permanent loss of isolator compression, tension or lateral load capacity.
C6-Minimum Lateral Displacement and Shear Strength Capacities: In the laterally un-displaced
position a vertical load of average IVL is applied and maintained as the minimum vertical load
throughout the applied lateral displacements. From the laterally un-displaced position, the isolator
displacement is increased in the plus direction to a displacement not less than the specified minimum

Page 33 of 56
 Loma Linda Hospital, California
Basaksehir Hospital Facility, Turkey
Triple Pendulum seismic isolators
1 million square meters, 2000 Triple Pendulums

Goztepe Hospital, Turkey, 200,000 sq meters

Stanford University Hospital, California
Triple Pendulum Seismic Isolators.
Triple Pendulum seismic isolators

Mills Peninsula Hospital, California Washington Hospital, Fremont California

Triple Pendulum seismic isolators

Seismic Isolators for Wellington Children’s

Hospital. The Continued Functionality isolators
Children’s Hospital, Wellington, New Zealand have 4 times the displacement capacity of
Triple Pendulum Seismic Isolators ASCE 7 Chapter 17 sized isolators.

Page 34 of 56
 lateral displacement capacity, including the displacement factor of safety. Then starting from the
isolator un-displaced position, the isolator is displaced in the negative direction reaching a
displacement absolute value that exceeds the specified minimum lateral displacement capacity. The
isolator force displacement loop representing the lower bound properties as used for the MCE
structure analysis shall not represent greater shear strengths than those obtained from these plus and
minus displacement excursions. Isolator properties and capacities shall comply with at least one of
the below criteria, as applicable to one of the Isolator System Types 1 to 4 as specified below.
1. For isolators that have an incremental force-resisting stiffness Kd the remains positive from
zero lateral displacement and up through displacements of 2.0 DM, this test is performed at
displacements of 2.0 DM. The isolator shear measured at 2.0 DM during the plus and minus lateral
displacement excursions shall not be less than 1.5 times the shear at DM. The required movement
capacity of all components affected by the seismic isolator movements shall be 2.0 DM.
Architectural or structural components (excluding isolators) that begin to restrain lateral
displacements at less than 2.0 DM are not permitted.
2. For isolation systems where all isolators provide a beyond DM increase in lateral stiffness Kd
that corresponds to an isolator natural period of 0.75 to 2.5 seconds, this test is performed at
displacements of 1.5 DM. The isolator shear strengths measured during both the plus and minus
lateral displacement excursions shall not be less than 2.0 times the shear measured at DM. The
isolator shears occurring at any displacement larger than DM shall not be less than the shear at
DM. The movement capacity of all components displaced by the seismic isolator movements
shall be 1.5 DM. Architectural or structural components (excluding isolators) that begin to
restrain lateral displacements at less than 1.5 DM are not permitted.
3. For isolators installed in structures having a compliant “Moat Wall Restraint System”, but with
isolators not compliant with Type 1, 2 or 4, this test is performed at a displacement of 2.25 DM.
The Moat Wall Restraint System shall be designed for an elastic lateral force capacity in all lateral
directions of 3.0 times the sum of the isolator shears at DM resulting from all isolators. The Moat
Wall Restraint System shall begin to restrain lateral displacements at 1.5 DM, when the structure
displaces along either of the structure’s primary orthogonal axis. The Moat Wall Restraint System
shall have sufficient stiffness to prevent isolator displacements greater than 2.25 DM, when the
structure displaces at 45 degrees from the primary orthogonal structure directions that engage the
moat wall restraints at 1.5 DM. The required movement capacity of all components displaced by
the seismic isolator movements shall be 2.25 DM. Building components (excluding isolators) that
begin to restrain lateral displacements at less than 2.25 DM are not permitted.
4. For structures quantified to comply with ASCE 7-16 Sections 1.3.1.3, 12.2.1.1, and 17.2.4.5, and
where all isolators provide a beyond DD lateral stiffness Kd that corresponds to an isolation system
natural period of 0.5 to 2.0 seconds, this test is performed at displacements of 1.25 DD or 1.0 DM,
whichever is greater. The isolator shear strengths measured during both the plus and minus lateral
displacement excursions shall not be less than 5.0 times the isolator shear measured at DD. The
isolators and primary structural members shall be demonstrated by analysis and tests to remain
stable for a seismic loading demand equal to 1.5 times the spectra having a 2% probability of
being exceeded in 50 years. The Seismic Force Resisting System shall be one permitted with no
height limit for Seismic Design Category F in ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1, or an ASCE 7 Section 1.3.1.3
structure that is adequately qualified by analysis and component tests, or an AASHTO Seismic
Performance Category D structure. The analyses of the structure shall be fully non-linear
including inelastic material member deformations and large displacement effects. For structural
members that the non-linear analysis shows have displacement demands greater than 3 times the
displacements that cause first yield, the analytical non-linear force versus displacement hysteretic
relationship shall accurately represent results obtained from tests that impose equal or larger

Page 35 of 56
 Lutfi Kirdar Hospital, Turkey
300,000 square meters, Continued Functionality
using Triple Pendulum seismic isolators. Exxon’s Russia Offshore Platform

Adana Hospital, Turkey, 550,000 Sq Meters

Salt Lake City Temple, Utah
Continued Functionality using Triple Pendulum

Okmeydani Hospital, Turkey

Triple Pendulum Seismic Isolators Ataturk Airport, Turkey

RagingWire Data Center, California Sports Hospital, Callo Peru

Page 36 of 56
 cyclic displacements on full scale structural members and connections of the types used in the
structure. For the analysis for the 1.5 times MCE spectra, the lateral seismic displacements for
any primary vertical load carrying member (excluding isolators) shall not exceed 0.040 times the
member’s vertical height. When the isolator and structure response are calculated according to
the herein specified fully non-linear analysis, then DD and DM are determined from this non-linear
analysis, and the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure of ASCE 7 Chapter 17 does not apply, and
the minimum DTM of ASCE 7.17.5.3.3 does not apply. The lateral movement capacity of all
components displaced by the isolator movements shall be 1.1 DD.
The factors of safety required above for isolator displacement capacity and shear strength were
selected to avoid isolator and structure loss of stability for 1.5 times the ASCE 7-16 median MCE
spectra. This 1.5 “factored earthquake strength” was compared to the strongest ground motion
recorded in 90 years anywhere in the world, Taiwan’s RSN1503_CHICHI_TCU065. To avoid
requiring isolator capacities for earthquakes significantly stronger than the strongest ground motion
ever recorded, the isolator displacement factors of safety specified above may be reduced as follows.
The displacement factors for DM and DD shall be applied at the above specified values when the MCE
SRSS spectrum value at 4 second, as used in design, is equal to or less than 0.30g. The factors for
DM and DD may be reduced by 0.90 times of the value exceeding 1.0, when the MCE SRSS spectrum
value at 4 second, as used in design, is equal to or exceeds 0.50g. When the MCE SRSS spectrum
values at 4 second, as used in design, are between 0.30g and 0.50g, the capacity factors may be
linearly interpolated between those values.
Isolator Dynamic Property Tests
Dynamic Property Tests shall be performed on two isolators of each model for each application. The
total duration to complete 3 cycles of a seismic property test shall not be more than 3.1 times the
isolation system natural period TM. Displacement amplitudes may exceed, but shall not be less than
the specified factors. Vertical loads may exceed, but shall not be less than the specified loads. The
vertical deflections, vertical loads, lateral displacements, and lateral loads of the isolators shall be
reported for all data points of each cycle. All lateral force-deflection loops of all Dynamic Property
Tests shall show a positive incremental force-carrying capacity for all incremental displacements
away from the isolator’s centered position. Results from each Dynamic Property Test shall be
traceable to the fixed label on the isolator tested. For each isolator model, the Manufacturer shall
specify lower and upper bound analytical force displacement loops for new isolators that comply with
the results of these Dynamic Property Tests. The upper and lower bound analytical force loops for
new isolators shall be plotted and compared with each of the specified tests.
P1-Service Level Movements: Perform 240 complete lateral loading cycles at a displacement
amplitude of 0.05DD, maintaining the average compression load not less than the average IVL. The
total time duration to complete 240 cycles shall not be less than 240 seconds, nor more than 500
seconds. The average Keff for the 240 cycles shall not exceed by more than 20% the Keff of the
analytical upper bound force displacement loop. The average area of the loops for the 240 cycles
shall not exceed the area of the analytical upper bound force displacement loop. The average Keff for
the 240 cycles shall not be less than 60% of the Keff of the analytical lower bound force displacement
loop. The average area of the loops for the 240 cycles shall not be less than 70% of the area of
analytical the lower bound force displacement loop. The shear force for any portion of any loop shall
not be outside of the analytical upper bound force displacement loop by more than 30% of the shear
value at DD for the analytical upper bound force displacement loop.
P2-Seismic Property: Perform 3 complete lateral loading cycles at a displacement amplitude of 0.1
DD, while maintaining an average compression load not less than the average IVL. The Keff of each
loop shall not exceed 1.2 times the Keff of the analytical upper bound force displacement loop for new
isolators. The area of any loop shall not exceed 1.3 times the area of the analytical upper bound force

Page 37 of 56
FEMA P695 Probabilities of Collapse of Isolated Structures
High Reliability with Uncertainty β = 0.3; Low Reliability with Uncertainty β = 0.85

Calculation of FEMA P695 Probabilities of Collapse

Page 38 of 56
displacement loop for new isolators. The average Keff of the loops for each of the 3 cycles shall not
be more than the Keff of the analytical upper bound force displacement loop for new isolators. The
average area of the loops for each of the 3 cycles shall not be more than the area of the analytical
upper bound force displacement loop for new isolators. The lateral force value for any portion of any
test loop shall not be outside of the analytical upper bound force displacement loop for new isolators
by more than 40% of the shear value at DD for the analytical upper bound force displacement loop.
P3-Seismic Property: Perform 3 complete lateral loading cycles at a displacement amplitude of 0.5
DD, while maintaining an average compression load not less than the average IVL. The Keff of each
loop shall not exceed 1.2 times the Keff of the analytical upper bound force displacement loop for new
isolators. The area of any loop shall not exceed 1.3 times the area of the analytical upper bound force
displacement loop for new isolators. The average Keff of the loops for each of the 3 cycles shall not
be more than the Keff of the analytical upper bound force displacement loop for new isolators. The
average area of the loops for each of the 3 cycles shall not be more than the area of the analytical
upper bound force displacement loop for new isolators. The lateral force value for any portion of any
test loop shall not be outside of the analytical upper bound force displacement loop for new isolators
by more than 40% of the shear value at DD for the analytical upper bound force displacement loop.
P4-Seismic Property: Perform 3 complete lateral loading cycles at an amplitude of 1.0 DD, while
maintaining an average vertical load of minimum IVL, +/-10%. The Keff of each loop shall not be
greater than the 1.2 times the Keff of the analytical upper bound force displacement loop for new
isolators. The area of any loop shall not exceed 1.3 times the area of the analytical upper bound force
displacement loop for new isolators. The average Keff of the loops for each of the 3 cycles shall not
be more than the Keff of the analytical upper bound force displacement loop for new isolators. The
average area of the loops for each of the 3 cycles shall not be more than the area of the analytical
upper bound force displacement loop for new isolators. The lateral force value for any portion of any
test loop shall not be outside of the analytical upper bound force displacement loop for new isolators,
by more than 40% of the shear value at DD for the analytical upper bound force displacement loop.
P5-Seismic Property: Perform 3 complete lateral loading cycles at a displacement amplitude of 1.0
DD, while maintaining an average compression load not less than the average IVL. The Keff of each
loop shall not exceed 1.1 times the Keff of the analytical upper bound force displacement loop for new
isolators. The area of any loop shall not exceed 1.1 times the area of the analytical upper bound force
displacement loop for new isolators. The lateral force value for any portion of any test loop shall not
be outside of the analytical upper bound force displacement loop for new isolators by more than 40%
of the shear value at DD for the analytical upper bound force displacement loop.
P6-Seismic Property: Perform 3 complete lateral loading cycles at an amplitude of DD, while
maintaining an average vertical load of maximum IVL, +/-10%.
P7-Seismic Property: Perform 3 complete lateral loading cycles at an amplitude of DM, while
maintaining an average vertical load of average IVL, +/-10%.
P8-Seismic Property: The isolator is laterally loaded for 10 complete displacement cycles
consecutively imposed at an amplitude of DD. The average compression load sustained during the
ten cycles shall not be less than the average IVL. The total duration to complete the 10 cycles of
lateral loading shall not be more than 10.2 times the Isolator Natural Period. The average area of the
loops for the 10 cycles shall not be less than 0.8 times the area of the analytical lower bound force
displacement loop for new isolators. The lateral force value for any portion of any test loop shall not
be outside of the analytical upper bound force displacement loop for new isolators by more than 40%
of the shear value at DD for the analytical upper bound force displacement loop.
For Seismic Property Tests P2 to P8, the Keff of each loop shall not exceed 1.1 times the Keff of the
analytical upper bound force displacement loop for new isolators. The area of any loop shall not
exceed 1.1 times the area of the analytical upper bound force displacement loop for new isolators.
The average Keff of the loops for each of the 3 cycles shall not be more than the Keff of the analytical

Page 39 of 56
 Istanbul Grand Airport, Turkey
Taiwan Performing Arts Center

Catholic Church, Oakland California

Taiwan Luxury Condominiums

151 Cambridge, Christchurch, New Zealand

Acapulco Emergency Response Center, Mexico,

Burbank Airport Intermodal Facility, California Art Gallery, Christchurch, New Zealand

Page 40 of 56
upper bound force displacement loop for new isolators. The average area of the loops for each of the
3 cycles shall not be more than the area of the analytical upper bound force displacement loop for
new isolators. The lateral force value for any portion of any test loop shall not be outside of the
analytical upper bound force displacement loop for new isolators by more than 40% of the shear value
at DD for the analytical upper bound force displacement loop. The maximum downward and upward
displacements of the isolators during these cycles shall be reported. For isolator models installed at
adjacent but distinct locations in the construction, the difference between the maximum downward
and upward displacements shall not exceed 1/340 times the distance between isolators.

Isolator Quality Control Tests

The specified Quality control test shall be performed on 100% of all isolators. Isolator damage during
these tests is not permitted. Isolators not complying with these criteria shall not be used in
construction. Results from each Quality Control Test shall comply with the lower and upper bound
analytical force displacement loops for new isolators. Results from each Quality Control Test shall
be traceable to the fixed label on the isolator tested.
QC1: Perform 3 complete lateral loading cycles in combined compression and shear, maintaining an
average compression load sustained during the three cycles at not less than the average IVL. The
amplitude of the cyclic lateral displacement shall not be less than DD. The total duration to complete
the 3 cycles shall not be more than 3.1 times the isolation system natural period TM. The Keff of each
loop shall not exceed the Keff of the analytical upper bound force displacement loop by more than
20%. The area of any loop shall not exceed the area of the analytical upper bound force displacement
loop by more than 30%. The average Keff for the 3 cycles shall not exceed the Keff of the analytical
upper bound force displacement loop. The average area of the loops for the 3 cycles shall not exceed
the area of the analytical upper bound force displacement loop. The average area of the loops for the
3 cycles shall not be less than the area of the analytical lower bound force displacement loop. The
shear force value for any portion of any loop shall not be outside of the analytical upper bound force
displacement loop by more than 40% of the shear value at DD for the analytical upper bound force
displacement loop. The average isolator properties from the Quality Control Tests for all isolators of
a particular model is defined as the “Nominal Design Properties” for ASCE 7 or AASHTO
compliance purposes. The average Keff from the Quality Control Tests for all isolators of a given
model shall not exceed the Keff of the analytical upper bound force displacement loop for the average
of new isolators of that model. The average area of the loops from the Quality Control Tests for all
isolators of a given model shall not exceed the area of the analytical upper bound force displacement
loop for the average of new isolators of that model.

Isolator Capacities and Properties When Calculated

Based on Tests Performed on Different Sizes of the Same
Isolator Type, or at Slower Testing Rates
For manufacturer’s having completed at least 20 isolator Capacity or Qualification Test programs,
which were performed at internationally recognized independent testing laboratories, then Capacity
Tests do not need to be performed for every model size of that manufacturer’s isolator type. For
manufacturers that satisfy this qualification criteria, the isolator rated capacities may be based on an
isolator capacity calculation method based on the Isolator Capacity Tests specified herein. The
capacity calculation method for rated vertical loads and uplift displacement, and shear strength and
lateral displacement, shall be calibrated to represent the lower bound capacities from not less than 20
test results for the specific capacity being calculated, obtained from tests performed on not less than
10 different sizes of the same isolator type manufactured by the same manufacturer. For

Page 41 of 56
Los Angeles Rams Stadium, Los Angeles,
George Lucas Museum – Los Angeles, CA

Giant Magellan Telescope, Chile

San Bernardino Courthouse, California,

San Francisco Airport International Terminal,

Hayward City Hall, California

LDS Church, Concepción Chile Ataturk Airport, Turkey

Page 42 of 56
manufacturers that satisfy this qualification criteria, and for isolators with capacities directly between
models having Capacity Test results, the isolator rated capacities may be those obtained by direct
interpolation between Capacity Test results for models tested. When rated capacities are extrapolated
to larger values than those Capacity Tested, the rated capacities shall be limited to 0.9 times the
calculated capacity using the capacity calculation method calibrated against the lower bound of the
capacity tested models. The lower bound factor for scale effects for capacity shall not be greater than
λscale,min = 0.9. The extrapolated rated capacities for vertical and shear load capacities that are larger
than those demonstrated by the Capacity Tests shall not exceed 10 times the measured load capacities
as demonstrated through Capacity Test results. The extrapolated rated lateral and uplift displacement
capacities that are larger than those Capacity Tested shall not exceed 3 times the measured capacities
as demonstrated through Capacity Test results. When Dynamic Property Tests are not performed on
the specific model, and for isolators with rated EDC directly between models having Dynamic
Property Tests results, then the rated BM may be calculated as a direct interpolation between Dynamic
Property Test results for similar isolator models tested. When rated BM is extrapolated for isolators
having larger EDC than those Dynamic Property Tested, then the lower bound factor for scale effects
for dynamic heating effects shall not be greater than λscale,min = 0.9, applied to the BM value as
measured for the most similar isolator having the largest EDC that was obtained from Dynamic
Property Tests. Dynamic Quality Control Tests are required for all isolators that use lower bound
properties in design of BM > 1.0. Dynamic Property Tests of full size isolators performed at the
isolation system natural period quantify the effects of dynamic heating degradation on the isolator
materials for DE loadings. If the Quality Control Tests are not performed at the specified dynamic
rates, then the lower bound value of the effective damping numerical factor BM, as computed for the
Manufacturer’s lower bound force displacement loop, shall be the lesser of: 0.9 times the BM value
calculated based on the quality control test performed slowly, or 0.9 times the BM as calculated from
tests of the most similar isolator having the largest EDC that was Dynamic Property Tested. The
isolator damping as used in the lower bound analysis shall comply with these limits on BM.
Structure Types, Structural Analyses, Isolator Displacement
Capacity, Design Loads, and Isolator Vertical Displacements
The upper bound analytical model for isolators shall be the lessor of the average properties measured
from QC1, and the properties measured in test P4 and C3, plus the combined effects of the ASCE
Section 17.2.8 upper bound λtest and λspec, further increased by the Section 17.2.8 λae,max accounting
for environmental and aging effects as determined from the Qualification Tests specified herein.
The lower bound analytical model for isolators shall be the lessor of properties measured in tests P7
and C3, plus the combined effects of the ASCE 7 Section 17.2.8 lower bound λtest and λspec.
The Property Modification Factors shall be λ max = 2.5 and λ min = 0.50 when values have not been
fully and adequately quantified through SIS specified Qualification Tests.
Structural analyses used in the design of isolated structures shall comply with ASCE 7-16 17.6.3.4.
“Response History Analysis Procedure”. For Isolation System Types 7.5.1, 7.5.2, and 7.5.3, any of
the 67 Seismic Resisting Systems approved for Seismic Design Category C in ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1,
may be used for Seismic Design Category D, E and F, at any structure height. The ground motion
records used in the Response History Analysis Procedures shall comply with the requirements of
ASCE 7 17.3 Seismic Ground Motion Criteria. Response Spectrum Analysis Procedures are not a
permitted analysis method for any analyses required under this SIS . Equivalent linear viscous
modeling of isolators is not permitted for the Response History Analysis Procedures. For bridges a
reasonable equivalent to the ASCE 7-16 17.5 procedures may be used, which shall supersede the
“AASHTO Guide Specification for Seismic Isolation Design, 7.1 Simplified Method”.

Page 43 of 56
 Sixth Street Avenue Bridge, Los Angeles
Panamá Canal Bridge

Los Angeles County Museam of Art

Folsom Bridge, California

Academy Museum of Motion Arts Los Angeles,

Benicia Martinez Bridge, California

Los Angeles Emergency Communications

Continued Functionality Triple Pendulums

Sunset Flyover, Washington State

Catholic Church, California Chiche Bridge, Ecuador

Page 44 of 56
Structural components shall be designed to have sufficient strength and stiffness to comply with the
Continued Functionality criteria herein, while resist a seismic loading that represents the design basis
earthquake of the applicable structure design code, which for ASCE 7 is a DE spectra computed as
2/3 of the MCER. The isolator displacements and structure seismic shears and drifts shall be
calculated using the Response History Analysis Procedures. The structure strength and stiffness
calculated using the Dynamic Analyses Procedure shall be checked using the Equivalent Lateral
Force Procedure specified in ASCE 7 Sections 17.6.3.4 or 12.8. The seismic shears and drifts of the
structure components and isolators used in design shall not be less than 80% of the values calculated
using this Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure. The structure member design loads calculated using
the specified R factor, shall not exceed the limits specified by the material standard applicable to the
structure component type, using the standard member capacities or capacity factors Φ as specified in
the applicable standard. The structure analysis and design shall include the large displacement effects
(P-) of the horizontal movements of the isolator vertical loads causing eccentric vertical loading on
the structure elements above and below the isolators, considering the isolator at the DD displaced
position. The upper bound analytical model of the isolators as specified herein shall be used in the
analyses to calculate the structure forces and floor spectra accelerations occurring for the DE.
To avoid damage due to differential vertical displacements of isolators, for isolators installed at
adjacent but distinct support locations in the construction, the difference in the vertical
displacements of the isolators, when laterally displaced to the DD, shall not exceed 1/340 times the
distance between isolators. For isolators installed to support the same structural column, pier, or
shear wall, all isolators shall be of the same model and capacity, to minimize the differences in
vertical loads and displacements that would likely result in progressive failures of isolators within
the group. For each isolator location, for the DE loading, the structure analyses shall calculate: the
average dead plus live load; maximum dead plus live load; minimum dead plus live load;
maximum compression from dead, plus live plus seismic overturning; seismic vertical shaking
isolator loads; minimum compression (or maximum tension) from dead, plus live, plus seismic
overturning; maximum downward vertical deflection resulting from dead, plus live, plus seismic
overturning, plus vertical seismic shaking loads; and maximum upward and downward vertical
deflection resulting from dead, plus live, plus seismic overturning, plus vertical seismic shaking
loads; and maximum relative rotation across the isolator resulting from dead, plus live, plus seismic
overturning, plus vertical seismic shaking loads.

Continued Functionality Criteria for Bridges

Bridge structures having isolators compliant with this SIS, and other structure components compliant
with requirements for AASHTO Seismic Performance Category A, satisfy the post-earthquake
functionality requirements of this SIS, and AASHTO functionality requirement for Essential Bridges,
and AASHTO requirements for Seismic Performance Category B, C, and D. The seismic isolators,
structure strength, and seismic movement joints, for all new bridges which utilize a seismic isolation
design method shall satisfy the requirements in this SIS section. The LRFD design Response
Modification Factor, R, for the design of all structure components shall be R = 1.0. The standard
member capacity factors Φ shall be used for all structure member designs. The provisions herein
exceed the structure design loads and associated criteria for the AASHTO design requirements for
Critical Bridges. The isolated structure design and construction provisions specified herein may be
used for the seismic design and construction of any bridge structure type permitted by AASHTO, in
any seismic zone, without incorporating the Seismic Performance Category B through D ductility or
over strength design requirements. Expansion joints and utility lines shall have sufficient longitudinal
and transverse displacement capacities to accommodate 1.1 times DM, plus 1.1 times the calculated
maximum thermal displacements. The utilities shall be designed to remain functional and serviceable

Page 45 of 56
 360 degree turn Elevator Bridge in Colombia
raised highway level sufficiently to eliminate 5
kilometers of tunnel, saving $10 million in costs. I40 Mississippi River Bridge

Dumbarton Bridge, California, Continued High Speed Train System Greece

Functionality with EPS pendulum isolators.

Antioch Bridge, California High Speed Train System, Turkey

Gualanday Bridge, Colombia High Speed Train System Spain

Page 46 of 56
when subject to the DM displacement demand. The Continued Functionality Criteria specified in this
SIS do not apply to bridges. The provisions of this SIS do not apply to the structural members or
structural design for the seismic isolation retrofit of existing bridges. However, all provisions in this
SIS regarding the isolators, isolator testing, and manufacturers shall apply to the isolators installed as
part of a seismic isolation retrofit.
Seismic Isolation Engineer Responsibilities
A Seismic Isolation Engineer shall be the responsible professional for the implementation of seismic
isolators and continued functionality criteria according to this SIS. The Seismic Isolation Engineer
shall submit a signed and stamped Seismic Isolation Engineering Report with calculations, drawings,
and test results demonstrating compliance with this SIS, including:
1. Isolators and structure compliance with the SIS requirements.
2. Installation details for the seismic isolators including their connections to other structure
components.
3. Details for construction components that are required to accommodate the seismic isolator lateral
and vertical seismic movements including: structure, architectural components, stairs, elevators,
utility services and distribution lines, walkways, roadways, floors, walls and ceilings.
4. The as-tested properties for new isolators reporting the upper and lower bound properties as
measured by the Dynamic Property Tests and Quality Control Tests specified in the SIS .
5. Isolator upper and lower bound analytical model properties for isolators, as determined from
applying Property Modification Factors: λ max, λ min, λ(ae, min, λ(ae, max), λ(ae, min), λ(test, max), λ(test,
min), λ(spec, max), λ(spec, min), as specified by ASCE 7-16 Section 17.2.8, to the results of the SIS
Qualification, Capacity, Dynamic Property, and Quality Control Tests.
6. Structure analysis of the isolated structure for the MCE using lower bound isolator properties to
calculate the DM displacement.
7. Structure analysis of the isolated structure for the DE using upper bound isolator properties
documenting compliance with SIS requirements for the: design lateral seismic loads as applicable
to the structure components above and below the seismic isolators; required lateral structural
design strengths and stiffness of structural components; structural component lateral drifts; and
median floor spectra accelerations.
Structure Design Professional Responsibilities
The Structure Design Professional shall specify the SIS in the list of construction standards, and
coordinate with the isolator Manufacturer to verify that any isolators specified will conform to the
performance and reliability intended by this SIS .
The Structure Design Professional shall approve that the isolators, testing, and the manufacturer’s
qualifications are compliant with this SIS , including:
1. Prior to the issuing of construction drawings, approve the Qualifications of the Seismic Isolator
Manufacturer in accordance with this SIS.
2. Prior to the issuing of construction drawings, approve specific isolator models based on the SIS
specified Qualification, Capacity, and Dynamic Property Tests.
3. On the construction drawings list the approved manufacturers and isolator models, and state: “in
the opinion of the Structure Design Professional the listed manufacturers and isolator models
satisfy the SIS qualification requirements.
4. Issue construction specifications that state that any alternate isolator models or manufacturers, not
listed as approved on the plans, shall be approved by the Structure Design Professional prior to
the construction bid submittal. That proposed alternate isolators shall equal to or better than the

Page 47 of 56
 isolators and manufacturers listed on the plans in their qualifications, capacities; properties; and
reliability based on SIS testing.
5. For isolators from a manufacturer that has not established their Isolator Property Modification
Factors through comprehensive execution of the SIS specified Qualification Tests, the Upper and
Lower Bound Property Modification Factors used in the structure design shall be the Default
Upper Bound Design Property Multiplier and Default Lower Bound Design Property Multiplier,
as specified in ASCE 7 Table C17.2-6.
6. Verify that the structure design dead loads, plus live loads, plus seismic overturning loads on the
isolators, as specified by ASCE 7 or AASHTO, are within the manufacturer’s rated design loads
as demonstrated through the SIS specified Capacity Tests.
7. Approve that the property, capacities, and test results for the isolators as submitted by the Seismic
Isolation Engineer are adequate to accommodate the structure demands for the DE and MCE
seismic spectra, as specified by the Structure Design Professional.
8. Review and approve all submittals required by this SIS from the Seismic Isolation Engineer and
Manufacturer. Isolator components may not be installed in the construction until written approvals
have been issued for all required submittals.
9. Design and detail the foundation and all structure members (except isolators) to resist the dead,
plus live, plus seismic loads occurring in the isolated structure. The structure design shall
explicitly include the effects of eccentric vertical isolator loads that occur at the DD isolator
displacement, to include the effect these eccentric loads have on the adjoining structural members.
Review and approve the connections of the isolators to the adjoining structural members.
10. Verify that the structure lateral drifts are within the 0.3% SIS drift limit.
11. Advise the owner of the SIS targeted seismic building damage limit of 2% of building replacement
cost, as compared to minimum ASCE 7 compliance with damage of 100% a likely outcome on
occurrence of the Maximum Considered Earthquake.
12. Inspect that the isolators have been installed in compliance with the Seismic Isolation
Engineer’s installation requirements.
13. Inspect all seismic movement details for compliance with the seismic performance objectives of
this SIS, and the seismic movement details specified by the Seismic Isolation Engineer.

Specifications for Construction Documents

Referenced standards shall include the Seismic Isolator Standard. [UCB SIS] https://bit.ly/3xbui7C
The construction specifications shall include the below:
“Continued Functionality General Contractor Responsibilities
The Structure Design Professional has specified the Seismic Isolator Standard “SIS”, as the
product standard for the seismic isolators. All seismic isolators shall comply with the properties
and capacities specified on the construction plans, in accordance with the requirements of the
Quality Control, Dynamic Properties, Capacities, and Qualification Tests specified in the SIS. The
Structure Design Professional believes that the isolator models specified on the construction plans
will comply with the SIS and these construction specifications without requiring changes to the
structure. The Contractor is required to complete all construction of the facility as required to
comply with the SIS, which intends to minimize damage caused by earthquake ground shaking to
less than 2% of building replacement costs. https://bit.ly/3xbui7C
The General Contractor is responsible to complete the construction of all structural, architectural,
and utility components in a manner that accommodate the seismic isolator movements. Before

Page 48 of 56
constructing or installing any components, the General Contractor shall submit for approval by the
Structure Design Professional, a Seismic Isolation Engineering Report signed and stamped, by a
Seismic Isolation Engineer qualified under the SIS, which: provides the details and specifications of
construction components that are required to accommodate the seismic isolator movements; specify
any required changes from the bid contract drawings to comply with the SIS; and documents that
the isolators, structure, and components subject to the seismic isolator displacements, comply with
the SIS requirements. After substantial completion of the structure, architectural components, and
utilities, the Seismic Isolation Engineer shall inspect the construction works for compliance, and
submit a signed and stamped Continued Functionality Certification, certifying that the construction
work is in compliance with the functionality requirements of the SIS. The Seismic Isolation
Engineering Report, and compliance with the SIS functionality requirements is included in the total
price of the contract.
The Structure Design Professional has considered various different seismic isolator types being sold
worldwide, and believes that the isolators shown on the construction plans represent the best value
for compliance with the SIS Functionality criteria, when considering isolator performance,
reliability, installed cost, and total structural, architectural, and utilities costs. Prior to construction
bid, the Contractor may request approval for alternate isolators that comply with these specifications,
and the SIS. The properties, capacities, and reliability of the alternate isolators shall be equal to or
better than those of the isolators specified on the plans, as demonstrated through SIS testing. For
alternate isolators to be permitted in the construction the Contractor’s bid submittal shall include an
approval in writing by the Structure Design Professional for the alternate isolators. To obtain this
approval, the contractor shall submit the proposed alternate Manufacturer’s Qualifications, and test
results for Quality Control, Dynamic Properties, Capacities, and Qualification, as specified by the
SIS, as applicable to the alternate isolator models offered. All test results for alternate isolators shall
show capacities, properties, and reliability that are equal or better that those of the isolators specified
on the construction plans. If alternate isolators are used in the construction, the Structure Design
Professional shall choose any one alternate isolator of each model delivered to the construction, and
send it to an independent laboratory for validation tests, consisting of performing the SIS Quality
Control Test. Alternate isolators that pass the validation test may be installed in the construction.
If an alternate isolator fails the validation tests, five additional alternate isolators of the same model
shall be sent for validation testing. If any of the five additional alternate isolators fails the validation
tests, then all isolators of that model shall be rejected and not used in the construction. The
Contractor is responsible to supply the alternate isolators as needed for validation testing. The
Contractor is responsible for any cost and schedule impacts resulting from the use of the alternate
isolators, validation testing; and any costs, delays, or impacts, including: approval process; isolator
non-compliance; required construction changes. The Contractor is responsible for any earthquake
shaking damage to the facility or its contents resulting from failure of alternate isolators to have
equal or better capacities, properties, and reliability, than the isolators specified on the plans.

Page 49 of 56
Authors and Contributors
Victor Zayas, PhD, Earthquake Engineer
Hall of Fame Member, American Society of Civil Engineers
Lifetime Achievement Award Winner
Structural Engineers Association of California
Academy of Distinguished Alumni,
University of California, Berkeley
Doctorate in Structural Earthquake Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley
Inventor of Pendulum Seismic Isolators
California Licensed Professional Engineer
California Licensed Building Contractor
President and Founder, Earthquake Protection Systems
Dr. Zayas’ PhD thesis work was elected to an ASCE Hall of Fame for: “Pioneering Innovation and
Lasting Impact”. The Structural Engineers Association of California awarded Victor their “Lifetime
Achievement Award” stating: “Victor Zayas has changed the practice of structural engineering for
the better”. Dr. Zayas is an inaugural member of the Academy of Distinguished Alumni, of the
University of California Berkeley, Civil Engineering Department. Victor is the inventor of pendulum
seismic isolators, and founder and president of Earthquake Protection Systems California, “EPS”.
Structure Engineer Magazine cover story cites “Victor Zayas: Steady Innovation”. “Zayas embodies
the entrepreneurial spirit while also helping to invent and shape how engineering can continue to
improve.” https://goo.gl/b1drt8 Victor@EarthquakeProtection.com
Dr. Zayas is the world’s leading engineer implementing seismic isolators that minimize damage
sufficiently to maintain functionality. For 40 years, Victor has advocated that all seismic isolators
should minimize damage sufficiently to maintain functionality. Implementing Victor’s “Continued
Functionality” objectives, his pendulum isolators have been installed in over $400 Billion in
constructed value of important buildings, bridges, and industrial facilities, in 32 countries. In stark
contrast, 99% of rubber isolators have been implemented for only minimum compliance with ductile
structure codes that intend only collapse avoidance.
Dr. Zayas was awarded his PhD from the University of California Berkeley, working with Professors
Popov, Clough, Penzien, Bertero, and Mahin during the 1970s. Zayas’ concept for ductile structures
was to increase a structure’s lateral displacement capacity by developing ductile structure member
details that would distribute seismic displacements throughout the structure height, and thus avoid
concentrations of displacements in any one portion of a structure, which typically is the primary cause
of structure collapse. Victor’s thesis contributed to all modern seismic codes that specify ductile
structures to avoid the collapse of buildings, bridges, and industrial facilities. These “ductile
structures” allow large inelastic structural deformations that absorb the earthquake energy and avoid
collapse during strong earthquakes, saving millions of lives worldwide. However, Dr. Zayas became
dissatisfied observing the severe damage that occurs with the ductile structures as implemented in the
building codes, which have design strengths of less than 10% of strong earthquake demands. These
ductile structures suffer more damage than the older structure types that were stronger.

Page 50 of 56
Thus, in 1978 Victor started to develop pendulum seismic isolators that would avoid seismic damage
and maintain post-earthquake functionality. This started his 43 years of continuous developments on
isolator materials that would: deliver reliable properties when subject to adverse environmental
conditions for 50 years; displacement based seismic design; isolated structure construction methods;
earthquake shaking damage estimations; the Seismic Isolator Standard; and the Continued
Functionality Standard. Victor’s pendulum isolators provide quantified control of a structure’s
period, damping, and displacement capacity, instead of passively accepting the periods, yielding,
inelastic displacement demands, and high in-structure accelerations and deformations that result in
severe damage. In structures compliant with the Continued Functionality Standard (CFS), the
structural members remain elastic, and “special” ductile detailing is not required. Damage is thus
avoided, and structures are constructed faster and at lower costs, as compared to the “special moment
frames” ductile structures specified in the building codes.
For 3 decades, Victor has stated that seismic isolators that do not absorb a majority of the
displacement demand for the design earthquake will not limit damage sufficiently to maintain
functionality, and should not be used. Earthquake damage suffered by buildings having “code
compliant” isolators have shown this to be correct. The stiffness observed for rubber isolators during
design earthquakes has been much higher than the code assumed “effective stiffness” for the
maximum considered earthquake, which is why these structures have experienced severe damage
during seismic events. [Kuang] https://goo.gl/qRRjbW
The functionality criteria herein, the damage criteria tables, and the damage estimation curves were
developed by Dr. Zayas, based on 45 years of studying damage that occurred during earthquakes, and
FEMA P58 and structural analyses developed to estimate damage, and shake table tests of isolated
and non-isolated structures. These criteria, tables, and curves provide reasonable simplified estimates
of earthquake damage limits as applicable to functionality and economic losses, such that they serve
as a guide in decisions made in the design of facilities regarding and likely impacts of earthquakes.
As first author and primary editor, Victor Zayas accepts full and sole responsibility for all contents of
this Continued Functionality Standard and Seismic Isolator Standard, including how the contributions
by the co-authors and other contributors are implemented herein.
Professor Stephen Mahin
Prof. Mahin served as a professor of Structural Engineering in the
Department of Civil Engineering at UC Berkeley, from 1977 until his
death in 2018. Professor Mahin is internationally recognized as the
leading academic advocate of resilient structures. He worked
collaboratively with Victor Zayas for 40 years: 7 years on the
development of ductile structures; 33 years on the testing of EPS
pendulum isolators, and 10 years on the advancement of Continued
Functionality criteria, and this CFS. https://goo.gl/18gw4b
https://goo.gl/Mra83H Prof. Mahin stated often that seismic isolation
was the most effective and reliable means of achieving functionality,
which should be the performance objective of structural earthquake
engineering. Prof. Mahin’s collaboration on this Continued Functionality Standard, was his top
priority for his last year of life. Prof. Mahin is former Director of the Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research (PEER) Center, and is a past SEAONC Board Director, and an Honorary
Member of SEAONC.

Page 51 of 56
Other Contributors
Professor Constantinou participated as contributor and co-author of this CFS from 2017 through 2020,
and as researcher performing laboratory qualification tests of EPS pendulum isolators since 1989.
This Continued Functionality Standard has been a collaborative effort that included over 100
structural design professionals and clients that collaborated with EPS engineers in applications of
pendulum isolators. The success of these applications to maintain functionality during severe
earthquakes provided the proof that the functionality criteria in this CFS serve the intended purpose.
Regarding prior research work by others, Ibrahim Almufti, Vesna Terzi, and Akira Wada contributed
through their pioneering preceding work and advocacy for seismic resiliency.
Regarding applications to structures, EPS gives special thanks to the structural design firms of ARUP,
Skidmore Owings & Merrill, and Nabih Yousseff Associates for their pioneering applications of
pendulum seismic isolators. Practicing structural engineers: Atila Zekioglu, Eric Ko, Nabih Youssef,
Mark Sarkisian, Peter Lee, Huseyin Darama, Kit Miyamoto, King Lee, Mason Walters, Enrique
Morales, Marcello Romo, Telmo Andres, Luis Espinola, Jhon Choque, Juan Conteras, Gregory
Nielsen, Bryce Tanner, John Worley, Masahiko Higashino, Sean Gledhill, and Michael Gemmill, all
made contributions in the evolution of the applications of seismic isolators. The engineers at EPS
that contributed important content to this Continued Functionality Standard include: Stanley Low,
Anoop Mokha, Fayad Rahman, Yasser Bigdeli, and Vincent Nettles. EPS engineers developed the
structural analyses models and methods specified herein, by calibrating them against shake table test
results of isolated structures performed at UC Berkeley, SUNY Buffalo, and Japan’s E-Defense shake
table. The formula for calculating the probability of collapse based on collapse margin ratio and total
structural system variance was derived by Fayad Rahman, based on the criteria for the permitted
statistical probability of collapse specified in FEMA P695.
Stephen Mahin and Ben Shao performed the primary FEMA P695 analyses study that calculated the
isolator capacity factors of safety needed to satisfy ASCE 7 Target Reliabilities, for isolated structures
that are designed for minimum compliance with ASCE 7-16, Chapter 17. Michael Constantinou and
Sharma Kitayama, using independent calculation methods developed at SUNY Buffalo, validated
essentially the same required isolator capacity factors of safety. This independent validation satisfies
the scientific requirement of independent verification for a scientific method to be generally accepted.

References
AASHTO, “Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design”, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, 4th Edition, 2014.
Apple, “Inside Apple’s Earthquake Ready Headquarters”, 2019. http://bit.ly/2IhE3ZB
ARUP Engineering Consultants, REDi Rating System: Resilience Based Earthquake Design
Initiative for the Next Generation of Buildings, ARUP San Francisco, https://goo.gl/gjvmGt
ASCE Standard 7 (2016 edition). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Washington D.C.
ATC (2018); “Seismic Isolation Standard for Continued Functionality”, US-Japan-New Zealand
Workshop, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California. https://bit.ly/3ejIzqe
ATC (2010), Seismic Design Methodology to Avoid Damage to Structures, Non-Structural
Components and Contents, US-Japan Workshop, Applied Technology, Council, Redwood City,
California. https://goo.gl/18gw4b

Page 52 of 56
ATC (2016), Earthquake Reconnaissance April 16th, Muisne Ecuador, Applied Technology Council,
Redwood City, California. https://goo.gl/w8WbYr https://goo.gl/k9NXPP
Chevers and Abrahamson, “Earthquake: The Long Road Back: Hospitals Strained to the Limit by
Injured: Medical care: Doctors treat quake victims in parking lots. Details of some disaster-
related deaths are released.”, Los Angeles Times, January 19, 1994. https://goo.gl/oY5Kci
Choque (2021), The design and construction of hospitals that will maintain function after
earthquakes: in compliance with Peru's law of Secure Hospitals, and the Peru Code E30, and ASCE
7-16 Functionality Requirements, Universidad National de Ingenieria, Facultad de Ingenieria Civil,
Thesis, Lima Peru. https://bit.ly/32CceWr
Constantinou, MCEER Report 16-0006, “Seismic Isolation of High Voltage Electric Power
Transformers”.
Constantinou (2017) Review of EN15129 Isolator Standard, submitted to Karl Stumwöhrer-Gleich
WG Secretary, CEN/TC 340 WG 5, EuroCode Committee. http://bit.ly/3p3FsGP
Constantinou (2017) Review of Muisne Hospital isolators and EN15129, submitted to Enrique
Morales, ESPE University Ecuador. http://bit.ly/2HdEX6y
WG Secretary, CEN/TC 340 WG 5, EuroCode Committee. http://bit.ly/3p3FsGP
Cook, Fitzgerald, Chrupalo, Haselton, Comparison of FEMA P-58 With Other Building Seismic Risk
Assesment Methods, Haselton Baker Risk Group, 2017. https://goo.gl/6Sp0ud
EERI, Earthquake Reconnaissance Team Report: “M7.8 Muisne Ecuador Earthquake on April 16,
2016”, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, October 2016. https://goo.gl/kYNmjc
ENR, Engineering News Record, “City Agency Reaches Out to Contractors”, 2013.
https://goo.gl/ifc9uz
EPS (2020), Seismic Isolation Project List bit.ly/3349tP7
EPS (2019), “Seismic Engineering Leads the Way to Achieve Continued Functionality of Hospitals
in California”, Earthquake Protection Systems, Vallejo California, 2013. https://goo.gl/xa98Kz
EPS (2018), Seismic Isolation Engineering Report for Basakshehir Hospital Health Campus, Turkey,
Isolator Submittal by Earthquake Protection Systems, CA. http://bit.ly/2ABHJoh
EPS (2017), Seismic Isolation Engineering Report for Pinas Del Oro Hospital, Ecuador, Isolator
Submittal by Earthquake Protection Systems, CA. https://goo.gl/vjHcf2
EPS (2006), Earthquake Protection Systems, “Friction Pendulum Seismic Isolation Bearings for the
Protection of Buildings, Bridges, and Industrial Facilities, 2006. https://goo.gl/uGkrza
ESPE, Memorandum on Dangerous Isolators to the Ministers of Health, Construction, and Defense,
University of the Army Corp of Engineers, January 2018. https://goo.gl/e1Auwi
FEMA P58, Seismic Performance Assessments of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington D.C, 2012. https://goo.gl/NkMpcB
FEMA P695, Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington D.C, 2009. https://goo.gl/Fh3Dap
FEMA P795, Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors: Component Equivalency
Methodology, Federal Emergency Management, Washington D.C, 2011. https://goo.gl/1AJmd5
FEMA P751, NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions: Design Examples, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington D.C, 2012. https://goo.gl/kYAnav
FIP, Court Case for Fraud and Bribery in the sale of Defective Isolators, https://goo.gl/JBTwDa
Haselton, Cook, Resilient Seismic Design Using Prescriptive and Non-Prescriptive Design Methods,
Haselton Baker Risk Group, 2017. https://goo.gl/ZQJ5o1

Page 53 of 56
Haselton CB, Baker JW, Liel AB, Deierlein GG. (2011). “Accounting for Ground-Motion Spectral
Shape Characteristics in Structural Collapse Assessment through an Adjustment for Epsilon”,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 137(3), 332-344.
Imbsen, Zayas, Mokha, Low, Seismic Design for Resilient and Sustainable Bridges, 7th National
Seismic Conference on Bridges, Transportation Research Board, 2013. https://goo.gl/SGKx1O
ISO, International Standards Organization, “Reaping the Benefits of ISO 9001”, https://goo.gl/FN5y3R
Japan Property Central (2012), 30% of Apartments with Base Isolation Systems Suffered Damage in
Earthquake, JapanPropertyCentral.com, January 30, 2012. https://goo.gl/WXICTN
Kitayama S, Constantinou MC. (2018). “Seismic Performance Assessment of Seismically Isolated
Buildings Designed by the Procedures of ASCE/SEI 7”, MCEER 18-0004, Multidisciplinary
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, USA. http://bit.ly/2OctUPY
Kuang et al, Christchurch Women’s Hospital: Performance Analysis of the Base Isolated System
During the Series of Canterbury Earthquakes 2011-2012, Report CF1297, University of
Canterbury, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand.
https://goo.gl/qRRjbW
Lin T, Haselton CB, Baker JW. (2013). “Conditional Spectrum-Based Ground Motion Selection. Part
I: Hazard Consistency for Risk-Based Assessments”, Earthquake and Structural Engineering.
McVitty, W.J. and Constantinou, M.C. (2015). Property Modification Factors for Seismic Isolators:
Design Guidance for Buildings, Report MCEER-15-0005, NCEER, Univeristy at Buffalo,
https://goo.gl/4rGXTG
Morales (2019). A Real Life Resiliency Experiment: Los Caras Bridge of Ecuador, PowerPoint at the
2nd International Conference on Natural Hazards, Greece http://bit.ly/2YWQHDB
Morales, Romo, SHaro, Sinde, Aroca, Nikolaou, Diaz-Fanaz . A Real Life Resiliency Experiment:
The Los Caras Bridge of Ecaudor, Proceedings Natural Hazards, Greece http://bit.ly/2MPZjJO
Morgan, Mahin, The Use of Innovative Base Isolation Systems to Achieve Complex Seismic
Performance Objectives, PEER 2011/06, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley, 2011. https://goo.gl/wO4v6w
Nakazawa T., Kishiki S., Qu Z., Miyoshi A., Wada A. (2011). Fundamental Study on Probabilistic
Evaluation of the Ultimate State of Base Isolated Structures, 8th International Conference
Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan. https://goo.gl/OceDvj
Nakazawa T., Kishiki, Qu Z., Wada A. (2012). Safety margin ratio-based design of isolation gap size
for base-isolated structures, Proceedings, 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Lisbon, Portugal.
NIST (2011). “Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing
Rehttps://goo.gl/vSmr6M sponse-History Analysis.” NIST GCR 11-917-15. Technical Report,
prepared by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology: Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
OSHPD, California Office of Statewide Health Planning (2005), California’s Hospital Seismic Safety
Law, State of California. https://goo.gl/SZ7urR
PAHO, Pan American Health Organization “SAFE HOSPITALS - A Collective Responsibility A
Global Measure of Disaster Reduction”, 2007 https://goo.gl/4azArF

Page 54 of 56
PAHO, Pan American Health Organization, “The Earthquake in Ecuador: Significant Damage to
Health Facilities”, News Letter, June 2016, https://goo.gl/xATBGq www.paho.org/disasters
PAHO, Pan American Health Organization, “La Política National de Hospitales Seguros”, 2007:
https://goo.gl/k7P87x
PEER Report, “Development of an electrical substation equipment performance database for
evaluation of equipment fragilities”, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, UC Berkeley, 1999.
Roussis P.E., Constantinou M.C., Erdik M., Durukal E., Dicleli M. (2008). Assessment of
performance of Bolu Viaduct in the 1999 Duzce earthquake in Turkey, Technical Report MCEER
02-0001, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering, State University of New York,
Buffalo, NY. https://goo.gl/Bsvd1r
SEM, Structural Engineer Magazine, Victor Zayas Steady Innovation, publisher Zweigwhite, March
2014. https://goo.gl/b1drt8
Shao, Mahin and Zayas, Member Capacity Factors for Seismic Isolators as Required to Limit
Isolated Structure Collapse Risks to Within ASCE 7 Stipulated Structure Collapse Risk Limits,
University of California Berkeley, UCB/SEMM-2017/02, Structural Engineering and Structural
Mechanics Division. https://goo.gl/Mra83H
Takahashi Y. (2012) Damage of rubber bearing and dampers of bridges in the 2011 great East Japan
earthquake, Proceedings International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned from the
2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, Tokyo Japan. https://goo.gl/0TgfxW
Terzic, Merrifield, Mahin, Lifecycle Cost Comparisons of Different Structural Systems, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 2012.
https://goo.gl/BYbxNB
Telegrafo, Experts Alert for Seismic Hospitals, El Telegrafo News for Ecuador.
http://bit.ly/2YW6Xos
Texas Instruments, Post Earthquake Inspection of the Texas Instruments Manufacturing Plant After
the 2019 Magnitude 6.1 Philippines Earthquake, EPS Project Report . http://bit.ly/2KIPx9y
UCB CFS (2021) “Continued Functionality Standard”, University of California Berkeley Civil
Engineering, updated 2021, https://goo.gl/h82Fnk
UCB SIS (2021); “Seismic Isolator Standard”, University of California Berkeley Civil Engineering,
updated 2021. https://bit.ly/3xbui7C
UCB SISCF (2017); “Seismic Isolation Standard for Continued Functionality”, University of
California Berkeley Civil Engineering, first publication, December 2017. http://bit.ly/3nBsP5m
UCB (2016). Safe and Unsafe Isolated Structures, Structural Engineering and Structural Mechanics
Division, University of California, Berkeley, 2016, https://bit.ly/3sOhK2Y
Ukai T, “Problems of Emergency Medical Care at the Time of the Great Hanshin-Awaji
Earthquake”, Osaka City General Hospital, Japan, December 1996. https://goo.gl/rFpuqd
WHO, World Health Organization, “Safe Hospitals in Emergencies and Disasters: Structural, Non-
structural and Functional Indicators Save Lives!”, 2010. https://goo.gl/AdTZJu
WHO, World Health Organization, “Access to Health Services a Challenge After Chile Earthquake”,
Media Center, February and March 2010. https://goo.gl/AycD9Z

Page 55 of 56
Zayas (2013), Seismic Isolation Design Criteria for Continued Functionality, Proceedings SEAOC
2013 Annual Convention, San Diego, CA. https://goo.gl/5u3Sco
Zayas (2018), Saving Lives Building Hospitals That Function After Earthquakes, Earthquake
Protection Systems, Vallejo California. http://bit.ly/2QvuhFA www.EarthquakeProtection.com
Zayas (2011), Seismic Design for a Resilient and Sustainable Society, 8CUEE, Tokyo Institute of
Technology, 2011. https://goo.gl/GLsHi2
Zayas (2014), Seismic Isolation Engineering Report for Apple Corporate Headquarters, Engineering
Report, Earthquake Protection Systems, CA. 2015 http://bit.ly/3qd8Nj1
Zayas (2014), Seismic Isolation Engineering Report for Basakshehir Hospital in Turkey, Engineering
Report, Earthquake Protection Systems, CA. 2018 http://bit.ly/2ABHJoh
Zayas, “Seismic Designs for Resilient Structures”, 2015. https://goo.gl/bW6Ynm
Zayas, Low, and Mahin, S. (1987). The FPS Earthquake Resisting System, Experimental Report.
Report No. UCB/EERC-87/01, 1987.
Zayas, Low, Bozzo, and Mahin, S. (1989). Feasibility and Performance Studies on Improving the
Earthquake Resistance of New and Existing Buildings Using the Friction Pendulum System.
Report No. UCB/EERC-89/09, September 1989.
Zayas, Low, and Mahin, S., 1990. A Simple Pendulum Technique for Achieving Seismic Isolation,
Earthquake Spectra 6, 317–333.
Zayas, Earthquake Protection Systems, “Friction Pendulum Seismic Isolation Bearings for the
Protection of Buildings, Bridges, and Industrial Facilities”, 2006, https://goo.gl/YY8Lgn
https://goo.gl/SAbMif
Zayas, “Seismic Isolation Design for Resilient Buildings”, 2013. https://goo.gl/AB916z
Zayas, “Ultimate Earthquake Resistance of Steel Offshore Structures” PhD Thesis UC Berkeley, 1980
Zayas, Victor Zayas, PhD, California Professional Engineer. https://goo.gl/hzm6Z2

Page 56 of 56