2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

1440

Base Isolation for Industrial Structures; Design and Construction Essentials Todd W. Erickson, S.E.1 and Arash Altoontash, Ph.D., S.E.2 Group Manager, ABS Consulting, 300 Commerce Dr., Suite 200, Irvine, California 92602. Email: TErickson@absconsulting.com, Phone: (714) 734-4242. 2 Sr. Project Engineer, ABS Consulting, 300 Commerce Dr., Suite 200, Irvine, California 92602. Email: AAltoontash@absconsulting.com, Phone: (714) 734-4242. ABSTRACT Improved seismic performance objectives (Immediate Occupancy and Continued Operation) set by owners of high-tech manufacturing facilities have resulted in increased use of supplemental damping and base isolation designs. This article reviews the design and construction process of industrial base isolated buildings with focus on code requirements, design and analytical methodologies, and constructability challenges. Due to velocity/displacement dependent behavior of base isolation systems, the building code (IBC/ASCE-7) requires performing a Non-Linear Time History (NLTH) analysis to determine the seismic loading on the base isolated structure. However, due to the complexity of NLTH and because the superstructure must be essentially elastic, the code also permits performing a staged analysis. The staged analysis consists of: 1) performing a linear (modal) analysis of the superstructure to determine the lumped-mass dynamic characteristics of the building, 2) performing a NLTH analysis of the isolation system and superstructure to determine system forces, displacements, and base shears, 3) performing superstructure design using a linear (modal) analysis with scaled base shear forces, and 4) designing the base isolator footings and support framing to resist the system design displacements and resulting forces. The required series of time history analyses are performed for a suite of time history records, each scaled to the Design Earthquake (DE) and the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE), variations of upper bound and lower bound isolator properties, and position of center of mass at each floor. A case study of a multi-stage analysis, design, and construction of three concrete industrial buildings built on a single base isolation slab is presented to discuss details and challenges related to design and construction of isolator selection, mounting, and support, as well as the design criteria for utility displacement compatibility at the isolator moat, and reduced equipment and contents anchorage requirements. INTRODUCTION This paper discusses some of the structural design aspects of a recently completed base-isolated reinforced concrete semiconductor fabrication facility. The structure consists of three Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frame (C-SMRF) superstructures supported on a single at-grade base-isolated framing level with 412 Friction Pendulum (FP) isolators.
1

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

1441

The need for high-level structural performance under extreme natural forces is well established in building code requirements for emergency operations and hazardous materials handling facilities, especially in seismically active regions. However, many owners of non-essential facilities desire a similar level of structural performance for their facilities to limit business interruption and reduce contents damage. For these owners, the benefits of significant risk reduction and the potential of reduced insurance costs outweigh the added construction cost of a high-performance structure. Semiconductor fabrication facilities by virtue of both market forces and the monetary value of sensitive production tools used to manufacture their high-value product, fall into the second group. The use of energy dissipation systems incorporating base-isolation or viscous dampers, or both, are well suited to provide superior structural performance. Base isolation can significantly decrease lateral floor accelerations, which directly reduces the shaking intensity and damage that permanent equipment and building contents experience during earthquake ground shaking. This greatly benefits a semiconductor fabrication facilitys ease of use, by reducing the lateral seismic restraint necessary for non-structural components and production tools. Most of the production tools present in a semiconductor facility are on wheels or on small legs, and usually only small easily installed clips are acceptable for restraint. CODE REQUIREMENTS For most jurisdictions in the United States, the current governing code for design of new base isolated structures is the 2006/2009 International Building Code (IBC), more specifically ASCE 7-05 Chapter 17 (Base Isolation). In addition, the IBC is recognized in several countries outside of the United States. Where analysis using the non-linear time history method is required, compliance with ASCE 7 Chapter 16 (Seismic Response History Procedures), and the associated ground shaking scaling requirements, is required. Analytical methodologies permitted by ASCE 7 for design of base isolated buildings include the equivalent lateral force procedure, and dynamic procedures including response spectrum analysis and time history analysis. The equivalent lateral force procedure is permitted only for structures complying with ASCE 7 Section 17.4.1, specifically regular low-rise buildings on site classes A to D, with S1 less than 0.60g (no significant near-field seismic shaking hazards). Response spectrum analysis has less limited application and is permitted for buildings on site classes A to D meeting certain isolation system stiffness criteria. Non-linear time history analysis is permitted for all base isolated structures. The response history procedure defined by the code (ASCE 7 Section 17.6) requires that the nonlinear force-deformation behavior of base isolation system and the lateral force resisting system be incorporated into the structural analysis model. Threedimensional Nonlinear Time History (NLTH) analysis of the building and isolating system satisfies the requirements of the code response history procedure. One gravity load case is specified in combination with the earthquake forces from NLTH analysis,

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

1442

specifically: 1.0D + 0.25L. For a response history analysis, the design base shear must be greater than 80% of the code minimum, the force necessary to activate the isolation system, and the design wind base shear. All significant damping and non-linear behavior of base isolated structures occurs at the base-isolation plane by design, such that the supported superstructure remains essentially elastic. As a result, a two-stage non-linear response history analysis methodology can be employed assuming an elastic superstructure rests on a nonlinear base isolation system. When using a two-stage methodology, ASCE 7 permits the use of a system design factor of Ri=2.0 for concrete and steel SMRF. Taking into consideration material overstrength in the lateral force resisting framing and additional lateral strength contributed by the gravity framing (system overstrength), the permitted Ri factor corresponds to elastic superstructure behavior. For design of base-isolated structures, the structural importance factor is taken as I = 1.0 at the Design Earthquake (DE) ground shaking level for all occupancy categories. As a result, some limited inelastic behavior of the superstructure is expected for ground shaking exceeding the DE. It should be noted that the IBC structural detailing requirements are not relaxed for base isolated structures, since a structures Seismic Design Category is based solely on the occupancy and the DE and Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) level site ground shaking parameters. For response history analyses, site specific design spectra for the DE- and MCE-level earthquakes are developed based on available regional seismic data. Then, in most cases a suite of at least seven time histories are selected for analysis from earthquake shaking records at similar sites. Each time history record is scaled such that the SRSS spectrum for the ground motion pair is not less than 90% of 1.3 times the smoothed site specific spectrum for any ordinate within the fundamental periods of interest. For isolated structures, the period range of interest for scaling is between half the effective period at the DE displacement (0.5TD) and 1.25 times the effective period at the MCE displacement (1.25 TM). Simplified equations from ASCE 7 Section 17.5 for DE-level isolator displacement DD, and system effective period of vibration TD, are shown in Equations 1 and 2. The period and displacement are a function of the seismic weight W, gravitational constant g, effective isolator stiffness kDmin, damping spectral modifier BD, and the 1second spectral coefficient for the site SD1.

DD =

gS D1TD 4 2 BD
W k D min g

(Equation 1) (Equation 2)

TD = 2

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

1443

BASE ISOLATION

Commercial base isolator devices are available in several different configurations, with the primary behavior usually including some sort of deformation of ductile metal and high-damping rubber, or sliding, or both. Base isolators perform two significant structural functions. First, they support vertical building reactions for gravity and environmental loading conditions. However, they are more generally known for providing a stable non-linear yielding mechanism during ground shaking, dissipating energy through horizontal sliding or deformation under load to generate significant damping (effective damping on the order of up to 15%). In addition, base isolators can significantly increase a structures fundamental period of vibration (Figure 1A). Since the fundamental modes of vibration are associated with the bulk of system mass, appreciable reductions in overall story accelerations and necessary design base shear can be achieved.
F Sa T=0.75 Sec. UB LB TD = 3.1 Sec. 5% Damping 10% Damping Disp. A ADRS Spectrum D keff

EffectiveDamping = eff =
B

Area 2kD 2

Isolator FD Properties

Figure 1: Acceleration Displacement Spectrum and Isolator Damping The greatly reduced seismic forces and floor accelerations achieved with base isolation are made at the cost of large lateral deflections at the base isolation plane. This creates specific detailing problems for building utilities and building egress if the building is to remain operational following the design earthquake ground shaking. Furthermore, a design limitation of conventional isolators is that they cannot tolerate significant uplift, which can limit the effectiveness of base isolation for high aspect ratio buildings. Some specially detailed isolators have been developed to resist appreciable uplift, however. Note that base isolation will not reduce vertical seismic floor accelerations.
FRICTION PENDULUM ISOLATORS

Friction Pendulum (FP) isolators consist of a cast steel casing, concave stainless steel sliding surface or surfaces, and a polymer impregnated sliding bearing. The more common FP configuration is a modified double-pendulum, with concave surfaces above and below the bearing. The main physical parameters controlling the behavior include the concave radius of the isolator sliding surface, and the dynamic friction

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

1444

coefficient of the sliding materials. The friction coefficient and sliding radius determine the system energy dissipation capacity, the magnitude of base shear and accelerations, and horizontal and vertical system displacements. Other physical parameters of interest for FP isolators include the bearings capacity to support gravity loads (load bearing area), and displacement capacity (sliding surface horizontal radius reduced by the bearing radius). The resulting forces and displacements for the specified isolator radius and sliding friction will determine the required strength of the framing directly supporting the isolators, connection requirements, and the deflection stability of the isolated building under wind loads. The concave radius of the sliding surface is usually a parameter set by the FP manufacturer, chosen to generate an isolation system period that is well outside the constant acceleration range of the ground shaking spectrum, while also keeping the necessary system displacement demands within the practical limits of 18 to 36 inches (0.45 to 0.9 m) in any horizontal direction. The concave sliding radius should be tight enough to allow the system to come to rest at the original (undeformed) position following ground shaking. Reducing the isolator radius has the effect of reducing system period and deflections, but increasing the story accelerations and forces. The period T of a FP isolation system, like any pendulum, is a simple function of the isolator radius R, and the gravitational coefficient g, represented by the following equation: T = 2 (R/g)1/2 (Equation 3)

The static and dynamic friction coefficients between the concave polished stainless steel sliding surface, and the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) impregnated polymer composite bearing pad must be determined by testing. PTFE is useful as a coating material for FP isolation systems because its static friction coefficient is very close to the sliding friction coefficient. This smooth sliding characteristic eliminates the need to account for large startup forces in the isolator associated with overcoming excessive static friction. Static friction is only of real importance when considering system stability while resisting wind forces. For the case of heavy low-rise structures, isolation system sliding under wind loading is generally not an issue. The sliding friction coefficient is the parameter associated with overall FP isolator system behavior, affecting the magnitude of energy dissipated through Coulomb damping, and the corresponding base shear, forces, and system displacements. While an increase in the sliding friction coefficient generally results in increased forces with decreased displacements, the change to overall energy dissipated is usually small within the operating range of the isolation system. Where the maximum velocity of ground shaking has an effect on the overall sliding friction coefficient, consideration of both the fast and slow friction coefficient may be necessary. The base shear V of a structure isolated with FP bearings is a function of the building weight W, bearing dynamic friction coefficient , system displacement D, and FP isolator radius R, and can be represented by the following equation: V = W + (W/R)D (Equation 4)

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

1445

Due to material variability in the PTFE, polished stainless steel roughness, shop fabricating tolerances, and testing rig axial load-cell fluctuations, as-tested isolator properties will vary. Furthermore, installation variables and operating parameters such as temperature range, age, maximum velocity, and chemical exposure will affect the observed performance. As a result, the code requires that tested isolator values be adjusted for upper bound (UB) and lower bound (LB) properties for consideration in the base isolation system design (see Figure 1B). Aging effects of FP isolators are minimal, since the long-term properties of both stainless steel and PTFE are fairly stable.
ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY

Analysis of a base-isolated building requires the use of a three-dimensional nonlinear time-history model to represent the behavior of the superstructure and the isolating system. The superstructure consists of the portion of the building above the isolating system, and the isolating system consists of the isolation slab framing and base isolators. Even with modern computers and software, performing a nonlinear time history analysis can be a lengthy process followed by time consuming and labor intensive post processing of the analysis results. Performing two-stage analysis is a convenient, practical alternative to three dimensional nonlinear time-history analysis of the whole building. The two-stage analysis consists of modal analysis of the superstructure, followed by a time-history analysis of the combined nonlinear isolation system with the linear-elastic superstructure (Figure 2). The results of twostage analyses of base isolated buildings are quite reliable since the superstructure remains elastic, and all nonlinear behavior occurs within the base isolator elements.
Elastic Superstructure M, T, , =5% Or M, K, =5% Isolation Framing Level, M

u,,

Nonlinear Isolators k,

Mat Foundation

Figure 2: Two-Stage Base Isolation Model In the primary analysis stage, the superstructure is analyzed to determine its dynamic characteristics in the form of mass, damping, and stiffness matrices. A threedimensional modal analysis is performed using ETABS or other commercially available structural analysis packages. Using the matrix output from the modal analysis, an equivalent lumped mass and stiffness model (lollypop model) of the superstructure can be developed to reduce the number of degrees of freedom. The equivalent stiffness matrix representing a superstructure is defined either in the form of shear and torsional stiffness at the center of gravity of each floor, or in the form of

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

1446

Eigen values and Eigen vectors for the three-dimensional building. For multiple superstructures on a single isolation system, each superstructure is analyzed separately. The second analysis stage includes the nonlinear time history analysis of the isolation system with lumped mass superstructures included. Specialized software (3DBASIS) can be used to carry out the nonlinear time history analysis of the base isolation system. This second-stage model consists of the isolation slab framing level identified by its mass, damping and center of mass location, and the superstructures identified by their dynamic behavior matrices and center of mass locations. Isolators are identified individually by location and nonlinear characteristics. Time history analysis of the isolation system is repeated for each ground motion scenario (DE and MCE), for the adjusted center of mass offset due to accidental eccentricity, and for UB and LB isolator properties. Maximum isolation system displacement is determined using the average of 7 MCElevel time histories with LB damper properties. Forces for the structural design superstructure elements are based on the average from 7 DE-level time histories using UB damper properties. Design of the isolation slab framing girders and isolator connections are based on the MCE displacements with isolator forces taken assuming Upper-UB isolator properties to consider the unbalanced moment due to the column reaction and eccentricity (Figure 3). A summary of key design input parameters by application to the structural design is listed in Table 1.
Column P Skirt Mcol DM P Skip Loading on Isoln Lvl Girders Ff MBmL Ff Ff Moat Wall Ff FP Isolator Pedestal Mat Fndn e P db Mcol CL Beam MBmR

e = DM

d = Mcol + Mbm + P e + F f b = 0 2

Free Body Diagram

Figure 3: Forces on Isolation Framing Girders

ASPECTS OF CONCRETE SEMICONDUCTOR FACILITY DESIGN

Semiconductor facilities have some rather unique layout and design requirements. Requirements for cleanliness, operational versatility and access, floor vibrational stability, heavy floor loads, a utility service and egress spine, chemical and wastewater handling, vertical conveyance (elevators), and fast-track construction are some of the more fundamental concerns. These requirements have a direct effect on

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

1447

structural system layout and material type, especially where a base isolation system is utilized. For example, story heights are usually rather tall, on the order of 20 feet (6 m) from floor to floor. This height is necessary to accommodate not only the production space, but also the depth of large girders supporting heavy floor live loads, the overhead clearance at the interstitial ceiling system for air plenums, ducts, piping, electrical runs, chemical lines, and worker access required for regular maintenance and system retooling.
Table 1 - Base Isolation Design Parameters
APPLICATION Superstructure Design Superstructure Design Non-Structural Anchorage Collector Design Unbalanced Load for Isolation Slab Girder Design Isolator Clearance PARAMETER Base Shear Story Shear Story Drifts Floor Accelerations Story Shear Isolator Displacement & Friction Force Isolator Displacement DAMPER PROPERTIES UB UB UB LB LB3 fUUB = 0.07 LB EQ LEVEL1 DBE DBE DBE DBE Max of 7 TH MCE MCE IMPORTANCE FACTOR2 I=1.0 I=1.0 Ip=varies I=1.0 -

1. Use the average of 7 time history records unless otherwise noted 2. Importance factor for base isolation is I=1.0 for essential and non-essential facilities 3. MCE displacement (LB friction) with Upper-UB friction for individual isolator forces

Floors in semiconductor facilities support the weight of large movable production tools, raised floors, personnel, building support equipment, interstitial ceilings, and utilities. Production tool weights alone can be as high as 100 psf (4.8 kPa) when distributed over the floor area, and even more locally, with sizable point loads at the wheels and legs. As a result, design floor live loads for many areas of the facility will be 200 psf (9.6 kPa) or higher, and include large point loading considerations. Overall clean room design requires that the finish of structural concrete be consistent with architectural concrete. Spacing of the column grid can be critical to the overall design success. Production line layouts do not work well with closely spaced columns due to the likelihood for multiple conflicts, and result in wasted floor space, which tends to be cost prohibitive. The need for large column grid spacings must be balanced with the structural design considerations of the tall columns. In addition, the required girder depth and reinforcing, as well as floor vibrational requirements, are highly sensitive to the beam span dimensions resulting from the column layout. An architectural block module consistent with a 24 inch (0.60 m) increment is preferred for clean-room ceiling

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

1448

system layout. Finally, the limitation on the isolator vertical bearing capacity is a concern, since larger column reactions require larger, more costly bearings. The minimum overall dimensions for concrete columns part of the seismic lateral force resisting frame will be controlled by the area of concrete necessary to resist beam-column joint shear. For seismic frames with heavily loaded and reinforced beams, column dimensions can be as wide as 39 inches square (1.0 m) or wider. Due to regular production area rework, the presence of a fully loaded beam span adjacent to an unloaded beam is common. Gravity skip loading is a significant design consideration for the base isolated seismic frames, often controlling the beam reinforcing steel design and column dimensions. Multiple ties at tight spacing are required to provide the code mandated column confinement for a C-SMRF.
CASE STUDY

The subject semiconductor facility (Figure 4) consists of three, three- to four-story superstructure buildings supported on a single grade-level base isolation framing level, with overall dimensions of 886 feet (270 m) by 496 feet (151 m). The recently completed facility is expected to receive a LEED Gold or Silver rating. Square footage of the structure is approximately 964,000 square feet (89,500 square meters) including portions of the exterior yards on base-isolation. In most cases, the typical story height is 20 feet (6.0 m) with a column grid spacing of 30 feet (9.0 m) by 33.5 feet (10.2 m). One notable facility feature is the two-story tall Bump process area consisting of 148 feet (45 m) span steel roof trusses with a perforated concrete waffle slab floor. Besides earthquake ground shaking, the structural design considers loads from 137 mph (220 km/hr) typhoon winds, and a special case of 60 psf (2.9 kPa) saturated volcanic ash on roofs in combination with a smaller seismic event.

Figure 4: Site Aerial View (courtesy of Texas Instruments, Inc.) The base isolation system consists of FR isolators located below the 412 main columns, with 39 inch (1.0 m) and deeper isolation girder framing. Isolators are supported on 5.2 feet (1.6 m) or 6 feet (1.8 m) square concrete pedestals, which sit on

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

1449

a variable thickness concrete mat foundation, approximately 3.3 feet (1.0 m) deep. For simplicity, two sizes of FP isolators were used, corresponding to two permissible axial load capacities. Larger isolators were located below interior columns of the 4story building. The clear dimension in the crawl-space between the mat foundation and overhead isolator framing was generally 4.9 feet (1.5 m), except at depressed exterior truck yard areas. Masonry block moat walls retaining earth were installed at the perimeter of the isolation-level framing. Separation joints utilizing PTFE slider pads occur at the floor framing between adjacent superstructure buildings at all levels. Soils underlying the site are mainly dense sands and gravelly sands consistent with ASCE 7-05 soil profile C. Findings of the geotechnical study set the permissible bearing capacity for the design of the mat foundation at 9.4 ksf (450 kPa). Based on a site specific earthquake hazard study, the adjusted design earthquake (DE) level seismic ground shaking parameters were calculated to be SDS = 0.96 and S1S = 0.53. For seismic analysis, 100 psf (4.8 kPa) of additional distributed floor mass was considered in manufacturing areas of the building to account for ceilings, utilities, raised floors, and manufacturing tools. For the subject facility, the radius of the FP isolators specified was 167 inches, giving a system period of T=4.1 seconds, and an effective DE-level period of TD=3.1 seconds. In contrast, the fundamental period of three- to four-story reinforced concrete moment frame buildings without isolation would have been on the order of 0.75 seconds. This building period shift, combined with approximately 10% Coulomb (sliding friction) damping gave an overall superstructure building design base shear of 0.07W with base isolation, reduced from 0.13W for a ground-supported (non-isolated) concrete SMRF building. This corresponds to a 46% reduction in the design base shear. More importantly, floor accelerations with base isolation added were observed to be approximately 0.17g uniform at all levels, a 66% reduction from the 0.5g that would be expected for the upper levels of a conventional building. Equally significant was the observed reduction of inter-story drift from 1.0% for a conventional moment frame building, down to 0.25% for a similar but base-isolated building. MCE-level displacements were well less than the PF isolator displacement capacity of approximately 18 inches (0.46 m) for both isolator sizes used for the project. Refer to Table 2 for the structural analysis response history summary.
Table 2 - NLTH Analysis Summary
EQ LEVEL DYNAMIC FRICTION COEFFICIENT fUB = 0.06 fLB = 0.05 BASE SHEAR COEFF.* VD = 0.12 SYSTEM DISPLACEMENT** DD = 10.8 in DM = 16.8 in

DBE MCE

* Tabulated base shear unreduced by Ri and not adjusted for code minimum. ** Includes approximately 1 inch of vertical uplift

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

1450

To control cracking of the large monolithically-cast reinforced concrete isolation framing level, the concrete mix design, especially the water-to-cement ratio was carefully selected. Also, the concrete placing sequence was laid out by grid, and started at the center of the structure. Concrete placing for the isolation slab was completed in a few weeks, and was done more or less continuously with three contractors and two material suppliers. Placing of concrete at two isolation slab closure strips between the three superstructure buildings was completed after the bulk of concrete shrinkage had occurred. Due to the fast-track nature of the design and construction, isolator delivery did not coincide with the concrete frame construction. As a result, temporary concrete shoring blocks were installed to permit ongoing superstructure construction above, so that isolator installation could be performed later upon delivery. This required that the isolator support pedestals be over-sized to accommodate the shoring blocks. Isolator anchorage was accomplished using a specialized combination of overhead embeds and weld-plates, and grouted anchor bolts below. Once the isolator was properly aligned, the annulus above and below was fully grouted prior to final welding. Shoring blocks were later saw cut and removed once the installation and acceptance of all isolators was confirmed (Refer to Figure 5). The final step included the removal of steel shipping plates.

Figure 5: Friction Pendulum (FP) Isolator Installation Isolation system clearance details at moat walls and adjacent non-structural components were specified to permit the full isolator displacement capacity of 18 inches (0.45 m) without binding or damage. Detailed clearance details were provided at the perimeter building skirt, moat walls, exterior truck yards and loading docks, ramps, pedestrian exits, elevators, and above- and below-grade utility, rainwater, and fire main runs. Isolation details at the moat wall for exterior truck yards utilized a system of sliding plates and rainwater gutters. Elevators were installed directly on the base-isolated structure within an elevator sump, monolithic with the concrete isolation slab framing; as such they are not supported at grade and are free to move laterally with the isolation system. Most of the large diameter piping and major electrical distribution runs for the facility were installed in the isolator crawlspace, and braced overhead to the isolation slab

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

1451

framing. Due to the reduced floor accelerations from base isolation, permanent nonstructural building components were anchored at the code minimum force level for the site of Fp/Wp = 0.46 (ASCE 7-05 Equations 13.3-3 and 13.3-4, Ip = 1.5). Since seismic floor accelerations did not exceed the sliding coefficient of production tool legs, the need for anchorage of production tools was eliminated except for the case of high aspect ratio tools prone to overturning. Note, however, that vertical seismic anchorage force levels were not reduced by base isolation. The base-build portion of the project was completed on time, approximately 22 months from preliminary design through final construction. Portions of the facility such as the Bump area and powerhouse outbuildings were fully operational and in-use after 14 months. At the peak of construction activities, as many as 2,000 construction workers were on site working various shifts. The project team included engineers and architects from around the world.
REFERENCES

International Code Council (ICC). (2006). International Building Code, Country Club Hills, IL. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2005). Minimum Design Loads of Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-05). American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2005). Building code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05), Farmington Hills, MI. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2006). Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE 41-06). Computers and Structures, Inc. (2009). Extended 3D Analysis of Building Systems (ETABS), Berkeley, CA. P.C. Tsopelas, P.C. Roussis, M.C. Constantinou, R. Buchanan, and A.M. Reinhorn 3D-BASIS-ME-MB: Computer Program for the Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Seismically Isolated Structures (3D-BASIS), October 2005 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc., (Sep 2003) Technical Characteristics of Friction Pendulum Bearings T.M. Al-Hussaini, VA. Zayas and M.C. Constantinou, State University of New York at Buffalo Department of Civil Engineering (1994) Seismic Isolation of MultiStory Frame Structures Using Spherical Sliding Isolation Systems - Technical Report NCEER-94-0007
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Mr. R. Edwin Feeny, P.E. and Mr. Tom Hardzinski, Texas Instruments, Inc. Mr. Martin W. Johnson, S.E., and Mr. Mikael Kallros, S.E., ABS Consulting Mr. Anoop Mokha, Ph.D., S.E.