International Journal of Civil Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-019-00462-x (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV)

RESEARCH PAPER

Assessment of ASCE 7–16 Seismic Isolation Bearing Torsional

Displacement
Wael M. Hassan1,2

Received: 3 May 2019 / Revised: 8 August 2019 / Accepted: 9 September 2019

Ó Iran University of Science and Technology 2019

Abstract
Base isolation provisions in ASCE 7 Standard have been historically shown to be conservative in estimating seismic demands.
New torsional bearing base isolation displacement expressions have been proposed recently by the latest ASCE 7–16
Standard. This study compares the accuracy of the new ASCE 7–16 static-based isolation expressions for additional bearing
displacement due to plane torsion to the response obtained using simplified structural dynamics’ plane torsion theory
expressions. In addition, it conducts a parametric study to assess the effect of accidental eccentricity, damping ratio, and plan
aspect ratio on the accuracy of ASCE 7–16 bearing displacement expression. The results showed that the ASCE 7–16
undamped displacement estimations improved compared to the significant conservatism of ASCE 7–10 by 7–33% depending
on the eccentricity condition and ratio, which may further promote the use of base isolation in the US as a seismic hazard
mitigation solution. However, the study also revealed that a considerable conservatism of the new base isolation bearing
displacement provisions of ASCE 7–16 still exists in some cases, which ranged from 52 to 105% in the case of three equal
fundamental frequencies and 5–20% in the case of equal lateral frequency and distinct torsional frequency. The study also
showed that the ASCE 7–16 conservatism is proportional to the eccentricity and is more pronounced with biaxial eccentricity
compared to single eccentricity. Furthermore, the results show that ASCE 7–16 expression accuracy significantly declines
with damped systems with a possibility of un-conservative estimation of bearing displacements that can reach 25–40% with
larger eccentricities. In addition, the ASCE 7–16 torsional displacement was shown to be inversely proportional to the plan
aspect ratio with a discrepancy that can reach ± 20%. The study also exhibited that the ASCE 7–16 torsional displacement
conservatism is slightly affected by increasing damping ratio above 4%.

Keywords ASCE 7  Seismic isolation  Base isolation  Torsion  Accidental eccentricity  Lead rubber bearing

1 Introduction strong earthquake (e.g., emergency centers, hospitals, and fire

In recent years, the base isolation seismic hazard mitigation
procedure has been successfully adapted in many buildings
across the United States. Base isolation is the optimum alter-
native in many cases, such as when the equipment in the
structure is much more expensive than the structure itself (e.g.,
acceleration sensitive nanotechnology and chip manufacturing
facilities), structures that have to be fully operational after a
& Wael M. Hassan
wmhassan@alaska.edu
1
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alaska, 3211
Providence Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508, USA
2
Housing and Building National Research Center, 87 Tahrir
Street, Giza, Egypt
stations), structures that may cause severe disasters if partially
damaged, and structures with historical value that could be
altered by conventional retrofitting and stiffening techniques.
Base isolation has gained popularity as an efficient structural
control and seismic hazard mitigation alternative, and has been
successfully used in many buildings across the United States.
Internationally, base isolation has gained even more attention,
especially in Japan after the 1995 Kobe earthquake, and has
often been extended even to one story residential structures.
Eventually, that may lead to a cost reduction due to high
demand, which could make base isolation one of the top
competitors in earthquake hazard mitigation. However, the US
code provisions for base isolation bearing displacement have
long been suspected to be overly conservative, which may have
increased the cost of base isolation as a design option. Warn and

123

Ryan [1] present a historical view of the development and usage
of base-isolated systems.
The lack of understanding and scarcity of test data and
analytical studies, along with the unjustified desire to
enlarge the factor of safety in the field of base isolation of
structures, led many building code expressions’ accuracy to
be overly conservative. Analytical studies have quantified
that conservatism [2, 3]. Recent changes were made to the
bearing displacement expressions in the ASCE/SEI Stan-
dard: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other
Structures (ASCE 7–16) [4]. Several recent studies tackled
different advanced methods to compute the seismic
response of isolated shear buildings, including perfor-
mance-based engineering (with fragility analysis), soft
computing methods, and retrofit applications [5–8]. Other
researchers [9] studied the dynamic torsional amplification
of eccentric base-isolated systems, which is not accounted
for in current design codes. However, the accuracy of the
basic code-based methods used by most practicing engi-
neers to evaluate seismic isolator displacement is not well
covered in the literature. In addition, ASCE 7’s bearing
displacement method is based on equivalent lateral force
(static) analysis expressions, not accounting for the
dynamic nature of the problem, especially with torsional
ground motions, yet practicing engineers use these
expressions in dynamic response history analysis. ASCE 7
expressions are intended to deal with isolated structures
that encounter accidental eccentricities due to the distri-
bution of inelastic action in the isolators and to the effects
of torsional ground motion. However, since ASCE 7 is
based on static consideration, its inherent conservatism
might be partially due to this simplification. Recent studies
[10, 11] evaluated the accuracy of ASCE 7–10 expressions
against ground motion dynamic analysis and found inap-
propriate inaccuracy in its bearing displacement due to
torsional ground motions. Basu et al. [10, 12] examined the
procedures of ASCE 7–10 for treating accidental eccen-
tricity as means for accounting for the effects of torsional
ground motion by analysis of simple linear and nonlinear
systems. They showed that ASCE 7–10 procedures do not
achieve the desired trends when torsional ground motion
effects are considered, namely, increased component
demands with increasing accidental eccentricity, thus
seismically isolated buildings designed by the minimum
criteria of ASCE 7–10 may have unacceptable probabilities
of collapse. They proposed an alternate approach for using
accidental eccentricity concepts in accounting for torsional
ground effects for simple linear and nonlinear systems. On
the other hand, Wolff et al. [11] showed that the measured
torsional amplification ratios correspond to accidental
eccentricities of about half of the code-based 5% of largest
plan dimension. It discussed current practice to calculate
the amplification factor for the displacement demand due to
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
torsion and proposed a rational improvement for predicting
these amplification factors for torsionally stiff seismic
isolation systems.
However, only one study could be located in the literature
to generally evaluate the new ASCE 7–16 revised torsion
displacement expressions. This study, by Kitayama and
Constantinou [13, 14], investigated what isolated buildings
offer in terms of performance criteria other than collapse
performance. Based on a probabilistic approach, mean annual
frequencies of exceedance of story drift, residual story drift,
and floor acceleration are computed for a number of isolated
and non-isolated buildings that meet the minimum criteria of
ASCE 7–16 and other enhanced criteria. For a life-span of
50 years, they showed that seismically isolated buildings
designed by the minimum or enhanced criteria generally have
lower probabilities to develop damage or to be in need of
demolishing than any minimally designed non-isolated
building. They conducted a special case study for an
archetypical 6-story perimeter frame seismically isolated
buildings designed with special concentrically braced frames
(SCBF), ordinary concentrically braced frames (OCBF), and
special moment resisting frames (SMF) for a location in
California using the minimum criteria of ASCE 7–10 and
ASCE 7–16 and also using a number of enhanced designs.
Their isolation system consists of triple Friction Pendulum
(FP) isolators with stiffening behavior at large displacement.
In addition, double concave sliding isolators are considered
and designed per minimum criteria of ASCE 7 and without a
displacement restrainer, a practice permitted by the standards.
Counterpart fixed-based structures, also with braced and
moment frame configurations, are designed using the mini-
mum criteria of ASCE 7. The study concludes that seismically
isolated buildings designed by the minimum criteria of ASCE
7 of either 2010 or 2016 may have unacceptable probability of
collapse in the Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earth-
quake (MCE). It is also observed that designs that meet the
minimum criteria of ASCE/SEI 7 of either 2010 or 2016 and
without any displacement restrainer have unacceptably high
probabilities of collapse. Atmaca et al. [15] conducted a study
to investigate the earthquake effects using three ground
motions on a cable-stayed bridge isolated by single concave
friction pendulum bearings using SAP2000 platform which
exhibited reasonable accuracy in estimating the seismic
demands and showing the efficiency of isolators due to the
limited material nonlinearity in base-isolated systems.
1.1 Problem Statement
The present study offers a primary code evaluation
research to address this possible inaccuracy in the new
ASCE 7–16 provisions for seismic isolation bearing design
displacement from a different perspective, rooted more in
the structural dynamics theory. It compares torsion
International Journal of Civil Engineering
displacement demands from those provisions to analytical
models’ bearing displacements computed using closed-
form rigid-block dynamic expressions. In particular, the
study evaluates the bearing displacement increase due to
additional expected torsion displacement, due to plane
torsion eccentricity effects representing either amplified
accidental eccentricity or torsional ground motions. The
current analytical study comprises assessment of the ASCE
7–16 bearing displacement provision for three distinct
cases. The first case is for three close undamped natural
frequencies of the isolation system, the second is for three
close frequencies damped systems, and the third is for the
equal lateral frequencies and distinct torsional frequency
undamped system. The goal is to estimate the possible
discrepancy in the new ASCE 7–16 expressions from a
global dynamic theory perspective, which allows clear
identification of possible discrepancy sources, as a basis for
more comprehensive future studies using the current or
newly proposed ASCE 7 expressions, that involve isolated
buildings’ fragility analysis based on probabilistic torsional
ground motion simulations and increased accidental
eccentricities. Without such a code validation study, it is
hard to assume that the new ASCE 7–16 base isolation
requirements for bearing design displacements improved
upon the significant conservatism in the previous ASCE
7–10 and IBC versions that rendered base isolation an
expensive design alternative for decades. The previous
ASCE-10 expressions for the additional bearing displace-
ment due to 3-D torsion effects, the reduction of bearing
displacement due to superstructure flexibility, and the
increase in bearing displacement by scaling up ground
motion to account for the bi-directional effects of the
earthquake were all believed to be inaccurate. The accu-
racy of the new ASCE 7–16 additional bearing displace-
ment due to 3-D torsion is tested in the current study
against the 3D torsion theory and a contrasted to the pre-
vious ASCE 7–10 displacement estimation.
1.2 Objectives
The main objective of the current study is to assess the
accuracy of the ASCE 7–16 new expression for the addi-
tional bearing displacement due to plane torsion effect by
comparing the analytical results from 3D rigid-block plane
torsion dynamic theory for bearing displacement to those
resulting from the ASCE 7–16 expression. Since this new
standard is widely used by practicing engineers in base
isolation design, the goal is rather to inform engineers
about the level of possible discrepancy they should expect
when using the new standard. A secondary objective of the
study is to assess the possible improvement in estimation of
bearing displacements by ASCE 7–16 compared to the
significantly conservative estimation by ASCE 7–10. In
addition, a parametric study is presented to show the
effects of accidental eccentricity condition and magnitude,
damping ratio, and plan aspect ratio on the accuracy of the
new bearing displacement expression in ASCE 7–16. This
research provides new information on the accuracy of the
main standard used for base isolation design, leading to
recommendations that researchers and structural engineers
exercise caution when using the new standard.
2 Analysis Program
The present study was carried out using a base-isolated
three-story symmetric reinforced concrete benchmark
building whose model is shown in Fig. 1. The first part of
the analysis program is intended to assess the new ASCE
7–16 expression for the additional isolation bearing dis-
placement due to additional expected displacement, which
in turn is due to plane torsion effects of torsional ground
motion or large accidental eccentricity, through comparing
bearing displacements obtained from theoretical dynamic
analysis of the model building subjected to a unit impulse
velocity to ASCE 7–16 standard expression’s displace-
ment. The second part of the analysis comprises a para-
metric study investigating the effects of eccentricity, plan
aspect ratio, and damping ratio on the accuracy of the
ASCE 7–16 bearing displacement expression.
The model building has a lateral load resisting system
composed of external intermediate concrete frames and
internal gravity frames. The building’s plan dimensions are
120 9 120 ft. It has three stories each of 15 ft. height. The
building has three floor slabs of 6 in. thickness and a base slab
above the isolators’ level with the same thickness. The
framing system comprises four bays; each has a 30 ft. span in
each direction with 24 9 24 in. cross section columns and
beams. The column reinforcement is 12#8 for external col-
umns and 12#6 for internal columns, while the beam rein-
forcement is 5#8 top and bottom for external beams and 5#6
top and bottom for internal beams. A total of 25 isolation
bearings exist. The design load is 150 psf. The isolation rub-
ber bearing was designed according to ASCE 7–16. It has an
18 in. diameter and 12 in. height. Its shear modulus is 120 psi
and a horizontal stiffness of 5 kips/in. The characteristic
compressive cylinder strength of concrete is 4 ksi, while the
nominal yield strength of reinforcing steel is 60 ksi. CSI’s
SAP2000 software was used to solve the eigenvalue problem
and obtain the fundamental frequencies of the system.
In the parametric study concerned with the effect of plan
aspect ratio on the accuracy of the ASCE 7–16 expression, the
plan dimensions are changed to 60 9 120 ft., 90 9 120 ft.,
150 9 120 ft., and 180 9 120 ft., while the number of iso-
lators is maintained at 25. In the eccentricity ratio parametric
study, seven eccentricity ratios were tested between e/rI = 0.1
123

Fig. 1 a SAP2000 Building Model 3D rendering; b plan dimensions for DTD calculation in (ASCE 7–16)
and e/rI = 0.7. In the plan aspect ratio effect parametric study,
three eccentricity values are used: e/rI = 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3. In
the damping effect parametric study, six damping ratios are
considered between b = 0 and b = 12%. Two eccentricity
conditions are considered for three parametric studies—
namely, equal double eccentricities ex = ey and single y-di-
rection eccentricity ex = 0 and ey [ 0.
3 ASCE 7–16 Bearing Displacement
Provisions
The ASCE 7–16 expression for total bearing displacement,
including the additional displacement due to plane torsion
generated from eccentricity, is Eq. 17.5-3 (ASCE 7–16):
    sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
y 12e
DTM ¼ DM 1 þ ; ð1Þ
P2T b2 þ d2
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
where DTM is the total bearing displacement, DM is the
displacement at the center of rigidity of the isolation sys-
tem in the direction under consideration (unaffected by
torsion), y is the distance between center of rigidity of
isolation system and the element of interest (Fig. 1),
measured perpendicular to the seismic loading under con-
sideration, e is the actual eccentricity (between center of
mass of the superstructure and the center of rigidity of the
isolation system plus a minimum of 0.05 the longest plan
dimension perpendicular to force direction (for accidental
torsion), b is the shortest plan dimension of the structures,
d is the longest plan dimension, and PT is the ratio of the
effective translational period of the isolation system to its
effective torsional period, not less than 1, calculated by
dynamic analysis or via:
PN
1 2
i¼1 ðxi þ yi Þ
2
PT ¼ ; ð2Þ
rI N
International Journal of Civil Engineering

which can be simplified to:

the isolation system; N is the number of isolator units, rI is
!
the radius of gyration of the isolation system, which is 1 e2x e2y e
equal to ((b2 ? d2)/12)1/2 for isolation systems of rectan- vy ¼  þ cos x0 t sin x0 t
x0 e2 e2 2r
gular plan dimension, b 9 d. The minimum DTM is 1.15  
DM. This 15% amplification will be excluded from the 1 ey e ð4Þ
vh ¼ sin x0 t cos x0 t
analysis to account for the pure torsion effect. x0 e 2r
1 ex ey  e 
vy ¼  1  cos x0 t sin x0 t;
x0 e2 2r
4 Theoretical 3-D Torsion Expressions while the corner bearing displacement in x-direction vcx is:

The rigid-block 3-D torsion theory modeling approach has d

vcx ¼ vx  vh
been used classically to represent the structural dynamics’ 2r !
closed-form ‘‘exact’’ solution for base-isolated buildings. c 1 e2x e2y e ey d
vx ¼  þ 2 cos x0 t sin x0 t    ð5Þ
Studies by Jangid and Kelly [2], Naiem and Kelly [16], and x0 e 2 e 2r e 2r
Kelly [17, 18] have confirmed the suitability of using rigid- e
block torsional theory modeling to approximate the perfor- sin x0 t cos x0 t;
2r
mance of base-isolated buildings. One primary approxima-
where ex and ey are x-direction and y-direction eccentrici-
tion in the 3-D torsion theory stems from truncating higher
ties, r is the radius of gyration, t is the time variable, and s
order terms (HOT) in the solution of the differential equa-
is the initial time, x0 is the undamped fundamental circular
tion. However, the errors due to truncating the HOT are
frequency of the structure, b0 is the damping ratio, and u€g is
rather very small and have a negligible effect on the 3D
the ground motion acceleration.
torsion theory solution’s accuracy as shown by the above-
Plotting both the theoretical expression for corner
mentioned references. Kelly [17] and Naiem and Kelly [16]
bearing displacement and the ASCE 7–16 expression,
developed a comprehensive theoretical analysis for the
excluding the minimum accidental torsion eccentricity of
bearing displacement of base-isolated structures. They dis-
5% of the larger plan dimension to purely study and
tinguished two cases. The first is when the translational
compare the actual (analytical) torsional displacement,
frequencies in both planer directions and the torsional fre-
reveals the following discussion. Figure 2 shows the corner
quency are close or equal. The second is when equal trans-
bearing displacement response history for two special
lational frequencies and distinct torsional frequency exist.
cases: equal eccentricities in both directions ex = ey, (ex/
rI = ey/r = 0.1) and eccentricity in y-direction only ex = 0,
4.1 Three Close Frequencies Undamped System
ey [ 0 (ey/r = 0.1). Although the code formula intended
only the maximum displacement, the entire response his-
The expressions for center of mass displacements in x-
tory is plotted in this study to identify points of match and
direction (vx), y-direction (vy), and rotation angle (vh) under
mismatch. It is clear from the figure that away from reso-
unit impulse velocity for square slab are [6]:
nance conditions, the ASCE 7–16 formula is quite inac-
Zt curate. However, since the focus is on the maximum design
1
vx ¼  u€g ðsÞeb0 x0 ðtsÞ sin x0 ðt  sÞ displacement, the accuracy of the ASCE 7–16 is discussed
x0
"
0
# in the subsequent sections.
ex e2y
2
e
 2 þ 2 cos x0 ðt  sÞ ds 4.2 Three Close Frequencies Damped System
e e 2r
Zt Figure 3 exhibits the corner displacement response history
ey 1
vh ¼ u€g ðsÞeb0 x0 ðtsÞ cos x0 ðt  sÞ for two damped close frequencies, ex = ey, ex = 0, ey [ 0,
e x0 ð3Þ
0 respectively, for ex/rI = 0.1 and ey/rI = 0.1, plotted using
e 3-D torsion theory and the ASCE 7–16 formula. The the-
 sin x0 ðt  sÞ ds
2r oretical 3-D torsion analysis gives the following expression
Zt
ex ey 1 for the corner bearing displacement unit impulse velocity
vy ¼  2 u€g ðsÞeb0 x0 ðtsÞ sin x0 ðt  sÞ for the square slab [16]:
e x0
0
h e i
 1  cos x0 ðt  sÞ ds;
2r

123
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

x0  vcx ¼ ebx0 t
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u (  2 e2 d 2  
)
u e2 e2y e e
t
y
x
þ cos x0 t þ 2 2 sin2 x0 t
e2 e2 2r e 4r 2r
 sinðx0 t þ gÞ:
ð6Þ

4.3 Equal Lateral Frequencies, Distinct Torsion

Frequency Undamped System

The cubic characteristic equation for the Eigen frequencies

is solvable when the two frequencies of uncoupled lateral
motion, xx and xy, are the same. In this case, we take the
lateral natural frequencies xx = xy = x0, and assume that
xh (the angular natural frequency) is well separated from
them and that xh is greater than x0. The expressions for
center of mass displacement under unit impulse velocity in
x-direction for the square slab are [16]:
e2y sin x0 ð1  2eÞt e2x sin x0 t
 vx ðtÞ ¼ þ 2
e2 x0 ð1  2eÞ e x0
2
  ð7Þ
x ey sin x0 ð1  2eÞt sin xh t
 vh ðtÞ ¼ 2 0 2 þ
xh  x0 r x0 ð1  2eÞ xh
 
ex ey sin x0 ð1  2eÞt sin x0 t
Fig. 2 Corner bearing lateral displacement response history for  vy ¼  2 
undamped three close frequencies system: a double eccentricity and e x0 ð1  2eÞ x0 ð8Þ
b single eccentricity 2
4e ¼ e =r  2 2
x20 =ðx2h  x20 Þ:

Fig. 3 Corner bearing displacement response history (damped close frequencies system): a double eccentricity and b single eccentricity

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
Fig. 4 Effect of eccentricity value on code estimation accuracy of corner bearing lateral displacement (undamped system and three close
frequencies), top: double eccentricity, bottom: single eccentricity
And the corner bearing displacement is:
d
vcx ¼ vx þ vh : ð9Þ
2r
Plotting both the theoretical expression for corner
bearing displacement and the ASCE 7–16 expression,
excluding the minimum eccentricity of 5% of the larger
plan dimension to purely study and compare the actual
torsional displacement, indicates that the dynamic response
using the ASCE 7–16 formula is generally close to the
theoretical solution. The plot is omitted for brevity.
5 Analysis Results
5.1 Effect of Eccentricity
5.1.1 Undamped Three Close Frequencies
Figure 4 plots the maximum positive and negative corner
bearing displacements obtained using 3-D torsion theory
and those obtained using ASCE 7–16, while Fig. 5 shows
the associated error in the ASCE 7–16 expression. The
ASCE 7–16 formula generally overestimates the corner
123

Fig. 5 Error trends in ASCE 7–16 from 3D Torsion theory corner bearing lateral displacement (undamped system and three close frequencies),
a double eccentricity, b single eccentricity
bearing displacements in the case of equal eccentricity in
X and Y directions with an increasing conservatism as
eccentricity increases. The level of conservatism ranged
from 2 to 52% in the case of equal eccentricities. On the
other hand, in the case of eccentricity only in y-direction
(perpendicular to x-axis, Fig. 1), the ASCE 7–16 errs on
the un-conservative side by about 15% for small and
medium e/r and on the conservative side by nearly 25% in
the large eccentricity e/r = 0.7. The error in the equal
double eccentricity case is generally more significant than
that in the single Y-Dir. eccentricity case. Since the ASCE
7–16 expression used in this study did not include the 5%
accidental torsion eccentricity, the expression seems to be
inaccurate in estimating corner bearing displacement in
medium and large eccentricity. It is evident that the error is
proportional to the eccentricity value.
5.1.2 Damped Three Close Frequencies
Figure 6 plots the maximum positive and negative corner
bearing displacement calculated with theoretical 3-D tor-
sion expression and the ASCE 7–16 expression. The gov-
erning displacement is the maximum negative one as seen
from the plots on the right. Figure 7 plots the error trends
in the bearing displacement. The damped bearing dis-
placement error tends to increase with e/r value until a
certain threshold, after which a decline and an almost
constant error are observed for large eccentricity cases. The
ASCE 7–16 expression generally overestimates the
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
maximum negative corner displacement with a level of
conservatism that increases with eccentricity ratio until a
threshold level of eccentricity. The conservatism level
ranges from 20 to 105% for the equal double eccentricity
case and from 20 to 40% for the single eccentricity case.
The ASCE 7–16 expression underestimates the maximum
positive displacement by up to 45% for equal double
eccentricity and 30% for single eccentricity. Again, it is
observed that the error in the equal double eccentricity case
is more significant than that in the single Y-Dir. eccen-
tricity case. This reveals that the ASCE 7–16 expression is
more significantly inaccurate for damped systems com-
pared to undamped systems.
5.1.3 Undamped Equal Translational Frequencies
and Distinct Torsional Frequency
Figure 8 shows that the ASCE 7–16 formula overestimates
the corner bearing displacements with an increasing error
as the eccentricity ratio increases. However, this overesti-
mation is much less significant than the above two cases,
since it ranges from 4 to 20%. In both cases of equal double
eccentricity and single eccentricity, the levels of conser-
vatism are quite similar. It is worth mentioning that this
expression is considered a significant improvement com-
pared to the older ASCE versions, which rendered a 50%
corner displacement overestimation, which is discussed
further in Sect. 5.2.
International Journal of Civil Engineering
Fig. 6 Effect of eccentricity on ASCE 7–16 accuracy of corner bearing lateral displacement (damped system and three close frequencies), top:
double eccentricity, bottom: single eccentricity
5.2 Comparison of ASCE 7–16 and ASCE 7–10
Bearing Displacements
Figures 9, 10, 11 plot comparisons between maximum
positive bearing displacements calculated using ASCE
7–16 new expression (Eq. 1) and the old ASCE 7–10
expression, with respect to the ‘‘exact’’ solution that is the
3D-torsion theory expressions. The purpose of the com-
parison is to highlight any possible improvement in bearing
displacement estimation in ASCE 7–16 over the recog-
nized conservative estimates of ASCE 7–10.
It can be observed from Fig. 9 that the new ASCE 7–16
achieved a considerable improvement in reducing the
conservatism of ASCE 7–10 in estimating bearing dis-
placement of the case of three close frequencies, especially
with small eccentricities. The improvement in displace-
ment estimation was also more pronounced in the case of
double eccentricity. For instance, the extreme double
eccentricity displacement overestimation by ASCE 7–10
was reduced from 2.25 to 1.5 times the 3D-torsion theory
displacement using the ASCE 7–16 expression. Similar
trends with significant reduction in ASCE 7–10
123

Fig. 7 Error trends in ASCE 7–16 from 3D Torsion theory corner bearing lateral displacement (damped system and three close frequencies):
a double eccentricity and b single eccentricity
displacement overestimation can be observed for the case
of equal lateral frequencies and distinct torsion frequency,
as depicted in Fig. 11. The improvement in conservatism
of ASCE 7–16 over ASCE 7–10 in undamped systems
ranged from 7 to 33% depending on eccentricity ratio and
condition. However, while this improvement is considered
a step forward for promoting the application of base iso-
lation as seismic hazard mitigation solution in the US, the
ASCE 7–16 expression is still exhibiting relatively high
displacement conservatism, especially in larger eccentricity
values and double eccentricity cases. In Fig. 10, the ASCE
7–16 estimated damped displacements were much less than
those calculated by ASCE 7–10 compared to the 3D torsion
theory results; however, this led to an un-conservative
displacement estimate by ASCE 7–16 in most practical
eccentricity values, ranging from 25 to 40%. Engineers
should exercise caution when using the new standard in
damped systems, especially with larger eccentricities.
5.3 Effect of Plan Aspect Ratio
5.3.1 Undamped Three Close Frequencies
Figure 12 shows the effect of the changing building plan
aspect ratio on the corner displacement, calculated both
theoretically and using the ASCE 7–16 expression. The
figure indicates that for the equal eccentricity case, the
ASCE 7–16 formula overestimates the bearing displace-
ment for plan aspect ratios of less than 1 (with a maximum
overestimation of about 20% for an aspect ratio of 0.5),
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
while it tends to slightly underestimate the displacement
for aspect ratios that are larger than 1. The ASCE 7–16
error generally increases as the eccentricity ratio increases.
Similar observations apply to the case of single Y-Dir.
eccentricity, except that the level of underestimation for the
large aspect ratio cases tends to significantly increase until
reaching 20% at an aspect ratio of 1.5. Thus, it can be
generally concluded that an error of ± 20% exists for some
cases with rectangular plans that have aspect ratios
between 0.5 and 1.5, which is still considered unaccept-
able given that the accidental torsion eccentricity is
excluded from the analysis. Using the ASCE 7–16 ampli-
fication factor of 1.15 for corner bearing displacement
(Sect. 3) will partially alleviate the error in the case of
displacement underestimation. However, concern about the
ASCE 7–16 accuracy still exists for larger aspect ratios.
5.3.2 Undamped Equal Translational Frequencies
and Distinct Torsional Frequency
Figure 13 exhibits the effect of changing the plan aspect
ratio on the corner displacement, calculated both theoreti-
cally and by ASCE 7–16 for undamped equal lateral and
distinct torsional frequencies. The figure indicates that the
ASCE 7–16 formula slightly overestimates (3–10%) the
corner bearing displacement for all eccentricity cases, more
profoundly in larger eccentricity ratios e/r. It seems that the
ASCE 7–16 error is insensitive to the plan aspect ratio.
Unlike the case of three close frequencies, these results are
considered acceptable, since the errors are minor.
International Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 8 Effect of eccentricity value on ASCE 7–16 accuracy for corner bearing displacement (undamped system, equal lateral frequencies, and
distinct torsional frequency), top: double eccentricity, bottom: single eccentricity

5.4 Effect of Damping Ratio higher than 2–4% is evident. Similar observations can be
drawn for the single Y-Dir. eccentricity case.
Figure 14 displays the effect of changing the isolation
damping ratio on the accuracy of the ASCE 7–16 formula
estimation for corner bearing displacement. The fig- 6 Conclusions and Recommendations
ure shows that ASCE 7–16 overestimates the case of equal
eccentricity corner displacement response for damped Based on the presented analysis and within the limits and
systems, with an increasing trend of overestimation up to constraints of the investigated parameters, the following
2% damping ratio, and then consistent overestimation conclusions and recommendations can be drawn:
thereafter by a constant ratio of 18%, 35%, and 55% for e/
1. The new ASCE 7–16 expression for additional bearing
r = 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3, respectively. This confirms the neg-
displacement due to plane torsion is generally conser-
ative effective of increasing eccentricity on the accuracy of
vative for the case of three equal isolation system
the ASCE 7–16 expression. However, the insensitively of
frequencies. Its overestimation can reach 52% for
the ASCE 7–16 displacement accuracy to damping ratios
undamped systems and 105% for damped systems.

123
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 9 ASCE 7–16 and ASCE 7–10 corner bearing displacement accuracy comparisons (undamped system, three close frequencies): a double
eccentricity and b single eccentricity

Fig. 10 ASCE 7–16 and ASCE 7–10 corner bearing displacement accuracy comparisons (damped system and three close frequencies): a double
eccentricity and b single eccentricity

This conservatism increases with eccentricity and is
more significant in the case of biaxial eccentricity. This
overestimation error is much less significant (5–20%)
in the case of equal lateral frequencies and distinct
torsional frequency.
2. For the case of three close frequencies, the ASCE 7–16
conservatism in bearing displacement increases with a
decreasing plan aspect ratio. On the other hand, an
error of up to ± 20% in bearing displacement is
evident with plan aspect ratios of up to 1.5. In contrast,
the overestimation error in the case of two equal lateral
frequencies and district torsional frequency is minor
(B 10%) and is insensitive to the plan aspect ratio.

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 11 ASCE 7–16 and ASCE 7–10 corner bearing displacement accuracy comparisons (undamped system, equal lateral frequencies, and
distinct torsional frequency): a double eccentricity and b single eccentricity

Fig. 12 Effect of aspect ratio on ASCE 7–16 accuracy for corner bearing displacement (undamped system, three close frequencies)

123

Fig. 13 Effect of plan aspect ratio on code estimation accuracy for corner bearing displacement, undamped system, equal lateral frequencies, and
distinct torsional frequency
3. Damped systems are more affected by ASCE 7–16
conservatism for the equal eccentricity case than the
single eccentricity case. The ASCE 7–16 level of
conservatism is slightly affected by increasing damp-
ing ratios up to 2%, after which the overestimation is
constant and proportional to the eccentricity ratio.
4. The ASCE 7–16 expression’s accuracy significantly
declines with damped systems with a possibility of un-
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
conservative estimation of bearing displacements that
can reach 25–40% with larger eccentricities.
5. The ASCE 7–16 undamped displacement estimations
improved compared to the significant conservatism of
ASCE 7–10 by 7–33% depending on the eccentricity
condition and ratio, which may further promote the use
of base isolation in the US as a seismic hazard
mitigation solution.
International Journal of Civil Engineering
Fig. 14 Effect of damping ratio on ASCE 7–16 estimation accuracy for corner bearing displacement for square slab (damped system and three
close frequencies)
Acknowledgements The revision and insightful feedback and com-
ments of Prof. James Kelly, University of California, Berkeley to
enhance this manuscript are greatly appreciated.
References
1. Warn GP, Ryan KL (2012) Review of seismic isolation for
buildings: historical development and research needs. Buildings
2:300–325
2. Jangid RS, Kelly JM (2000) Torsional displacement in base-
isolated buildings. Earthq Spectra 16:443–454
3. Jangid R, Datta T (1994) Seismic response of torsionally coupled
structure with elasto-plastic base isolation. Eng Struct
16:256–262
4. ASCE/SEI 7-16 (2017) Design loads on buildings and other
structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston
5. Matsagar VA, Jangid RS (2008) Base isolation for seismic ret-
rofitting of structures. Practice periodical on structural design and
construction. ASCE 13:175–185
6. Mansouri I et al (2017) Seismic fragility estimates of LRB base
isolated frames using performance-based design. Shock Vib
3:1–20
7. Kaloop MR, Hu JW (2017) Seismic response prediction of
buildings with base isolation using advanced soft computing
approaches. Adv Mater Sci Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/
7942782
8. Alhan C, Sürmeli M (2011) Shear building representations of
seismically isolated buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 9:1643–1671
9. Tena-Colunga A, Zambrana-Rojas C (2006) Dynamic torsional
amplification of base isolated structures with eccentric isolation
system. Eng Struct 28:72–83
10. Basu D, Constantinou M, Wittaker A (2014) An equivalent
accidental eccentricity to account for the effects of torsional
ground motion on structures. Eng Struct 69(2014):1–11
123

11. Wolff ED, Ipek C, Constantinou M, Morillas L (2014) Torsional
response of seismically isolated structures revisited. Eng Struct
59:462–468
12. Basu D, Giri S (2015) Accidental eccentricity in multistory
buildings due to torsional ground motion. Bull Earthq Eng
13:3779–3808
13. Kitayama S, Constantinou M (2018) Collapse performance of
seismically isolated buildings designed by the procedures of
ASCE/SEI 7. Eng Struct 164:243–285
14. Kitayama S, Constantinou M (2019) Probabilistic seismic per-
formance assessment of seismically isolated buildings designed
by the procedures of ASCE/SEI 7 and other enhanced criteria.
Eng Struct 179:566–582
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
15. Atmaca B, Yurdakul M, Ateş Ş (2014) Nonlinear dynamic
analysis of base isolated cable-stayed bridge under earthquake
excitation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 66:314–318
16. Naiem F, Kelly J (1999) Design of seismic isolated structures:
from theory to practice. Wiley, New York
17. Kelly J (2012) Earthquake-resistant design with rubber. Springer
Science and Business Media, London
18. Kelly J (2007) Earthquake hazard mitigation. Lecture notes.
University of California, Berkeley