Continued Functionality Standard

Continued Functionality Standard
Seismic Isolation Standard

Victor Zayas a)
Stephen Mahin b)
Michael Constantinou c)
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
c) Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering,
at the State University of New York at Buffalo
Update Revision Date: December 10, 2020
Page 1 of 52
1.1 Continued Functionality Standard “CFS”
This Continued Functionality Standard specifies the functionality criteria necessary to reduce
earthquake shaking damage sufficiently to allow facilities to retain post-earthquake functionality and
minimize losses from seismic events. Functionality is achieved by specifying the design strength
equal to seismic demand, having adequate stiffness to limit structure deformations, and limiting the
in-structure accelerations to functionality levels. The functionality criteria herein apply equally to
structures with or without isolators, dampers, or buckling restraint braces. https://goo.gl/h82Fnk
Building codes worldwide specify that facilities important for public safety and post-earthquake
recovery must be constructed to remain reliably functional after severe earthquakes. ASCE 7-16
Chapter 1 Section 1.3.3 “Functionality”, specifies that “essential facilities” must have a “reasonable
probability” of retaining functionality after the design earthquake. Completely incompatible with
these functionality requirements are the prescriptive provisions in the code chapters that allow
“ductile structures” to have seismic resisting capacities 1/9 to 1/12 of the seismic demands that occur
during the code maximum considered earthquakes. Loss of functionality, and collapse, is a direct
consequence of constructing “ductile structures” for small fractions of the seismic load demands.
During Ecuador’s 2016 magnitude 7.8 earthquake, 39 out of 50 hospitals lost functionality [PAHO,
EERI]. During Chile’s 2010 earthquake, 60 hospitals lost functionality, and 6 hospitals collapsed
[WHO]. A magnitude 6.8 earthquake in Kobe Japan caused 110 out of 180 hospitals to lose
functionality [Ukai]. With 209 hospitals losing functionality, there were very few hospitals left that
could care for the tens of thousands of injured persons. This loss of functionality resulted in thousands
of people dying. Designing “ductile structures” for small fractions of the seismic load demands does
not deliver the “reasonable probability of retaining functionality” as mandated by the codes.
For 3 decades, many important buildings, bridges, and industrial facilities worldwide have been
designed and constructed according to the continued functionality criteria which formed the basis of
this standard. [Zayas Mahin 2010] https://goo.gl/18gw4bbit.ly/3349tP7 bit.ly/3349tP7 The Platinum Functionality
criteria herein complies with the requirements for the functionality of essential facilities. For non-
essential facilities, Platinum, Gold, or Silver functionality may be specified. These three functionality
levels reduce damage to less than 2%, 4%, or 8% of the facility replacement cost.
The isolators for the Elazig Hospital, Texas Instrument’s Factory, Bahia Bridge, and Chile LNG tanks
implemented earlier versions of the continued functionality criteria herein. When subject to severe
earthquake shaking these facilities suffered damage of less than 2% of replacement costs, allowing
them to retain full post-earthquake functionality. They retained full functionality after experiencing
severe earthquake shaking that caused thousands of other structures to lose functionality, and many
to collapse. http://bit.ly/2KIPx9y http://bit.ly/2MPZjJO To limit damage to 2% requires flexible isolators
having 2 to 3 times the isolator displacements required for collapse avoidance by ASCE 7 Chapter
17. Continued Functionality is easily implemented using the few simple criteria specified in this
standard. Many of the important buildings, bridges, and industrial facilities constructed for continued
functionality have cost less to build than ductile structures designed for only collapse avoidance.
This Continued Functionality Standard is the only published standard for complying with the
mandated functionality required by structure codes worldwide. Structures in Seismic Design
Category D, E and F, at any structure height, can comply using any of the 67 Seismic Resisting
Systems listed for Seismic Design Category C in ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1. For large buildings or
bridges, using Design Category C structure types typically offsets the cost of seismic isolators.
Page 2 of 52
Ridgecrest California Hospital’s new acute
care building was designed in accordance California’s original Olive View Hospital
with the California Building Code and collapsed during a magnitude 7 earthquake.
The replacement hospital was designed
OSHPOD hospital criteria, but not continued
according to California Building Code’s
functionality. California’s 2019 Magnitude
OSHPOD criteria. It was closed for 3 months
6.4 earthquake resulted in architectural
after a 6.7 earthquake. Hundreds of hospitals
damage that required closure of this acute designed per building code cannot function
care hospital wing. http://bit.ly/31r7HmZ after earthquakes. Hospital loss of function
has resulted in an estimated 200,000 deaths.
Christchurch’s seismically isolated Women’s

Hospital was constructed with lead rubber
isolators, designed in accordance with
structure design code requirements, but not
continued functionality. During New
Zealand’s 2011 magnitude 6 earthquakes the
hospital suffered earthquake damage Ecuador’s 2 kilometer long Bahia Bridge
exceeding 20% of replacement costs. Repairs maintained full functionality during
took 4 years. The researchers at the Ecuador’s Magnitude 7.8 2016 earthquake.
The isolators experienced seismic shear
University of Christchurch had instrumented
demands twice the code MCE spectra, yet the
the building, and recorded the isolator
bridge retained complete functionality. In the
displacements and building accelerations that 24 hours after the earthquake 15 thousand
occurred during the two December 2011 M6 vehicles crossed the bridge evacuating
earthquakes. They reported the lead-rubber thousands of injured persons from the
isolators “did not displace”, and the hospital devastated city of Bahia de Caraquez. Many
responded “essentially as if it was fixed base” lives were saved by retaining this bridge’s
[Kuang]. https://goo.gl/qRRjbW post-earthquake functionality.
Page 3 of 52
Hospitals “designed to code” for collapse avoidance, without complying with this Continued
Functionality Standard, typically lose functionality when subject to severe earthquake shaking.
During the past 20 years, this post-earthquake loss of hospital functionality has resulted in over
200,000 deaths. Implementing functionality for all new construction will reduce many deaths.
Most “structures designed to code” with or without isolators, that lost functionality, appeared
undamaged from the outside. Damage to architectural components, equipment, and contents cause
98% of the losses of facility functionality. Lost functionality typically occurs at earthquake shaking
strengths one twentieth of those shaking strengths that cause structure collapse.
Ridgecrest Regional Hospital’s critical care tower opened in 2010. The structure complied with the
California Building Code and the stringent OSHPOD requirements for hospitals, but not functionality
criteria. 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. http://bit.ly/31r7HmZ
Christchurch’s seismically isolated Women’s Hospital was constructed with lead rubber isolators that
complied with the structure design code, but not functionality criteria. During New Zealand’s 2011
magnitude 6 earthquakes the hospital suffered earthquake damage exceeding 20% of replacement
costs. 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 It is clear that
isolators designed according to the prescriptive design criteria in codes developed to limit collapse
risks of ductile structures, such as ASCE 7 Chapter 17, are far too stiff to comply with the criteria
herein of limiting in-structure accelerations and structure drifts to Platinum Functionality levels.
The original California Olive View Hospital suffered collapse during a magnitude 6.6 earthquake.
The replacement hospital was constructed with very strong shear walls that 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,
could not attend to earthquake injured persons, and remained closed for 3 months [Chevers].
The Elazig Hospital was near the epi-center of Turkey’s nearby 2020 magnitude 6.1 earthquake. The
hospital remained fully functional, saving many lives caring for injured people.
Ecuador’s 2 kilometer long Bahia Bridge maintained full functionality after Ecuador’s 2016
Magnitude 7.8 earthquake, also saving many lives. The isolators experienced seismic shear demands
twice those of Ecuador’s “maximum considered earthquake”, yet the bridge retained full
functionality. The fault ruptured for 100 kilometers towards the bridge, directly under the bridge, and
40 kilometers past the bridge. 90% of Bahia’s 4+ story buildings were demolished due to earthquake
damage to “ductile structures”. Bahia’s only hospital was closed on the day of the earthquake and
was later demolished. The Bahia bridge was used to evacuate hundreds of injured persons, and
thousands of residents, from the devastated city of Bahia. 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 devises. The Triple Pendulum isolators
allowed this critical manufacturing equipment and facility to retain 100% functionality within minutes
after the 2019 magnitude 6.1 earthquake. The nearby Clark International Airport completely closed
because of earthquake shaking damage. [Texas Instruments] http://bit.ly/2KIPx9y
Page 4 of 52
Elazig Hospital maintained full functionality
during Turkey’s 2020 magnitude 6.7 nearby
earthquake. Providing immediate medical Mexico Hospital Patients in Street, 2017
care for hundreds of people saved many lives.
Designed for Continued Functionality using
Triple Pendulum seismic isolators.
Indonesia Hospital Patients in Street, 2017
At Texas Instrument’s most critical factory

the fragile precision manufacturing equipment
remained fully functional during and after the
Philippines2019 Magnitude 6.1 Earthquake,
while earthquake damage forced the adjacent
airport to close down.
Mexico Hospital Patients in Street, 2017
Two large liquid natural gas tanks in Chile,

essential for electricity generation, designed
for functionality, maintained full functionality
during the magnitude 8.8 earthquake in 2010,
and magnitude 7.1 aftershock centered 3
kilometers from the tanks.
Page 5 of 52
Two large liquid natural gas tanks in Chile maintained full functionality after Chilie’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. Keeping gas tanks fully functional,
and gas plants generating electricity, is essential to post-earthquake recovery. https://goo.gl/AycD9Z
Because ductile structures suffer extensive damage, 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
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 a total of eighteen transformers. The nation’s power industry needs
to adapt to the functionality performance requirements for essential facilities: keep the electric
generation, transmission, and distribution systems functioning immediately after earthquakes.
In 2010 the World Health Organization (WHO) issued directives that require all new hospitals to be
constructed to guarantee their functioning at maximum capacity after earthquakes [WHO, PAHO].
https://goo.gl/AdTZJu These WHO directives for hospital functionality have been adopted by the health
ministries of 194 out of 197 countries. Ductile structures designed according to ASCE 7 Chapter 12
do not satisfy the WHO functionality requirements, nor the ASCE 7 Chapter 1 functionality
requirements. Structural professionals must recognize that prescriptive “ductile structures” do not
deliver the mandated functionality. This Continued Functionality Standard is authored by the world’s
most recognized experts in post-earthquake facility functionality, seismic isolators, and seismic
dampers. In the 40 years since the first isolated building was constructed, dramatic successes and
failures of isolators have been observed. European Isolator Standard EN15129 is written by isolator
vendors that have little expertise in seismic design, structure collapse, or post-earthquake facility
functionality. EN15129 is a very dangerous document that has resulted in the most dangerous new
structures constructed during the past 20 years. Specifying an adequate product standard for isolators
is critical to the safety and functionality of any isolated structure.
This CFS is the only published functionality standard that complies with WHO required functionality,
and ASCE 7 Chapter 1 Functionality. For seismic protective technology to become standard
construction, and to avoid the major failures that occurred because of inadequate standards, all
“seismic protective systems” including isolators, dampers, and BRBs, must comply with this
Continued Functionality Standard. Therefore, all isolators, dampers, BRBs, and seismic protective
systems must be designed, specified, and approved by a Seismic Isolation Engineer qualified under
this Continued Functionality Standard.
Page 6 of 52
San Francisco General Hospital
Strong code compliant building, without
isolators, constructed 2008, damaged in 2010
Chile earthquake, demolished in 2012
Stanford University Hospital, California

Triple Pendulum seismic isolators
Dangerous European Isolation System failed

during an earthquake, causing 100%
economic loss, and very close to total
collapse of 2 kilometers of the Trans
European Motorway. https://goo.gl/Bsvd1r
New Loma Linda Hospital, California

The Failed European isolation system was

removed from the Trans-European Motorway.
It was replaced with EPS pendulum isolators
New Mills Peninsula Hospital, California
having 4 times the displacement capacity, and
costing 2/3 as much as the European system.
Page 7 of 52
The ductile structure types specified in ASCE 7 Chapter 12 were developed mostly 40 to 50 years
ago to reduce collapse risks. These ductile structures targeted limiting the risk of collapse of ductile
structures to less than 10%, as specified in ASCE Chapter 1 “Target Reliability for Structural
Stability”. Ductile structures have saved millions of lives during the past 40 years. Yet, earthquakes
continue to cause collapses, deaths, severe injuries, and the extensive damage that typically cripples
cities for decades. For every structure seen in the media that suffered collapse, there were more than
1000 others not seen in the media that remained standing but lost functionality.
Dr. Victor Zayas’ 1970s PhD thesis on ductile structures was elected to an ASCE Hall of Fame for
saving lives by avoiding structure collapse. Ductile structures are similar to crumple zones in cars.
These crumple zones allow damage that absorbs the energy of a collision in order to protect the safety
of the occupants. The “crumple zones” in ductile structures greatly reduce collapse risks, but have
the disadvantage of causing extensive damage, just like the crumple zones in cars. Unsatisfied with
the extensive damage occurring in ductile structures, Dr. Zayas went on to develop seismic isolators
capable of delivering post-earthquake functionality. When effectively implemented, these isolators
achieve buildings, bridges, and industrial facilities that retain post-earthquake functionality,
essentially eliminate risks of collapse, and often cost less to build than ductile structures.
The world’s largest governments and corporations in 32 countries rely on EPS engineered seismic
solutions to protect their most important buildings, bridges, and industrial facilities. http://bit.ly/3349tP7
EPS has three principal engineers each have over 30 year’s professional experience specializing in
cost-effective seismic isolation solutions. EarthquakeProtection.com EPS isolators are engineered
specific to each application, accommodating the expected earthquake shaking strength, site soil
conditions, targeted seismic damage limit, and fragility of architectural components and contents.
Victor invented pendulum isolators in 1979 as a solution to minimize earthquake damage. Since then,
EPS has made major advancements in materials and hardware. Triple Pendulum™ isolators actively
control the seismic response, automatically changing pendulum lengths and frictions during an
earthquake, responding to the instantaneous changes in shaking strength. In this way they optimize
seismic performance for small, medium and large earthquake events, protecting the facility contents,
architectural components, and structures from damage. They have dramatically reduced the cost of
delivering continued functionality for the world’s largest and most important isolated facilities.
When EPS is selected as a project’s Seismic Isolation Engineer, EPS designs the isolators to limit
seismic damage to conform to this Continued Functionality Standard, and provides a professional
engineer signed and stamped Seismic Isolation Engineering Report, and provides guaranteed isolator
prices and delivery schedule. EPS 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 Continued Functionality Standard.
Triple Pendulum isolators for Continued Functionality are advanced 21st century technology that
minimize earthquake damage. Earthquake Protection Systems’ mission is to design and construct
facilities that will reliably function after an earthquakes. When engineered and implemented by EPS
as the CFS Seismic Isolation Engineer, Triple Pendulum isolators economically protect contents, non-
structural components, and structures from damage during the most severe earthquakes. Constructing
for continued functionality is an economical alternative to ductile structures. Constructing “ductile
structures” designed intentionally for damage was 20th century technology to reduce collapse risks.
Using ductile structures for only collapse avoidance longer necessary nor economically justified.
Page 8 of 52
Children’s Hospital, Wellington New Zealand
Apple Headquarters California 400,000
Square Meters, 98% reliability of limiting
earthquake damage to less than 2%. Exceeds
SISCF Platinum. 700 Triple Pendulums.
Seismic isolators for Wellington Children’s

hospital. These Continued Functionality
isolators have 4 times the displacement
capacity of ASCE 7 Chapter 17 sized isolators.
Exxon’s Russia Offshore Platform, Continued

Functionality with EPS pendulum isolators.
Basaksehir Hospital Facility, Turkey

Goztepe Hospital, 2 Million Sq Ft, Turkey 1 million square meters
Triple Pendulum seismic isolators. Triple Pendulum Isolators
Okemeydani Hospital, Turkey

Washington Hospital, Fremont California
Page 9 of 52
1.2 Continued Functionality Criteria
The Continued Functionality Criteria specified herein should be implemented for all structures for
which post-earthquake functionality is intended. That includes all important or essential structures
with or without seismic isolators, dampers, or BRBs.
When any seismic isolators, dampers, BRBs, or any system claiming seismic damage protection is
used, their properties shall result in a structure that satisfies the functionality criteria below, and their
capacities should be sufficient to retain structure stability for an earthquake 1.5 times the code
specified MCE. Buildings of 1 or 2 stories in ASCE 7 Seismic Risk Categories A, B, C or D, can
typically can comply with the below functionality criteria without using seismic isolators, dampers,
or BRB’s. For all structure designs for functionality, the Seismic Response Modification Coefficient,
R, for the design of all structure components shall be as specified below. The standard member
capacity factors Φ shall be used for all structural member designs at the seismic design loads, and all
load factors are set at 1.0, including the seismic forces resulting from the earthquake having 10%
probability of exceedance in 50 years (design level). Utilities shall be designed to remain functional
when subject to the DM displacement demand.
Platinum Functionality Criteria, mandatory for Seismic Risk Categories IV buildings: R= 1.0; the
maximum lateral story drifts shall not exceed 0.0030 times the story height; and the median value of
the 5% damped floor spectra accelerations of the occupied stories, for the period range from 0.05 to
3 seconds, shall not exceed 0.3g as determined by Response History Procedure performed in
accordance with ASCE 7-16 17.6.3.4 and this Continued Functionality Standard. For all non-
structural components throughout the structure, the horizontal seismic design force Fp taken as a fixed
value of 0.4 Wp. These criteria intend that for buildings having structural and architectural details
that are compliant with ASCE 7-16 and this Continued Functionality Standard, shaking damage to
architectural components will be less than 2% of the building replacement cost, consistent with the
REDi Platinum Scenario Expected Loss.
Gold Functionality Criteria, mandatory for Seismic Risk Categories III buildings: R= 1.0; the
maximum lateral story drifts shall not exceed 0.0045 times the story height; and the median value of
the 5% damped floor spectra accelerations of the occupied stories, for the period range from 0.05 to
3 seconds, shall not exceed 0.4g as determined by Response History Procedure performed in
value of 0.6 Wp. These criteria intend that for buildings having structural and architectural details
that are compliant with ASCE 7-16 and this Continued Functionality Standard, damage to
architectural components will be less than 4% of the building replacement cost, consistent with the
REDi Gold Scenario Expected Loss.
Silver Functionality Criteria, mandatory for Seismic Risk Categories I and II buildings: R= 1.25;
the maximum lateral story drifts shall not exceed 0.0060 times the story height; and the median value
of the 5% damped floor spectra accelerations of the occupied stories, for the period range from 0.05
to 3 seconds, shall not exceed 0.6g as determined by Response History Procedure performed in
value of 0.8 Wp. These criteria intend that for buildings having typical structural and architectural
details that are compliant with ASCE 7-16 and this Continued Functionality Standard, seismic
shaking damage to architectural components will be less than 8% of the building replacement cost,
consistent with the REDi Silver Scenario Expected Loss.
Page 10 of 52
Page 11 of 52
The CFS cases listed in the Damage Criteria Tables are for isolators and isolated structures that
comply with the requirements of this Continued Functionality Standard. The Chapter 17 case is for
a Category IV building using seismic isolators with 2 second periods and 30% damping, compliant
with ASCE 7 Chapter 17, but not this Continued Functionality Standard. The Chapter 17 compliant
essential facility was calculated to have no structural damage for the DE, but architectural damage
was calculated to be 30% of the total building replacement cost. FEMA P58 damage studies show
that building damage reduces as the isolators absorb larger displacements. Larger more flexible
isolators also result in less collapse risks, as compared to smaller stiffer ones. Note that the Category
IV building compliant with ASCE 7-16 Chapter 17 was calculated to have 15 times more damage
that the Category IV building compliant with the Continued Functionality Standard, and also
exceeded the limits for loss of structural stability specified in ASCE 7-16 Table 1.3-2.
Vertical seismic isolation of buildings is not recommended. The factors of safety inherent in the
gravity load structural systems have proven to be sufficient to limit damage caused by vertical
earthquake shaking to within the 2% limit. However, vertical earthquake shaking damage to
architectural components can be a primary contributor to the 2% damage limit but has never been the
primary cause of the loss of building functionality.
Buildings with or without seismic isolators or dampers are in compliance with these Continued
Functionality criteria when structural and seismic analyses as specified herein show them to comply
with the criteria above. Compliance with these Continued Functionality criteria is not mandatory
when seismic isolators are used for the life-safety retrofit, to reduce collapse risks of existing
structures. However, all provisions regarding the qualification of manufacturers and the testing of
isolators apply to isolators installed in seismic isolation retrofits.
1.2 Seismic Isolator Standard “SIS”

This Seismic Isolator Standard is the isolator product standard that satisfies ASCE 7-16 requirements
for product standards, and should be specified for the design and construction of all isolators and
isolated structures. https://goo.gl/h82Fnk
For ASCE 7 compliance, all structural components used in construction must comply with an industry
standard that satisfies the Chapter 1 Target Reliability, Serviceability, Functionality, and Fire
Resistance. For seismic isolators, compliance with an adequate product standard is achieved through
compliance with this Seismic Isolator Standard. Any high quality isolator by a responsible and
reliable manufacturer can comply with the generic and non-proprietary criteria specified in this CFS.
During the 1970s, Bill Robinson invented rubber isolators, and Victor Zayas invented pendulum
isolators. Robinson and Zayas offered seismic isolation as an alternate construction method to ductile
structures. The performance objective was minimizing damage sufficiently to maintain post-
earthquake functionality. Since then, over 50 companies have offered “seismic isolators for sale”.
Caution is warranted when selecting isolators. Most isolator vendors have typically given the false
impression that their isolators will prevent earthquake damage, but offered their isolators sized for
the minimum cost that could accommodate the minimum design displacement and shear specified by
structure design codes. After receiving isolators offers from isolator companies, the structural design
consultants then typically “designed and specified” those isolators, but did not specify a product
standard. Current structure design codes were developed to reduce the risk of collapse of ductile
structures. Isolated structures behave fundamentally different than ductile structures, and the
performance objective is functionality. Using isolators according to a structure design code
developed for ductile structures is dangerous. https://goo.gl/bk5oAO http://bit.ly/2OctUPY
Page 12 of 52
Structure Design Target Limit for Average Floor Average of Maximum
Criteria Applicable Building Spectra Peak Story Peak Story
Under CFS and ASCE Architectural Acceleration Drifts Limit Drift Limit
7-16 for & Structural Limit
10%/50yrs design Damage
earthquake.
CFS Platinum 2% 0.3g 0.20% 0.30%
CFS Gold 4% 0.4g 0.30% 0.45%
CFS Silver 8% 0.6g 0.67% 1.00%
ASCE 7.17 no CFS 30% 1.0g 1.33% 2.00%
ASCE 7.12 DE 60% 1.3g 2.00% 3.00%
ASCE 7.12 MCE 100% 1.5g 3.00% 5.00%
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
Building Related Drifts Related Related
7-16 Base Criteria for the
Architect & Architect Architect Architect
Design Earthquake
Structure Damage Damage Damage
Damage
CFS Platinum 2% 1.5% 0.25% 0.25%

CFS Gold 4% 3% 0.5% 0.5%
CFS Silver 8% 4% 2% 2%
ASCE 7.17 no CFS 30% 10% 10% 10%
ASCE 7.12 DBE 60% 14% 23% 23%
ASCE 7.12 MCE 100% 20% 40% 40%
Contributions to Architectural and Structural Building Damage
Damage Criteria Tables

Page 13 of 52
This Seismic Isolator Standard complies with the ASCE 7 Section 1.3.3 Functionality requirement by
specifying: R=1; a structure story drift limit of 0.3%; and a median floor spectra acceleration limit of
0.3g, all applied for the design basis earthquake. FEMA P58 damage studies indicate that these
criteria typically achieve 90% reliability of limiting building damage to less than 2% of the
replacement cost. For structures that comply with these criteria, most architectural components of
most facilities retain their ability to function after a design level earthquake. Non-isolated ductile
moment frames designed using the ASCE 7 Chapter 12 specified Importance and R factors, have
FEMA P58 calculated seismic losses ranging from 15% to 180% [Terzic] (Fig C.3-1), which do not
satisfy ASCE 7 Section 1.3.3 Functionality nor REDi Resiliency.
This Seismic Isolator Standard was developed by Earthquake Protection Systems for the design,
manufacture, and testing of seismic isolators that deliver a reasonable probability of retaining post-
earthquake functionality for the facilities served. Isolators manufactured by other manufacturers will
also deliver a reasonable probability of post-earthquake functionality if they comply with this Seismic
Isolator Standard. Chapter 1, Sections 1.1 and 1.3.1.1, require that design loads be less than the
corresponding capacity limits specified by an adequate industry standard for that component type.
The structural component standards listed in ASCE 7 Chapter 23 specify the strength limit states and
minimum stiffness that are consistent with the intended structure performance under the ASCE 7
Minimum Design Loads. This Seismic Isolator Standard, applied together with the ASCE 7
Minimum Design Loads, results in reliable isolators safe from collapse, having properties that reliably
limit seismic damage to 2%, 4% or 8% of facility replacement costs, for Category IV, III, and II
structures, respectively. All isolators reduce damage in proportion to the seismic displacement
absorbed by the isolators. Flexible isolators achieve lower facility damage by absorbing larger
displacements.
Isolators with 5 second natural period and 10% damping, typically limit damage to 2%. Isolators
with 3 second period and 20% damping, typically limit damage to 8%. Commonly sold isolators
having 2 second periods and 30% damping comply with all ASCE 7 Chapter 17 requirements, but the
equivalent FEMA P58 damage is 30% [Terzic]. For example a pendulum isolator with friction of
12%, a pendulum period of 3 seconds, and VM = 0.17 at 4.4 inches, is the Chapter 17 compliant
isolator case listed in the Damage Criteria Tables. This Chapter 17 compliant isolator results in
seismic damage of 30% of the building replacement cost. Isolators of any type that do not absorb a
majority of the design earthquake displacement demand do not serve to maintain Functionality.
Seismic damage of 30% does not comply with ASCE 7 Functionality, REDi Resiliency [ARUP], nor
owner’s reasonable expectations for any seismically isolated structure.
The safety and performance of an isolated structure is critically dependent on the integrity of the
manufacturer’s isolator engineering, materials, manufacture, and testing. Some isolators substantially
eliminated earthquake damage, while some isolators have caused structural collapse, the difference
is in the quality of the manufacturer’s engineering and isolators. This Seismic Isolator Standard
specifies the means for all isolator manufacturers to also produce safe isolators that minimize
earthquake shaking damage. All major high quality isolator manufacturers perform application
specific isolator tests in their own laboratories. For the manufacture’s laboratory to be qualified under
the Seismic Isolator Standard, the manufacturer’s laboratory tests must be consistent with those from
qualification tests performed at independent government laboratories. The testing of isolators by
manufacturers in their own laboratories has resulted in major improvements in their proprietary
materials and manufacturing methods, achieving the reliable isolator properties and capacities.
Page 14 of 52
Average % Peak Story Drift Caused Structural Damage Maximum % Peak Story Drift Caused Structural Damage
25 25
20 20
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
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
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 52
The best practice for validating isolators and test results produced for a specific project is to select
two isolators at random from the isolators shipped to the construction site, and send them to an
independent government laboratory for Seismic Isolator Standard specified Quality, Dynamic
Property, and Capacity Tests. EPS is currently the only isolator company that specifies its isolators
and isolated structures for post-earthquake functionality in compliance with this CFS.
This Seismic Isolator Standard is the only isolator standard that complies with ASCE 7-16 Chapter
17 requirements for Isolator Qualification Tests, Target Reliability, and isolator displacement and
shear strength Capacities. All isolators should comply with this CFS. ASCE 7 Chapter 17 Section
17.8.1.1 requires Qualification Tests of isolators to quantify the long term reliability of their properties
and capacities. ASCE 7.17.2.8.4 Property Modification Factors requires Qualification Tests quantify
the lower and upper bound isolator properties used in design. The Seismic Isolator Standard requires
manufacturers to submit the specified qualification test results, together with Dynamic Property and
Capacity Test results for isolators used in prior applications that have capacities and properties similar
to those offered for a project. The Seismic Isolator Standard requires Qualification Tests that have
been performed at credible independent testing laboratories. Earthquake Protection Systems
qualification tests include 50 qualification test programs conducted at 12 independent testing
laboratories. https://goo.gl/sfPXa1 http://bit.ly/2IVshYn
The seismic performance objectives specified by ASCE 7, functionality or collapse avoidance, are
the same for structures with or without seismic isolators or dampers. Chapter 12 specifies the
structure design criteria necessary for the 84 ductile structure types listed to achieve the Target
Reliabilities against collapse. The R factors specified in Table 12.2-1 avoid collapse by allowing
large inelastic displacements, and high in-structure accelerations. These cause substantial damage to
architectural and structural components, and facility contents, which cause the loss of facility
functionality. ASCE 7 Section 1.3.3 states that essential facilities should have a “reasonable
probability” to retain post-earthquake functionality, yet does not specify the criteria necessary for
minimizing damage sufficiently to maintain functionality. All owners expect isolated structures and
essential facility will suffer little or no damage from earthquake ground shaking.
The Universities at UC Berkeley and SUNY Buffalo conducted FEMA P695 collapse risk evaluations
of isolators and isolated structures [Shao] [Kitayama]. https://goo.gl/Mra83H http://bit.ly/2OctUPY Both studies
determined factors of safety for isolator displacement and shear capacities to satisfy ASCE 7 Target
Reliabilities. The Berkeley study calculated that isolators having capacities equal to the ASCE 7
design loads and displacements, without isolator factors of safety, can increase the risks of structure
collapse to over 10 times that of non-isolated structures [Shao]. Both studies concluded that structures
compliant with this Seismic Isolator Standard comply with the ASCE 7 Target Reliabilities. As
specified in ASCE 7 Table 1.3-2, primary structural components in essential facilities should have a
“Probability of Failure for loss of Structural Stability” of less than 2.5%. The FEMA P695 collapse
risk calculations performed at the Berkeley [Shao], and the State University of New York at Buffalo
[Kitayama], concluded that isolators having capacities equal to the ASCE 7 design loads and
displacements, assuming they have perfect quality materials and manufacturing quality, have FEMA
P695 collapse probabilities of 40%, which is 16 times the collapse probability limit for Category IV
structures. This Seismic Isolator Standard specifies the capacity tests that quantify that an isolator
has the minimum capacities and factors of safety that satisfy the ASCE 7 Target Reliabilities.
Page 16 of 52
UC Berkeley Calculated Earthquake Damage
FEMA P58 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 52
Specifying this Seismic Isolator Standard as the isolated structure standard, is necessary to comply
with Section 12.2.1.1 requirements to quantify that Target Reliabilities for structure types not listed
in Table 12.2-1. Isolators that do not comply with an adequate isolator product standard are
dangerous. This standard is updated, as experience with applications and earthquake performance
has grown. The version with the latest revision date governs over all prior versions.
2.0 Scope of the Continued Functionality and Seismic Isolator Standards

Every seismic isolator installed in a new or existing structure shall comply with the requirements of
this Seismic Isolation Standard. A seismic isolator is defined as any structural component that
supports a primary structure vertical load and accommodates over 20% of the DBE total structure
lateral displacement. Every new structure incorporating seismic isolators, shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with the requirements of this Continued Functionality Standard. Every
manufacturer of seismic isolation system components that are used in construction shall satisfy the
qualification requirements under this Seismic Isolation Standard.
This Continued Functionality Standard is developed to be applied together with the ASCE 7-16
Minimum Design Loads. Compliance with the Continued Functionality criteria herein will result in
limiting earthquake shaking damage to less than 2%, 4%, or 8%, depending on the functionality level
implemented. Achieving the continued functionality of facility operations also requires maintaining
post-earthquake electric power and water, and other operational needs, as specified in REDi. Basic
terms used in the Continued Functionality Standard are defined herein.
Other terms, nomenclature, definitions, and symbols used herein are those of ASCE 7-16. This
Seismic Isolation Standard establishes performance criteria for seismic isolators which are applied
together with ISO quality standards for manufactured products. This Seismic Isolation Standard
specifies relatively simple functionality criteria for substantially reducing seismic damage and losses
for buildings and other structures.
The Seismic Isolator Standard 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 limits according to ASCE 7 Risk Category
6. Dynamic Property Tests that measure the properties that control seismic shaking damage.
7. Floor spectra acceleration limits to limit damage to contents and architectural components
8. Limits on structure lateral deformations to limit damage to architectural components
9. Seismic Force Reduction R Factors that 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. Engineer Responsibilities
Page 18 of 52
Christchurch New Zealand, 3 days after the Downtown Christchurch New Zealand
2011 magnitude 6.3 earthquake, from the air 3 years after magnitude 6.3 earthquake
the city appears unaffected, but two structures 70% of Buildings Demolished
had collapsed.
New Piñas Del Oro Hospital, Ecuador,

Continued Functionality using Triple
Lutfi Kirdar Hospital, 3 Million SqFt, Turkey, Pendulum seismic isolators.
Pendulum seismic isolators.
Hospital, Puno Peru, Continued Functionality

Hospital Alto Inclan, Arequipa, Perú,
using Triple Pendulum seismic isolators
Adana Hospital, 550,000 Sq Meters, Turkey, Sports Hospital, Callo Peru, Continued
Continued Functionality using Triple Functionality using Triple Pendulum seismic
Pendulum seismic isolators. isolators.
Page 19 of 52
All matters specified in this Seismic Isolation Standard and Continued Functionality Standard 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 Continued Functionality Standard in whole or in part is granted to individuals
on the condition that clear reference and credit is given to this Continued Functionality Standard, and
its authors. Facilities with hazardous materials, or fragile equipment, project specific design criteria
shall be developed and applied supplemental to those in this Continued Functionality Standard.
3.0 Definitions
DM: Seismic displacement demand for the isolators, considering the maximum considered
earthquake demand, MCER, as defined by ASCE 7-16, or the equivalent seismic hazard spectra
defined by the applicable structure design code.
DD: Seismic displacement demand for the isolators, considering the design earthquake demand, DE,
as defined by ASCE 7-16, or the equivalent seismic hazard spectra defined by the applicable structure
design code.
Engineer: The design professional responsible for the design and engineering of the structure, and
whom signed and stamped the structural drawings, and who is the Engineer of Record for the project.
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.
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.
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 must 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 testing Section 8.5 herein.
Property Modification Factors: λ max = 2.5 and λ min = 0.50 when manufacturer specific values have
been not quantified through Seismic Isolator Standard 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 structure performance.
Page 20 of 52
Shell Offshore Platform, Russia, Continued Pasadena City Hall, California, Continued
Functionality with EPS pendulum isolators. Functionality with EPS pendulum isolators
Two LNG Tanks, Mexico, Continued

USA Federal Court House, San Francisco CA
Functionality using EPS Triple Pendulum
EPS pendulum isolators.
seismic isolators.
Two LNG Tanks in Peru Triple Pendulum

Isolators, Continued Functionality using EPS
Panama Canal Bridge, Triple Pendulums
3 LNG Tanks in Greece, Continued New York Tappan Zee Bridge, Triple Pendulums
Page 21 of 52
IVL (“Isolator Vertical Load”): Three isolator vertical loads representing the minimum, average,
and maximum loads resulting from the design dead load plus 0.5 times the reduced live load L as
defined in ASCE 7-16 4.7 ( or the equivalent live load 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.
4.0 Manufacturer Qualifications

All vendors of seismic isolation system components to be used in construction shall be either a
Certified Seismic Isolator Manufacturer, or a Certified Seismic Isolation Engineer. All manufacturers
of seismic isolation system components shall have a Certificate of Qualification as a Seismic Isolator
Manufacturer, obtained by submitting results of the Qualification Tests of their isolator products, and
quantitative analysis of those results, as specified herein. The Seismic Isolator Manufacture shall also
submit the Certificate of Qualification of its Seismic Isolation Engineer, obtained by submitting their
engineer’s qualifications conforming to the requirements herein.
The Seismic Isolator Manufacturer and Seismic Isolation Engineer jointly and severally takes
professional and legal responsibility for the isolator components and testing, and are both authorized
to enter into legally binding contracts and commercial offers for the manufacturer. Both are
professionally and commercially responsible that the properties, capacities, and reliability of their
isolators comply with the requirements of this Seismic Isolator Standard. In their qualification
application, the Seismic Isolator Manufacturer shall commit to satisfy the requirements of this Seismic
Isolator Standard for all isolator products sold by them for as long as they maintain a currently valid
qualification certificate.
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 quality of the Manufacturer’s isolators. 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 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, all commercial isolator offers, plus all the other isolator
reports, submittals, and test data required by this Seismic Isolator Standard. The Seismic Isolation
Engineer must 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.
For each construction project, a manufacturer of plain natural rubber, lead-rubber, or pendulum
isolators may qualify by submitting their Certificate of Qualification as a Seismic Isolator
Manufacturer, plus submit the Capacity Tests, Dynamic Property Tests, and Quality Control Tests as
applicable to the models offered for construction.
Page 22 of 52
Burbank Airport Intermodal Facility, California,
Catholic Church, Oakland California,

EPS pendulum isolators.
Acapulco City Hall, Mexico, Emergency

Response Center, Continued Functionality
using Triple Pendulum seismic isolators.
151 Cambridge, Christchurch, New Zealand,

Taiwan Condominiums, Continued

Art Gallery, Christchurch, New Zealand,

Taiwan Performing Arts Center, Continued Hospital, Puno Peru, Continued Functionality
Functionality with EPS pendulum isolators. using Triple Pendulum seismic isolators
Page 23 of 52
Manufacturers of other types of isolators must 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 previously sold as “High Damping Rubber
Isolators” are not permitted under this Seismic Isolation Standard. These isolators have been found
to have great variabilities in properties due to scragging, aging, and temperature, and do not satisfy
the requirements herein for 50 years of reliable and stable properties.
The Seismic Isolator Manufacturer’s Qualifications Submittal shall include and certify:
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. For the
manufacturer’s isolator types, test data used to develop the upper and lower bound force
displacement loops for 50 years of aging and environmental conditions, and analyses determining
Property Modification Factors and upper and lower bound property values in accordance with
this Seismic Isolator Standard and ASCE 7-16 17.2.8.
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 Seismic Isolator Standard, consistent with the upper and lower bound force
displacement loops as specified herein.
4. Rated capacities for the isolators offered, including maximum isolator: dynamic seismic
compression load; sustained compression load; uplift displacement or tension load capacity,
lateral displacement capacity; and shear strength capacity; as determined by the Capacity Tests
specified in this Seismic Isolator Standard.
5. Test results for isolators used in previous applications that have rated capacities and properties
equal or greater than those required for the proposed application.
6. 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.
7. That all isolators that were tested to qualify under this this Seismic Isolator Standard were
manufactured by the Manufacturer, in accordance with the Manufacturer’s certified and audited
ISO 9001 Quality Management System.
8. 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 360, ACI 318, and the corresponding ASTM material standards.
9. For sliding 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.
10. For elastomeric isolator types submit test data for: the effects of dynamic heating on isolator
properties; fire test data for protective covers that provide the fire rating; cyclic fatigue test data
for 50 years of in-structure movements; material qualification tests for a rubber compound
Page 24 of 52
Los Angeles Rams Stadium Roof, Los
Angeles, Continued Functionality using
San Bernardino Courthouse, California,
Los Angeles County Museum – Los Angeles,

Pendulum seismic isolators. San Francisco Airport International Terminal,
Hospital Amazonas, Perú, Continued

Functionality using Triple Pendulum seismic
isolators. Istanbul Grand Airport, Turkey, Continued
Functionality using Triple Pendulum seismic
isolators.
Hospital de San Francisco, Ayacucho Perú,

Pendulum seismic isolators. Ataturk Airport, Turkey, Continued
Page 25 of 52
for which the ASTM certifications show that the loss of elongation capacity, or increase in
elongation stiffness, is less than 10% in 50 years. The recommended upper bound force loop for
new and aged isolators must include 100% of the unscragged property effects. Complete force
displacement test data must be submitted for any and all cycles of loading performed on
elastomeric isolators prior to the tests required under this Seismic Isolator Standard. The Seismic
Isolation Engineer must certify that the test data submitted includes any scragging cycles
performed, and the effects of unscragged properties are included in the upper bound properties.`
11. 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.
12. Any Isolator Manufacturer or vendor, or Seismic Isolation Engineer that failed to satisfy the
requirements of this Seismic Isolator Standard, 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 Seismic Isolator Standard
for 20 years after the last such failure.
Earthquake Protection Systems “EPS” is a qualified manufacturer under this standard. Fayad Rahman,
Anoop Mokha, Stanley Low, and Victor Zayas are qualified Seismic Isolation Engineers under this
standard. All quality isolator manufacturers and seismic isolation engineers are encouraged to obtain
certification under this standard. Manufacturers and engineers seeking certification shall submit
complete qualification documentation according to the requirements herein to Professor Constantinou
for his review. After approval, Constantinou will issue the Certificates of Qualification as Seismic
Isolator Manufacturers, or Seismic Isolation Engineers. constan1@buffalo.edu
5.0 Required Isolator Tests and Test Facility Certifications

All isolator tests that are required under this Seismic Isolator Standard must 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 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, or equivalent.
Instruments for direct measurements of shear and vertical load on the isolator must be rigidly
connected directly to the isolator. The Manufacturer must 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 Certificate of Qualification of the Seismic Isolator Manufacturer.
Page 26 of 52
Puno Hospital, Perú, Triple Pendulums George Lucas Museum – Los Angeles
Continued Functionality with Triple
Academy Museum of Motion Arts – Los

Hospital de Cajamarca, Essalud, Perú, Angeles, Continued Functionality using
Continued Functionality using Triple Triple Pendulum seismic isolators.
Los Angeles Emergency Communications

Hospital de San Miguel, Ayacucho Perú, Bldg., California, Continued Functionality
Continued Functionality using Triple using Triple Pendulum seismic isolators.
Hospital de Coracora, Ayacucho Perú, Hospital de Cangallo, Ayacucho Perú,

Continued Functionality using Triple Continued Functionality using Triple
Pendulum seismic isolators. Pendulum seismic isolators.
Page 27 of 52
6.0 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. A minimum of 20 isolator qualification test programs
must have been performed at a minimum of three different credible independent testing laboratories.
Results from a manufacturer’s laboratory must be consistent with those from the independent
government laboratories, for the manufacture’s products and laboratory to be qualified under the
Seismic Isolator Standard. The manufacturer’s Seismic Isolation Engineer shall certify that submitted
Qualification Tests data and reports accurately represent the manufacturer’s isolators, and comply
with requirements herein. 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 three shake-table test programs of the manufacturer’s isolator types 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 tests 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 8.2.
8. The quantification of the Property Modification Factors specified by ASCE 7-16 Section 17.2.8,
shall be based on Seismic Isolator Standard specified Qualification Tests. Qualification tests must
include tests for the effects of aging and environmental exposure conditions. The upper bound
model for aged isolators shall be consistent with the λae,max as specified by the ASCE 7-16 Property
Modification Factors.
The effects of environmental contamination of full size isolators shall represent worst case conditions,
and may be used directly without added safety factors. The effects of aging as measured from tests
of actual 10 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 as measured from simulated aging of actual full
size isolators shall represent worst case conditions, and shall be amplified by a 2.0 safety factor. The
effects of aging as measured from simulated aging of material sample tests shall represent worst case
conditions, and shall be amplified by a 3.0 safety factor. 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 10 kilometers of cumulative cyclic movements. Elastomeric
isolators require test results showing completely unscragged properties of virgin isolators, and the
effects of aging on the elastomeric material, and tests for degradation of the elastomer to steel
adhesive; and cycle fatigue due to due to 10 kilometers of cumulative cyclic movements.
Page 28 of 52
Qualification Testing of EPS Seismic Isolators
50 Isolator Test Programs at Independent Laboratories
12 Independent Testing Laboratories
32 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
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
Page 29 of 52
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 30 of 52
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

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

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

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 31 of 52
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

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

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

Pendulum Bearings
Page 32 of 52
7.0 Capacity Tests
The Capacity Tests are performed on two isolators of each model having different rated capacities for
vertical load, shear strength, or lateral displacement. 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 isolators made by the Manufacturer
must be Capacity Tested in accordance with this Seismic Isolator Standard. 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.
7.1 Design 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.
7.2 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 8.1 Design Seismic Properties test, and then
repeated again with the isolator rotated 90 degrees. The isolator effective stiffness or damping
measured at the 45 or 90 degree directions shall not differ by more than 15% from the first direction
of loading.
7.3 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.
7.4 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.
7.5 Lateral Displacement Capacity and Shear Strength: In the laterally un-displaced position a
vertical load of average IVL is applied and maintained as the minimum vertical throughout the applied
lateral displacements. Starting in the laterally un-displaced position, the isolator displacement is
increased in the plus direction to a displacement not less than the specified minimum lateral
Page 33 of 52
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 34 of 52
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 capacities as measured during Test 8.5 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 maintain a linear restoring force stiffness Kd up through displacements of 2.0
DM, this test is performed at displacements of 2.0 DM. The isolator shear strengths measured
during both the plus and minus lateral displacement excursions shall not be less than 3.0 times the
shear at DM. For increases in lateral displacements up to 2.0 DM, the lateral force versus deflection
plots shall have a positive incremental force-resisting capacity. 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 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 3.0 times the shear measured at DM. The
isolator shear 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 not
compliant with Seismic Isolator Standard section 8.5.1, 8.5.2, or 8.5.4, this test is performed at a
displacement 1.5 times the orthogonal displacement that engages the Moat Wall Restraint System.
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 not begin to restrain lateral displacements at less than 2.0 DM. The
Moat Wall Restraint System shall have sufficient stiffness to prevent isolator displacements
greater than 2.25 DM. The required movement capacity of all components displaced by the seismic
isolator movements shall be 1.5 times the orthogonal displacements that engage the Moat Wall
Restraint System. Architectural or structural components (excluding isolators) that begin to
restrain lateral displacements at less than 1.5 times the displacement that engages the Moat Wall
Restraint System are not permitted.
4. For isolation systems installed in structures that comply with the requirements of 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 1.5 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 shear measured at DD as calculated by linear analysis for the DE loading.
The lateral movement capacity of all components displaced by the isolator movements shall be
1.25 DD. Architectural or structural components (excluding isolators) that begin to restrain lateral
displacements at less than 1.25 DD are not permitted. The isolators and primary structural
members shall also be demonstrated to remain stable for a seismic loading equal to 1.5 times the
MCE spectra, where the analyses of the structure includes the effects of inelastic structure member
deformations, large displacement effects, and eccentric vertical loads from their un-deformed
positions. For the 1.5 times MCE spectra, the lateral displacements occurring in any primary
Page 35 of 52
360 degree turn Elevator Bridge, Colombia,
raised highway level sufficiently to eliminate
Sixth Street Avenue Bridge, Los Angeles, 5 kilometers of tunnel, saving over $10
California, Continued Functionality using million in costs. Continued Functionality
Triple Pendulum seismic isolators. using Triple Pendulum seismic isolators.
Antioch Bridge, California, Continued

Folsom Bridge, California, Continued Functionality with EPS pendulum isolators.
Benicia Martinez Bridge, California, I40 Mississippi River Bridge, Continued

Continued Functionality with EPS pendulum Functionality with EPS pendulum isolators.
isolators.
GUALANDAY BRIDGE, COLOMBIA,

Dumbarton Bridge, California, Continued California, Continued Functionality using
Functionality with EPS pendulum isolators. Triple Pendulum seismic isolators.
Page 36 of 52
vertical load carrying member (excluding isolators) shall not exceed 5% of the member’s vertical
height. The calculation of Dd and Dm, and isolator displacement and shear demand at the 1.5
MCE loading may be calculated using non-linear analyses that includes inelastic member
deformations and large displacement effects, for which the non-linear lateral force versus lateral
displacement relationship is accurately modeled for both the structure and the isolators. The
isolator shear strengths measured during both the plus and minus lateral displacement excursions
shall not be less than 1.5 times the isolator shear demand calculated through such non-linear
analyses, which may be used as the required shear strength of the isolator instead of 5 times the
isolator shear measured at DD as calculated from the linear elastic analysis for the DE. The shear
load and displacement demands must be calculated using inelastic large displacement effects 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 factors of safety required herein for isolator displacement capacity and shear strength avoid
isolator and structure collapse for 1.5 times the ASCE 7-16 mapped 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. The isolator displacement factor of
safety is reduced to avoid requiring isolator capacities for earthquakes significantly stronger than this
strongest ground motion ever recorded. Thus, 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.
8.0 Dynamic Property Tests

Dynamic Property Tests shall be performed on two isolators of each model as manufactured 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. Displacement amplitudes may exceed, but shall not be
less than the specified factors. Vertical isolator 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 Section 9.0 tests. The upper and lower bound analytical force loops for new
isolators shall be plotted and compared with each of the specified tests.
8.1 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 the 240 cycles shall not be less than 480 seconds, nor more than 500
seconds. The average Keff for the 240 cycles shall not exceed by more than 10% 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.
Page 37 of 52
8.2 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
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.
8.4 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
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.
8.6 Seismic Property: Perform 3 complete lateral loading cycles at an amplitude of DD, while
maintaining an average vertical load of maximum IVL, +/-10%. 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 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
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
Page 38 of 52
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.
8.7 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
of the shear value at DD for the analytical upper bound force displacement loop.
8.8 Seismic Property: Perform 1 complete lateral loading cycle at a displacement amplitude of 1.0
DM, while maintaining an average compression load not less than the average IVL. The total duration
to complete the 1 cycle shall not be more than 1.1 times the isolation system natural period. The Keff
shall not be less than the Keff of the analytical lower bound force displacement loop for new isolators.
The area of the loop shall not be less than 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.
9 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 may not be used in
construction. Results from each Quality Control Test shall comply with the Section 9.0 established
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.
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. 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 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.
Page 39 of 52
10 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 in Section 8.
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
40 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
manufacturers that satisfy this qualification criteria, and for isolators with capacities directly between
models having Section 8 Capacity Test results, the isolator rated capacities may be those obtained
from the Section 8 tests performed on only 1 isolator.
When Section 8 capacity tests are not performed on any isolator of the specific model, and for
isolators with capacities directly between models having Section 8 Capacity Test results, then the
rated capacity may not exceed 0.9 times the capacity calculated as a direct interpolation between
Section 8 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 0.8 times the calculated capacity using the capacity calculation method
calibrated against the lower bound of the capacity tested models. The calculated rated capacities for
vertical and shear loads 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 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.
Seismic Isolator Standard Section 9.0 Dynamic Property Tests are required for all isolators with lower
bound properties having calculated EDC equivalent to over 2% of viscous damping, or BM > 0.8.
Dynamic Property Tests of full size isolators performed at the isolation system natural period quantify
the effects of dynamic heating degradation and damage on the isolator materials, as required to
quantify isolator non-linear properties and EDC.
If the Dynamic Property Tests specified are not performed on full size isolators at the specified rates,
loads, and displacements, then the calculated effective damping numerical factor BM of the lower
bound force displacement loop shall not exceed 0.8.
When isolator EDC is extrapolated for isolators larger than those full size models for which Dynamic
Property Tests results are available, an added Property Modification Factors for dynamic property
scale effects shall be used to account for isolator property variations resulting from isolator size
effects. The lower bound factor for scale effects shall not be less than λscale,min = 0.9. The upper
bound factor for scale effects need not be greater than λscale,max = 1.0. If the Dynamic Property Tests
are performed at the specified rates, but the Quality Control Tests are performed at slower 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
corresponding to the slower quality control tests; or 0.9 times the BM value determined from Test 9.7.
The isolator damping as used in the lower bound analysis shall comply with these limits on BM.
Page 40 of 52
11 Structural Analyses, Isolator Displacement Capacity, and
Design Loads, and Structure Types
Structural analyses used in the design of isolated structures shall comply with ASCE 7-16 17.6.3.4.
“Response History Analysis Procedure”. 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 Seismic Isolator Standard. 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”.
Structural components, excluding isolators, shall be designed to have sufficient strength and stiffness
to 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. The upper bound
analytical model for new isolators shall represent the combined effects of the ASCE 7 Section 17.2.8
upper bound λtest and λspec. This upper bound analytical model shall be increased by the Section
17.2.8 λae,max accounting for environmental and aging effects as determined from the Qualification
Tests specified herein. The combined effects of λtest λspec and λae,max shall be added to the upper
bound analytical loop for new isolators as determined from the Section 9.0 tests. All points of the
upper bound analytical model force loop used in the structural analyses shall fall outside of the
Manufacturer’s upper bound isolator properties for aged isolators. The lower bound analytical model
of the isolators, as determined from the Section 9.0 tests, shall be used in the analyses to calculate the
DM displacement demand. The Property Modification Factors are specified as λ max = 2.5 and λ min =
0.50 when manufacturer specific values have been not quantified through Seismic Isolator Standard
specified Qualification Tests.
To avoid damage due to differential vertical displacements of isolators, for isolator models 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.
Page 41 of 52
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.
12 Elastic Structure Design and Continued Functionality

Criteria for Bridges
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 Continued Functionality
Standard 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 structure or
member ductility or over strength design requirements.
Expansion joints shall have sufficient longitudinal and transverse displacement capacities to
accommodate 1.1 times DM, plus 1.1 times the calculated maximum thermal displacements. The
expansion joints shall remain functional, and have no structural damage, when subject to these
displacement demands. Utility lines and connections crossing the seismic isolation movement
locations 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 when subject to the DM displacement demand.
The provisions of this sub-section do not apply to the structural members or structural design for the
seismic isolation retrofit of existing bridges. All provisions in this standard regarding the isolators
and manufacturers shall apply to the isolators installed as part of a seismic isolation retrofit.
13 Seismic Isolation Engineer Responsibilities

The Seismic Isolation Engineer shall submit a signed and stamped Seismic Isolation Engineering
Report with calculations, drawings, and test results demonstrating compliance with this Seismic
Isolator Standard for:
1. 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 Seismic
Isolator Standard.
2. 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 Seismic
Isolator Standard Qualification, Capacity, Dynamic Property, and Quality Control Tests.
3. Structure analysis of the isolated structure for the MCE using lower bound isolator properties to
calculate the DM displacement.
Page 42 of 52
4. Structure analysis of the isolated structure for the DE using upper bound isolator properties to
calculate: the design lateral seismic loads as applicable to the structure components above and
below the seismic isolators; required lateral structural design strengths and stiffness; structural
component lateral drifts; and median floor spectra accelerations.
5. Installation details for the seismic isolators including their connections to other structure
`components.
6. Specifications and typical details to accommodate the lateral and vertical seismic displacements
as specified in this Seismic Isolator Standard for those components affected by the isolator
displacements, including: structural, non-structural and architectural components, including
stairs, elevators, utility services, walkways, roadways, floors, walls and ceilings.
14 Structure Design Engineer Responsibilities

The Engineer shall specify the Seismic Isolator Standard in the construction plans and specifications,
and shall specify the approved isolator models and manufacturers on the construction plans. The
Engineer shall also approve that the isolators, testing, and the manufacturer’s qualifications as
compliant with the Seismic Isolator Standard, including:
1. Prior to the issuing of construction drawings, approve the Certificate of Qualifications of the
Seismic Isolator Manufacturer and Seismic Isolation Engineer.
2. Prior to the issuing of construction drawings, approve specific isolator models based on the Seismic
Isolator Standard specified Qualification, Capacity, and Dynamic Property Tests.
3. Submit written approval that in the opinion of the Engineer the listed Manufacturers and Seismic
Isolation Engineers satisfy the Seismic Isolator Standard qualification requirements.
4. Issue construction specifications that state that any alternate isolator models or manufacturers, not
listed as approved on the plans, must be approved by the Engineer prior to the construction bid
submittal, that proposed alternates must equal to or better than the isolators and manufacturers
listed on the plans, in their qualifications, capacities; properties; reliability; testing; and
qualifications; as defined by this Seismic Isolator Standard.
5. 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 Seismic Isolator Standard specified Capacity Tests.
6. 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.
7. Review and approve all submittals required by this Seismic Isolator Standard 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.
8. 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 must
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.
9. Verify that the structure lateral drifts are within the permissible Seismic Isolator Standard drift
limits for the Functionality level specified.
Page 43 of 52
10. Advise the owner of the Continued Functionality Standard seismic damage limit targeted by the
structural design.
11. Inspect that the isolators have been installed in compliance with the Seismic Isolation
Engineer’s installation requirements.
12. Inspect all seismic movement details for compliance with the seismic performance objectives of
this Continued Functionality Standard, and the seismic movement details specified by the
Seismic Isolation Engineer.
Technical coordination between the Engineer and the isolator Manufacturer is essential to verify
that any isolators specified will conform to the performance and reliability required by this Seismic
Isolator Standard. The Structural Design Professional’s written approval of the isolators must
explicitly state that they or their associates have not and will not receive any compensation or
inducement to specify or approve the isolators that they are specifying or approving.
15 Specifications for Construction Documents

The Seismic Isolator Standard is the international standard for best practices for seismic isolation
and criteria for post-earthquake functionality. Seismic isolators designed for compliance with
ASCE 7 Chapter 17 are too stiff to reliably deliver functionality and are not permitted for this
construction. In the construction documents section that lists the structural component standards of
ACI and AISC, list this Seismic Isolator Standard as the product standard applicable to all isolators.
The construction specifications section for isolators must include the below general requirements,
plus one of the below three paragraphs to specify the Functionality Level:
Continued Functionality Seismic Iotation
Before constructing or installing any structural, architectural, or utility components, the General
Contractor is responsible to verify and implement all components as necessary to accommodate the
seismic isolator displacements without damaging any component implemented in the construction.
The General Contractor shall submit for approval by the Engineer, a report signed and stamped by
a Seismic Isolation Engineer qualified under the Continued Functionality Standard and Seismic
Isolation Standard, which provide the details and specifications for compliance with the functionality
requirements of the construction specifications, specifying any required changes from the bid
contract drawings and specifications. 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 construction
specifications, and that the isolators are in compliance with the Continued Functionality Standard.
Compliance with these functionality criteria is included in the total price of the contract.
The Engineer has specified the Seismic Isolator Standard as the product standard for the seismic
isolators, implemented in accordance with definitions, seismic loadings, and analysis requirements
of ASCE 7-16. All seismic isolators must comply with the properties and capacities of the isolators
specified on the construction plans, in accordance with Seismic Isolator Standard requirements for
the functionality level specified, and isolator tests for Quality Control, Dynamic Properties,
Capacities, and Qualification. ASCE 7 Chapter 1 Sections 1.1 and 1.3.1.1 require that an industry
standard be specified for all structural components, such that the ASCE 7 defined Minimum Design
Loads are less than the design load limits specified in the component product standard. ASCE 7
Chapter 23 lists the industry standards that are mandatory for the common generic structural
Page 44 of 52
components. ACI 318 is the mandatory industry standard applicable to concrete structures, and all
their structural components and materials. AISC 360 is the mandatory industry standard applicable
to steel structures, and all their structural components and materials.
The Engineer has studied the different seismic isolator types on the market worldwide, and assessed
that the isolators shown on the construction plans represent the best value for compliance with the
Functionality level specified, when considering isolator performance, reliability, installed cost, and
total structural, architectural, and utilities costs. The Engineer believes that the isolator models
specified on the construction plans will comply with these construction specifications without
requiring changes to the structure.
Prior to bid, the Contractor may choose to propose alternate isolators that comply with these
specifications. The properties, capacities, and reliability of the alternate isolators must be equal to
or better than those of the isolators specified on the plans, as demonstrated through Seismic Isolator
Standard testing. For alternate isolators to be permitted in the construction the Contractor’s bid
submittal must include an approval in writing by the Engineer for the alternate isolators. To obtain
this approval, the contractor must submit the Manufacturer’s Qualifications, and test results for
Quality Control, Dynamic Properties, Capacities, and Qualification, as specified by the Seismic
Isolator Standard, as applicable to the alternate isolator models offered. All test results must show
capacities, properties, and reliability that are equal or better. After contract award, the Engineer
may choose any two alternate isolators of each model delivered to the construction, and send them
to an independent laboratory for validation testing. The Contractor is solely responsible for any cost
and schedule impacts of this validation testing, and any costs, delays, or impacts resulting from use
of the alternate isolators, including: approval process; isolator non-compliance; required
construction changes, or any earthquake shaking damage to the facility or its contents resulting from
failure of the isolators to have equal or better capacities, properties, and reliability..
Platinum Functionality: The facility being constructed has been designed for compliance with
the Platinum Functionality Criteria of the Seismic Isolation Continued Functionality Standard,
which minimizes damage caused by earthquake ground shaking to a small percentage of the
damage that typically occurs for the structure types specified in ASCE 7 Chapter 12. This complies
with requirements for essential facilities as specified for ASCE 7 Category IV structures. ASCE 7
Section 1.3.3, Functionality, requires all essential facilities to have “a reasonable probability to
have adequate structural strength and stiffness to not prevent function of the facility immediately
following” the design level earthquake.
Gold Functionality: The facility being constructed has been designed for compliance with the
Gold Functionality Criteria of the Seismic Isolation Continued Functionality Standard which
substantially reduces damage caused by earthquake ground shaking as compared to the damage
that typically occurs for the structure types specified in ASCE 7 Chapter 12. The Continued
Functionality Standard is the international standard for best practices for seismic isolation and
criteria for post-earthquake functionality. https://goo.gl/h82Fnk Seismic isolators designed only
for compliance with ASCE 7 Chapter 17 are too stiff to reliably deliver functionality and are not
permitted for this construction.
Silver Functionality: The facility being constructed has been designed for compliance with the
Silver Functionality Criteria of the Continued Functionality Standard which reduces damage
caused by earthquake ground shaking as compared to the damage that typically occurs for the
Page 45 of 52
structure types specified in ASCE 7 Chapter 12. The Continued Functionality Standard is the
international standard for best practices for seismic isolation and criteria for post-earthquake
functionality. https://goo.gl/h82Fnk Seismic isolators designed only for compliance with ASCE 7
Chapter 17 are too stiff to reliably deliver functionality and are not permitted for this construction.
16 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, Senior Research Fellow, and
Doctorate in Structural Earthquake Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley
President and Founder, Earthquake Protection Systems
Inventor of Pendulum Seismic Isolators
California Professional Engineer C35723
Dr. Zayas’ PhD thesis work was elected to an ASCE Hall of Fame stating: “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, in recognition of
his pioneering structural engineering research that resulted in improvements in structural engineering
and construction that saved lives and properties from the devastating effects of earthquakes.
Professor Popov was Dr. Zayas’ senior PhD thesis supervisor. Professor Stephen Timoshenko of
Stanford University was the PhD supervisor of Professor Popov. Together, these two professors were
responsible for developing a large portion of the discipline of modern structural engineering.
Victor is also 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
Dr. Zayas’ PhD concept for ductile structures was developed during his thesis work at the University
of California Berkeley during the 1970s. His concept was to increase a structure’s stable lateral
displacement capacity by developing ductile structure member details that would distribute seismic
displacements throughout the entire structure height, to avoid concentrations of displacements in any
one portion of a structure, which typically is the primary cause of structure collapse. This “ductile
structure” approach allows large seismic displacement demands to be distributed throughout the
structure height, as the primary means of avoiding collapse. This changed the primary consideration
for seismic design, a focus on accommodating and controlling large displacement demands, rather
than focusing only on structural member strengths, as was the prior professional practice.
Page 46 of 52
Victor’s PhD thesis contributed to the development of modern seismic codes that specify ductile
structure types as required in strong seismic regions. Ductile structures have avoided the collapse of
many buildings, bridges, and industrial facilities, thus saving millions of lives worldwide. However,
Dr. Zayas was not satisfied with the widespread severe damage, with some collapses, that occurs
when ductile structures are designed using the large “R Factors” permitted by codes. These ductile
structures actually suffer more damage during moderate earthquakes than the older structure types
that were stronger rather than modern ductile structures. Yet, the ductile structures have substantially
lower probabilities of collapse because of their greatly increased safe displacement capacities.
Victor’s concept for pendulum isolators was the direct result of seeking methods to increase a
structure’s safe lateral displacement capacity.
In 1979 Victor started to develop concepts for pendulum isolators that could maintain post-earthquake
functionality by accommodating large seismic displacements in reliable mechanical components.
That started 41 years of developments of pendulum seismic isolators, and isolator materials that would
deliver reliably consistent properties when subject to adverse environmental conditions for 50 years,
and displacement based seismic design methods, and isolated structure construction methods, and
earthquake shaking damage estimations, and this Continued Functionality Standard.
Victor’s pendulum isolators actively control a structure’s period, damping, and displacement
capacity, instead of passively accepting the periods, yielding, unknown safe inelastic displacement
capacity, and the high accelerations and forces, and the severe damage that occurs in ductile
structures. In structures compliant with the Continued Functionality Standard, the structural members
remain reliably elastic, and ductile detailing is not required. Damage is avoided, and structures are
constructed faster and at lower costs, as compared to the ductile structure types specified in the
building codes. Continued Functionality structures avoid damage, and safety is assured, by reliably
absorbing the seismic displacements in sliding pendulum isolators; thus minimizing the accelerations,
forces, and lateral displacements occurring in the other structural members.
Today, Dr. Zayas is the world’s leading engineer implementing seismic isolators to minimize damage
sufficiently to maintain functionality. Victor’s pendulum isolators have been installed in over $400
Billion in constructed value of important buildings, bridges, and industrial facilities, in 23 countries.
For 30 years, Victor has advocated that the structure design codes should require isolated structures
to be designed with R=1 and drifts less than 0.3%. Such isolated structures serve a much needed
structure type that minimizes damage sufficiently to retain functionality. To date, no structure design
code has implemented these functionality criteria. Consequentially, most isolated buildings are being
constructed implementing the lowest cost isolators permitted by codes, supporting flexible moment
frame structures. The seismic isolators allow for reduced design shear strengths, but for the design
basis earthquakes will absorb little or no displacement, and thus will not improve structure
performance. Most currently installed rubber isolators have stiffness much higher than the code
assumed “effective stiffness”, which is used to calculate minimum required displacement capacities.
A common isolated structure type, consists of flexible moment frame structures supported on rigid
isolators. These structures suffer more damage and have higher probabilities of collapse as compared
to older stronger structures, or current code compliant ductile structures, and certainly will not deliver
the Continued Functionality performance expected by owners.
As first author and primary editor, Victor Zayas accepts full and sole responsibility for all contents of
this Continued Functionality Standard, and Seismic Isolation Standard, including how the
contributions by the co-authors and the other contributors were implemented herein.
Page 47 of 52
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.
https://goo.gl/18gw4b https://goo.gl/Mra83H Prof. Mahin stated often that
seismic isolation was the most effective and reliable means of achieving
resilient and sustainable structures. Prof. Mahin’s collaboration on this
Continued Functionality Standard, and issuing it as a publication of the UC Berkeley Department of
Civil Engineering, was Mahin’s 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.
Professor Michael Constantinou

Professor Constantinou is internationally recognized as the leading
academic expert on the reliability of seismic isolator and damper hardware
and materials. He is primary author of the isolator Property Modification
Factors in Chapter 17 of ASCE 7. https://goo.gl/4rGXTG Since 1989,
Professor Constantinou has collaborated with Victor Zayas in the testing of
pendulum isolated structures, quantifying the behavior and modeling of
pendulum isolators, and the applications of pendulum isolators to important
structures worldwide. Michael Constantinou took primary responsibility
to review the criteria and requirements in this Continued Functionality
Standard as equally applicable for rubber and other isolator types.
Professor Constantinou serves to qualify seismic isolator manufacturers,
and Seismic Isolation Engineers, under the qualification requirements herein. Professor Constantinou
serves as a SUNY Distinguished Professor, is past Chair of the department, and served as Director
and Deputy Director of the Structural Engineering and Earthquake Simulation Laboratory at the
University at Buffalo. Email: constan1@buffalo.edu
Other Contributors
Development of this Continued Functionality Standard has been a collaborative effort that has
included over 100 structural design professionals that collaborated with EPS engineers in applications
of pendulum isolators for the past 35 years. These applications provided the proofs of concept and
the application earthquake performance data needed to issue this Continued Functionality Standard.
Regarding prior research work, 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
Page 48 of 52
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, and Vincent Nettles. Stephen Mahin and Ben
Shao performed the primary FEMA P695 analyses study to calculate the isolator capacity factors
needed to satisfy ASCE 7 Target Reliabilities, for isolated structures designed for minimum
compliance with ASCE 7-16. Michael Constantinou and Sharma Kitayama, using independent
calculation methods developed at SUNY Buffalo, validated essentially the same required isolator
capacities. Thus, validation satisfies the scientific requirement of independent verification for a
scientific method to be generally accepted.
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. Fayad Rahman performed many of these structural analyses, and
the FEMA P58 analyses that quantified the damage levels resulting from floor spectra accelerations,
and structure drifts. 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.
The functionality criteria herein for average floor spectra accelerations, average structure drifts, and
peak structure drifts, as specified herein, and the Damage Estimation Curves and methods, were
developed by Victor Zayas, based on the calibration of FEMA P58 analyses with the earthquake
damage he observed during his 45 year structural earthquake engineering career.
17 References
AASHTO, “Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design”, American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, 4th Edition, 2014.
ARUP Design and 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, Earthquake Reconnaissance April 16th, Muisne Ecuador, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City,
California, 2016. 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
Constantinou, MCEER Report 16-0006, “Seismic Isolation of High Voltage Electric Power Transformers”.
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, California, 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
Page 49 of 52
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
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 Engineering and Structural
Engineering, 42 (12), 1847-1865.
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 Presentation
at the 2nd International Conference on Natural Hazards, Greece http://bit.ly/2YWQHDB
Page 50 of 52
Morales, Romo, SHaro, Sinde, Aroca, Nikolaou, Diaz-Fanaz . A Real Life Resiliency Experiment: The Los
Caras Bridge of Ecaudor, Proceedings Conference on 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, Proceedings, 8th International Conference on Urban
Earthquake 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. https://goo.gl/vSmr6M
NIST (2011). “Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response-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
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 Civil Engineering
Department, April 1, 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
Continued Functionality Standard, Zayas, Mahin, Constantinou; “Seismic Isolation Standard for
Continued Functionality”, University of California Berkeley, December 2017 https://goo.gl/h82Fnk
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
Page 51 of 52
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
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
Zayas, Mahin, Constantinou; “Seismic Isolation Standard for Continued Functionality”, University of
California Berkeley, UCB/SEMM-2017/03, https://goo.gl/h82Fnk
Zayas (2018), Saving Lives Building Hospitals That Function After Earthquakes, Earthquake Protection
Systems, Vallejo California. http://bit.ly/2QvuhFA www.EarthquakeProtection.com
Zayas (2013), Seismic Isolation Design Criteria for Continued Functionality, Proceedings SEAOC 2013
Annual Convention, San Diego, CA. https://goo.gl/5u3Sco
Zayas, Mahin (2010), Seismic Design Methodology to Avoid Damage to Structures, Non-Structural
Components and Contents, 13th US-Japan Workshop, Applied Technology, Council, Redwood City,
California. https://goo.gl/18gw4b
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 Okmeydani Hospital in Turkey, Engineering Report,
Earthquake Protection Systems, CA.
Zayas, “Seismic Designs for Resilient Structures”, 2015. https://goo.gl/bW6Ynm
Zayas, Mahin, and Constantinou (2016). Safe and Unsafe Isolated Structures, Structural Engineering and
Structural Mechanics Division, University of California, Berkeley, https://goo.gl/yklfJ3
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, University of
California, Berkeley, 1980
Zayas, Victor Zayas, PhD, California Professional Engineer. https://goo.gl/hzm6Z2
Page 52 of 52

Continued Functionality Standard

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Continued Functionality Standard

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Continued Functionality Standard

Seismic Isolation Standard

University of California Berkeley,

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

Update Revision Date: December 10, 2020

Christchurch’s seismically isolated Women’s

Indonesia Hospital Patients in Street, 2017

At Texas Instrument’s most critical factory

Mexico Hospital Patients in Street, 2017

Two large liquid natural gas tanks in Chile,

Stanford University Hospital, California

Dangerous European Isolation System failed

New Loma Linda Hospital, California

The Failed European isolation system was

Seismic isolators for Wellington Children’s

Exxon’s Russia Offshore Platform, Continued

Basaksehir Hospital Facility, Turkey

Okemeydani Hospital, Turkey

1.2 Seismic Isolator Standard “SIS”

CFS Platinum 2% 0.3g 0.20% 0.30%

CFS Gold 4% 0.4g 0.30% 0.45%

CFS Silver 8% 0.6g 0.67% 1.00%

ASCE 7.17 no CFS 30% 1.0g 1.33% 2.00%

ASCE 7.12 DE 60% 1.3g 2.00% 3.00%

ASCE 7.12 MCE 100% 1.5g 3.00% 5.00%

Acceleration and Drift Limits to Limit Earthquake Shaking Damage

Target Limit Floor Spectra Average of Max of Peak

CFS Platinum 2% 1.5% 0.25% 0.25%

Contributions to Architectural and Structural Building Damage

Damage Criteria Tables

Expected Percentage Damage (%)

Expected Percentage Damage (%)

Adding up the damage contributions from these 5 curves provides an

Damage Estimation Curves: Building earthquake shaking damage

Probability of Collapse as a Function of CMR

2.0 Scope of the Continued Functionality and Seismic Isolator Standards

New Piñas Del Oro Hospital, Ecuador,

Hospital, Puno Peru, Continued Functionality

Two LNG Tanks, Mexico, Continued

Two LNG Tanks in Peru Triple Pendulum

4.0 Manufacturer Qualifications

Catholic Church, Oakland California,

Acapulco City Hall, Mexico, Emergency

151 Cambridge, Christchurch, New Zealand,

Taiwan Condominiums, Continued

Art Gallery, Christchurch, New Zealand,

Los Angeles County Museum – Los Angeles,

Hospital Amazonas, Perú, Continued

Hospital de San Francisco, Ayacucho Perú,

5.0 Required Isolator Tests and Test Facility Certifications

Academy Museum of Motion Arts – Los

Los Angeles Emergency Communications

Hospital de Coracora, Ayacucho Perú, Hospital de Cangallo, Ayacucho Perú,

12 Independent Testing Laboratories

32 Years of Testing at the World’s Leading Universities

Year Independent Test Program Principal

2013 MCEER Shake Table Testing of Triple Pendulum Prof. Constantinou

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

2012 UCB Testing of various imposed bi-directional

2012 PEER Torsional response of Friction Pendulum Tracy Becker,

2012 MCEER Shake Table Testing of Electrical Transformer Prof. Constantinou

2011 PEER Shake Table Testing of Triple Pendulum Prof. Mahin

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

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