Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105912

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Base isolation issues in Italy: Integrated architectural and structural designs

Antonello De Luca, Laura Giovanna Guidi *
University of Naples Federico II, Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture Di.St., Tecchio Square, Fuorigrotta, Naples, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper deals with the evolution of base isolation design in Italy, underlining improvements that occurred in
Base isolation system the last 30 years, from earliest pioneering cases to recent solutions. They result from an integrated design
Design evolution procedure into which structural and architectural aspects merge harmoniously. Back analysis of existing struc­
Anti-Seismic device
tures and personal assessment of corresponding data from literature will give the possibility to describe changes
Tributary area
Structural optimization
occurred in Italian design applications. This paper looks at “all rubber” solution, matching the main design is­
Functional flexibility sues: design vibration period, Tiso; design displacement, δ; device diameter, φ; device tributary area, A. Following
Structural grid excursion will underline a quite different design approach, as compared to worldwide trends. Design displace­
Integrated design procedure ments smaller than 30 cm, accomplished by device diameter in the maximum range of 900 mm–1000 mm,
correspond to high vertical stress σ upon devices, up to 9 MPa–10 MPa, and to small vibration periods, not
exceeding 3.0 s. In the last part of this paper, recent base isolation solutions, coming from a personal research
path [De Luca et al.], will be analysed as result of a newer design approach. These latter cases will show benefits
obtained through the increase of device diameters, φ, and corresponding tributary areas, A, combined with the
reduction of the number of bearing points. This correspond to the use of on long-spans structural grids that
guarantee greater flexibility also in organizing spaces. This underscores base isolation as part of an integrated
procedure where freedom in architectural design combines to structural efficiency.

1. Introduction: the evolution of BIS in Italy
Italian tradition in base isolation design dates back to 1970–80’s as
mentioned by Martelli et al. [1], Dolce et al. [2], Martelli [3], Dolce et al.
[4], Martelli et al. [5], Martelli et al. [6]. The earliest applications of
seismic vibration passive control (SVPC) systems in Italy go back to 1975
for bridges and viaducts, firstly involving the Somplago Viaduct of the
Udine-Carnia freeway. For civil engineering buildings, the original trend
in using small device diameters is recognizable in the early applications
during 1980’s. These solutions preceded the implementation of “Linee
Guida per Progettazione, Esecuzione e Collaudo di Strutture Isolate dal
Sisma” approved by Consiglio Superiore dei Lavori Pubblici in 1998 [7].
In 1989 F. De Miranda designed the INAIL Civic Centre in Ancona
(Monte D’Ago), a four – storeys building standing upon 12 rubber
bearing devices (900 mm) that guaranteed a design displacement of only
52 mm. A year later, in 1990, 61 rubber bearings with diameter
500 mm–600 mm were used by C. Giuliani at TELECOM administrative
headquarters in Ancona, providing for a design displacement of
140 mm. In less than few decades BIS technology has become
widespread in the whole country: nowadays Italy is the fourth in the
world and first in Europe for number of seismically isolated buildings
already completed. Applying the same approach proposed in the com­
panion paper [8], peculiar Italian case studies will be analysed. Back
analysis of worldwide applications have given the possibility to define
three successive generations, each one marked by destructive events.
Also for Italian BIS applications, tracing the excursion in the last 30
years, changes occurred have been read in terms of: design vibration
period, Tiso, design displacement, δ, and device diameter, φ. Finally,
taking into account recent conscious applications, also the role of trib­
utary area has been valued, especially with a view to an integrated
design approach.
2. The birth of seismic isolation in Italy
The fundamental principle of base isolation is to modify the response
of the building so that the ground can move below it, without trans­
mitting any motion to the building. Many past mechanisms, proposed to
protect buildings from damaging earthquakes, used different type of

* Corresponding author. Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture (Di. St.), University of Naples“Federico II”, P.le Tecchio, 80 80125, Naples,
Italy.
E-mail addresses: adeluca@unina.it (A. De Luca), lauragiovanna.guidi@unina.it (L.G. Guidi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105912
Received 23 September 2018; Received in revised form 21 October 2019; Accepted 21 October 2019
Available online 18 November 2019
0267-7261/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. De Luca and L.G. Guidi
support that lead to decouple the superstructure from the ground. Apart
from well known solution proposed in 1909 by the English medical
doctor J. A. Calantarients [9], the ideal “cut” of the structure from the
ground appeared in two contemporary Italian patents. In 1909, Enrico
Bertelli, Fig. 1 left, designed a futuristic isolated structure, having no
links to foundations, “suspended” by a chain system anchored at the top
of two lateral independent masonry walls [10].
Simultaneously Giuseppe Bacigalupo, Fig. 1 right, patented a struc­
tural system similar to modern isolated structures. The system provided
for roller sliding devices, put between the superstructure and the foun­
dation, while a later holding chain should limit excessive sliding of the
upper isolated structures. This patent can be seen as the predecessor of
modern base isolated structures.
3. 30 years of Italian experience in BIS design through “all
rubber” solution
The growing confidence in seismic isolation technique in Italy has
gone in parallel to the changeable approaches proposed by national
technical codes, firstly OPCM 3274 (2003) [11], later NTC (2008) [12],
finally NTC (2018) [13]. In the following paragraphs, the analysis of
specific case studies will point out the progress of BIS technology, un­
derlying all possible advantages in using this technology. So, different
design options have been analysed, as pure Friction Pendulum Systems
(FPS), “all rubber” or hybrid system. For case studies later described,
mainly concerning “rubber solutions”, data from literature have been
personally elaborated. The authors apologize for any missing measure­
ment in describing each case. Main aspects of base isolation systems
have been defined in terms of design vibration period, Tiso, design
displacement, δ, device diameter, φ, looking at the corresponding value
of shape factors, as defined by the formulae (1) and (2), in which ti
represents the thickness of the single rubber layer and where te is the
total rubber thickness:
φ possibilities to reach all benefits of BIS, both in terms of vibration period,
S1 ¼ (1)
4ti
φ 3.1.1. Navy Voluntary Enrollment Department in Ancona (AN), 1992
S2 ¼ (2)
te
Other design parameters that have been considered are: mean and
maximum values of tributary area, A, vertical load, N, and corre­
sponding compressive stress, σ, for each device. The advantages in using
BIS will be described, also appreciating how this technology has influ­
enced the architectonic layout and how this evolution has helped de­
signers in acquiring new architectural forms, more daring than
traditional structural solutions.
Fig. 1. Patent by bertelli enrico, 1909 (left) and patent by bacigalupo giuseppe, 1909 (right).
2
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105912
3.1. First generation of Italian seismic isolated buildings: 1990–2000
Looking at worldwide BIS applications, in the companion paper [8] it
has been proposed a classification into three successive generations,
each one marked by unexpected spectral values due to destructive
phenomena that represented a turning point in the knowledge of
earthquake engineering. In this regard, authors underline that an
attempt to classify BIS applications in successive generations has been
anticipated in the chapter 3.1 of the Commentary of the fourth edition of
the Design Recommendations for the Seismically Isolated Buildings by
Architectural Institute of Japan (2016) [14]. The classification proposed
on worldwide scale defines three stages: first initial generation
(1984–1994), second generation (1995–2004), post Kobe earthquake,
third generation (2005–2018) after Chi Chi Taiwan and other recent
earthquakes. The proposal underlines a contemporary growth of design
vibration period, Tiso, from 2.0 s up to 10.0 s, of design displacement, δ,
from 10 cm up to 50 cm, and of device diameters, φ, from 400 mm up to
1300 mm. In comparison to worldwide excursion, a certain delay can be
read for Italian applications. Apart from aforementioned sporadic ex­
amples, the first generation of Italian seismic isolated buildings dates
back to 1990–2000’s, about a decade later than worldwide spreading.
Characterized by “all rubber” solution, earliest cases used devices with
small diameters (400 mm–600 mm) and ensured an average isolation
period of 1.50 s–2.0 s. For the earliest solutions, the superstructure
consisted of traditional structural grids, with short spans (4 m–6 m). In
these cases, each rubber isolator bore a mean tributary area of
10 m2–20 m2, so that a low value of compressive stress (2 MPa–3 MPa)
has been estimated. A low mass-to stiffness ratio (M/K) leads to isolation
periods not exceeding 1.50 s. First “all rubber” BIS solutions were
applied to an already established architectural and structural layout,
originally defined for a fixed base structure, with the only aim to
improve seismic structural response. As described in detail in the
following sections, this initial “conservative” approach has given no
Tiso, and of displacement, δ.
(design by R. Antonucci and R. Giacchetti)
The structure follows a traditional seismic design for fixed base
buildings: it is characterized by short spans, no cantilevers or daring
structural solutions. The Navy Voluntary Enrollment Department in
Ancona, designed by R. Antonucci and R. Giacchetti [15], is character­
ized by a rectangular plan (60.5 m � 20.6 m), having a basement and
two above ground storeys. Its reinforced concrete (R/C) and hollow tiles
mixed floor loads are carried by transversal R/C beams; pillars with
cross-section of 40 cm � 50 cm have been used.
BIS system is characterized by 44 High Damping Rubber Bearing
A. De Luca and L.G. Guidi
(HDRB) isolators with different diameters, no. 20 (500 mm) and no. 24
(600 mm). This solution, characterized by a maximum secondary shape
factor S2 of 3.5, ensures a vibration period Tiso ¼ 1.65 s and a design
displacement δ ¼ 17 cm. The main aspects of BIS solution are synthe­
tized in Fig. 2 and Table 1.
3.1.2. Navy Medical Centre in Augusta (SR), 1993 (design by R. Antonucci
and R. Giacchetti)
The building has a covered area of about 400 m2
(26.60 m � 15.60 m). Its superstructure, 12 m tall, consists in a regular
structural grid (5.05 m � 5.05 m). Considering the strategic role of this
building, designers recognized the need of introduce BIS to improve
building seismic response.
The isolation system, as visible in Fig. 3, is positioned at the ground
floor: all rubber isolators stand upon R/C prisms that are connected by
beams and supported by deep foundation system. No. 24 HDRB isolators
ensure a design displacement of 18.5 cm and have been designed for a
maximum axial load of 818 kN. This solution, characterized by a
maximum secondary shape factor S2 of 3.6, ensures a vibration period
Tiso ¼ 1.70 s. The main aspects of BIS solution are synthetized in Table 2.
3.1.3. Residential buildings for the navy in augusta (SR), 1994 (design by
R. Antonucci and R. Giacchetti)
Differently from the previous cases, this building is characterized by
irregularities in plan and in elevation: it presents a couple of symmetric
apartments staggered in height. The structure is made of R/C frames,
with a regular layout of square grids per block. As stated by the de­
signers, the original design was developed without BIS. Later, consid­
ering seismic hazard of Augusta (PGA ¼ 0.23 g), it had been necessary to
adopt base isolation technique by using the all-rubber solution. Anti-
seismic devices used consist of 48 circular-shaped HDRB with different
diameters, having a maximum S2 of 3.8. The passage from the original
fixed base solution to the BIS proposal caused considerable planning
problems. Indeed, it was necessary to adopt different diameter and
variable thickness for the isolators. Because of the difference in height of
the floors, including the basement one, an internal portion on the
basement floor with R/C walls was built, in order to arrange each
isolator at the same level. The main aspects of BIS solution are synthe­
tized in Fig. 4 and Table 3.
3.2. Second generation of Italian seismic isolated buildings: 2000–2010
The second generation of Italian seismic isolated buildings may be
referred to the decade 2000–2010. It is characterized by base isolation
systems that couple rubber isolators and sliding devices, allowing for
average periods of vibration of 2.0 s–2.8 s. It is interesting to note that
the use of PTFE (i.e. Teflon) sliding devices, not contributing to overall
system stiffness, leads to a reduced number of rubber isolators. For each
device a mean tributary area of 30 m2–40 m2 has been valued, larger
than in the previous generation. This structural solution guarantees
higher value of M/K ratio, i.e. isolation periods that overshoot 2.50 s.
Fig. 2. Navy Voluntary Enrollment Department. Typical structural plan (left) and BIS layout (right).
3
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105912
Longer period and growing tributary areas lead to the use of isolators
with larger diameters, able to accommodate the required greater dis­
placements. As consequence of increasing diameters (600 mm - 700 mm)
and device tributary area per isolator, a mean value of 3 MPa is valued
for compressive stress. Compared with contemporary worldwide appli­
cations, Italian cases of 2nd generation seem to follow the same trend in
increasing device diameter to accommodate larger displacements, even
if only periods lower than 3.0 s are attained.
3.2.1. Frosinone Hospital, 2000 (design by G. Lupoi, A. Lupoi for studio
speri S.r.l.)
Frosinone Hospital represents a great step forwards in tracing the
evolution of BIS in Italy. The fundamental requirement for the new
hospital in Frosinone was to be fully operative during and after a major
earthquake. The new hospital is a nine-storeys building, the first of
which is underground. At ground level the building measures about
60 � 155 m2; from levels three to nine the width reduces to 30 m. Inter-
storey height is 4.2 m, for a total height of about 35 m. The building is
divided in three blocks, named in the following A & C (wings) and B
(central tower). The twin wings are rectangular, while the central tower
has a trapezoidal shape. This building is the first European hospital to
use BIS; for this reason it was chosen by the National Seismic Service as
pilot project for successive applications. The main aspects of this
structural solution are synthetized in Fig. 5 and Table 4.
The resisting structures are of R/C frames, walls and cores. The
building is isolated at the base; each body has an independent system of
isolators, which are placed between the superstructure and the foun­
dation. The structures have been designed to obtain a high rigidity so
that, under a seismic event, the blocks behave closely as possible to a
“rigid-bodies” oscillating over the isolators. A vibration period Tiso ¼ 2 s
was chosen as the fundamental period of the isolated structure, as
described by designers [16]. In rubber bearing design, S1 > 12 was
adopted to reduce the isolator vertical deformability, while S2 > 4 was
chosen to avoid instability effects.
In spite of the short design period ensured by BIS system, this case
study may be considered a turning point in application of seismic
isolation in Italy. It marks the beginning of a new design approach,
especially in choosing larger device diameters up to 700 mm. The
structural grid has 14.40 m span in the transversal direction and 7.20 m
span in the longitudinal one, ensuring a great performance of base
isolation system, above all in the central tower, where σmax exceeds the
value of 11 MPa, as in most recent and well-performing applications.
3.2.2. Gervasutta Hospital in udine (UD), 2002 (design by Lupoi, Robbi, La
Poetra and Moroli)
Gervasutta Hospital is the first large hospital built in Italy using Base
Isolation, as mentioned by Martelli [17]. It is a R/C framed building,
covering 2338 m2. The choice of seismic isolation arose from the
requirement to ensure complete functional viability of the hospital
following a “rare” earthquake (PGA ¼ 0.35 g). In the case of hospital,
equipment arrangements and building contents assume special
A. De Luca and L.G. Guidi Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105912

Table 1
BIS characteristics of Navy Voluntary Enrollment Department in Ancona.
System Type n. Amax [m2] Nmax [kN] σmax [MPa] Amean [m2] Nmean [kN] σmean [MPa]
All rubber isolators HBRD 500 20 25.70 514 2.62 19.30 386 1.97
HBRD 600 24 36.6 732 2.59 31.20 623 2.20

Fig. 3. Navy Medical Centre in Augusta: External view (left and centre); Detail of isolation system (right).

Table 2
BIS characteristics of Navy Medical Centre in Augusta.
System Type n. Amax [m2] Nmax [kN] σmax [MPa] Amean [m2] Nmean [kN] σmean [MPa]
All isolators HBRD 500 24 25.50 765 3.9 15.90 478 2.44

Fig. 4. Residential building in Augusta: Plan view (left); Base isolation system (right).

Table 3
BIS characteristics of Residential buildings for the Navy in Augusta.
System Type n. Amax [m2] Nmax [kN] σmax [MPa] Amean [m2] Nmean [kN] σmean [MPa]
All isolators HBRD 300 11 8.10 365 5.16 5.50 248 3.55
HBRD 350 10 10.10 455 4.72 6.50 290 3.02
HBRD 400 13 12.55 565 4.49 9.60 431 3.43
HBRD 450 14 20.50 923 5.80 13.60 612 3.85

importance, keeping in mind that the malfunction of said arrangements
and equipment can seriously compromise a hospital main operational
capabilities during and after a seismic event, i.e.: operating theaters,
bedstead medical gas, consoles and monitoring devices used in Intensive
Care Units (ICE) for diagnostic functions. Building general layout is
represented in Fig. 6, while some BIS characteristics are collected in
Table 5.
As described by Martelli and Forni [18], the seismic isolation system
of Gervasutta Hospital consists of 52 HDRBs, having diameter from
600 mm to 800 mm, with a maximum S2 of 4. The isolation system has
been designed for a maximum vertical load from 2500 kN to 4300 kN,
for horizontal displacements of �180 mm, and 10% equivalent viscous
damping. BIS is located immediately below the first floor slab which is
stiffened by beam framework; individual isolators are located beneath
the vertical structures (pillars and walls). The isolated structure’s
fundamental period is approximately 2.0 s.

4
A. De Luca and L.G. Guidi Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105912

Fig. 5. Frosinone Hospital (2000). External view (left) - Cross section showing BIS (right).

Table 4
BIS characteristic of Frosinone Hospital.
System Type n. Amax [m2] Nmax [kN] σmax [MPa] Amean [m2] Nmean [kN] σmean [MPa]
All rubber Blocks (A &C) LRB 600 72 69.10 1382 4.89 51.80 1036 3.66
LRB 700 8 47.50 4275 11.11 40.00 3596 9.34
LRB 740 256 47.50 4275 9.94 40.00 3596 8.36
All rubber Block (B) LRB 550 14 47.40 948 3.99 33.80 677 2.85
LRB 670 46 32.25 2903 8.23 24.40 2176 6.17
LRB 700 13 50.95 4586 11.92 34.40 3095 8.04

Fig. 6. Gervasutta Hospital (UD), 2002. External view (left) – BIS (right).

Table 5
BIS characteristics of Gervasutta Hospital.
System Anti-seismic device Type n. Amean [m2] Nmean [kN] σmean [MPa]
All rubber HDRB HDRB 600 20 29.24 1159 4.10
HDRB 600 20 29.20 1159 3.00
HDRB 800 22 29.24 1159 2.30

3.2.3. Technical institute G. Lombardo Radice in bojano (CB) 2006 (design
by Dusi, Di stefano, Porcarelli, Di Renzo, Angeli)
This complex is characterized by an irregular layout from architec­
tural and structural point of view. The plan can be inscribed in a rect­
angle 56 m long and 28.85 m wide. One part of the building has two
storeys, covered by an accessible terrace, the other part has three storeys
and is partially covered by a light roof. As stated by the designers, the
adoption of base isolation allowed for a strong mitigation of the negative
effects deriving from the uncorrected distribution of the lateral force
resisting structures, whereby the original structural scheme was only
modified to avoid vertical load concentrations. As described by Dusi and
Mezzi [19], a dual isolation system was used, consisting of Lead Rubber
Bearings (LRB) coupled with low-friction Sliding Bearings (SB).
Anti-seismic devices are located below the ground floor, at the top of the
foundation beams. Some BIS characteristics are collected and shown in
Fig. 7 and Table 6. Structural response data have been taken into ac­
count to evaluate the efficiency of this hybrid solution. The high values
of the ratio Tiso/Tfixed-base (�5.0) shows the effectiveness of the isolation
system. The upper structure moves upon isolation plane as a rigid body.
A vibration period Tiso ¼ 2.20 s was chosen as the fundamental period of
the isolated structure, while S2 ¼ 4 was adopted to avoid device insta­
bility effects, ensuring a design displacement of 17 cm. The hybrid

5
A. De Luca and L.G. Guidi
Fig. 7. Institute Lombardo Radice in Bojano: BIS plan view (left) and Construction stage (right).
Table 6
BIS characteristics of Institute Lombardo Radice in Bojano.
System Type n. Amax [m2]
Hybrid (41 LRB þ 13 SB) LRB 600 25 18.00
LRB700 16 27.70
solution is typical of the second generations of isolated buildings. The
use of seismic dissipative isolation system have enabled designers to
reduce drastically the negative effects due to a not strictly rational dis­
tribution of the load bearing structural elements.
3.2.4. Francesco Jovine School in San Giuliano di Puglia (CB), 2007
(design by Pacchiarotti, brozzetti, Clemente, buffarini, Dolce, Parducci)
The Francesco Jovine School in San Giuliano di Puglia represents a
paradigm among Italian isolated buildings. It was built in 2007 after the
earthquake of 31 October 2002 that hit Molise region, with severe
damage in the city of San Giuliano di Puglia, including the collapse of
the elementary school with the death of 27 children and a teacher.
The new elementary school was rebuilt in a different site in San
Giuliano di Puglia, in order to devote the original place to the memory of
the victims of the 2007 earthquake. As described by designers [20], the
new school was isolated at the base by using a hybrid solution, con­
sisting in 61 HDRBs with two different diameters (no. 34 φ 700 mm and
no. 27 φ 600 mm) and 12 SBs made of steel and PTFE, Fig. 8, Fig. 9 and
Table 7. This isolation system, characterized by S2 ¼ 4, ensures a vi­
bration period Tiso ¼ 2.30 s and a design displacement δ ¼ 24 cm. A vi­
bration period Tiso ¼ 2 s was chosen as the fundamental period of the
isolated structure, as described by designers [21]. In rubber bearing
design, S1 > 12 was adopted to reduce the isolator vertical
Fig. 8. Francesco Jovine School. Plan view (left) and BIS solution (right).
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105912
Nmax [kN] σmax [MPa] Amean [m2] Nmean [kN] σmean [MPa]
932 3.30 18.00 533 1.88
1450 3.77 27.70 820 2.13
deformability, while S2 > 4 was chosen to avoid instability effects.
Analysing the interaction between structure and architecture, it can
be observed that the two terminal blocks have a regular structural grid,
well-tuned with the architectural space distribution. Instead, in the
central zone connecting the terminal blocks, irregular structural grids
have been used, dictated by the need of hiding the columns inside the
non-structural walls. This disharmony is reflected on the isolators’
layout in the central core where elastomeric and sliding bearings are
particularly close and arranged irregularly.
3.2.5. Del Mare Hospital in Naples (NA), 2006–2015, (design by B. De
Risi and G. Mascolo)
Del Mare Hospital is a complex R/C multi-storey structurally irreg­
ular hospital building in the North-East of Naples. It occupies an area of
144 m � 144 m for a total height of 29 m. It represents the largest
application of BIS in Europe, as mentioned by Di Sarno et al. [22] and
Cosenza et al. [23]. The superstructure is a reinforced concrete
multi-storey framed system. The building exhibits a large mass eccen­
tricity because of the different heights (3 and 8 storeys, respectively) of
the two L-shaped blocks of the superstructure. Concerning BIS design,
the national seismic hazard map was taken into account. According to
this one, the peak ground acceleration (at the bedrock) for the site of
construction was equal to 0.25 g. The yield strength reduction factor was
6
A. De Luca and L.G. Guidi
Fig. 9. Francesco Jovine School. Construction view of the BIS layout (left), front view of one HDRB in place (centre) and front view of one SB (right).
Table 7
BIS characteristics of Francesco Jovine School.
System Type n. Amax [m2]
Hybrid (51 HDRB þ 12 SB) HDRB 600 34 50.10
HDRB 700 27 64.80
1.5. The base isolation system used for this hospital building consists of
327 circular-shaped HDRBs with three different diameters, namely
600 mm, 650 mm and 800 mm, having a maximum secondary shape
factor S2 ¼ 4. The isolation system, that is able to guarantee a design
displacement of 20 cm, is described by Fig. 10 and Table 8. The foun­
dation is made of a R/C slab (120 cm thick) on piles of 800 mm diameter
and 15 m length.
These anti-seismic devices provide values of equivalent viscous
damping ξ of about 15% for shear strain in the range of 1–2. As stated by
the designers, the fundamental period of vibration of the fixed base
frame is relatively high, i.e. 1.22 s, while the base isolated structure has a
period of 2.37s; the period lengthening is thus about 2.0.
Despite of the relatively high horizontal flexibility of the super­
structure, which justifies the high fundamental period of vibration of the
fixed base solution, this case study shows that BIS is an effective strategy
to enhance the seismic structural performance also for relatively flexible
structural systems, both at serviceability and ultimate limit states.
Fig. 10. Del Mare Hospital in Naples. Aerial view (left) and BIS layout (right).
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105912
Nmax [kN] σmax [MPa] Amean [m2] Nmean [kN] σmean [MPa]
2418 8.55 32.50 1566 5.54
3128 8.12 39.70 1916 4.98
3.3. Third generation of Italian seismic isolated buildings: 2009 until
nowadays
3.3.1. “Progetto C.A.S.E”, L’Aquila (AQ), 2009, consortium for CASE
After L’Aquila earthquake, 67,500 homeless citizens needed tem­
porary housing, pending the rebuilding of their homes. The Italian
Government approved the C.A.S.E project, whose seismically isolated
and environmentally sustainable buildings were erected in just 8 months
in 19 areas of the municipality of L’Aquila [24].
Focusing on “Progetto C.A.S.E00 , the construction of 185 pre­
fabricated buildings, consisting of various materials (wood, concrete,
steel) having different internal spatial distributions, can be brought back
to a single design prototype, Fig. 11 upper left. This one consists of two
parts: a lower one made of two slabs connected by columns mounted BIS
devices and an upper one consisting of a three storey residential build­
ing. Although forming a single functional entity, both parts are
conceived as independent, responding to different needs in design and
construction phases. In particular, considering that the lower portion
had to be repeated for each of the 185 residential buildings, it was
assumed as an unchangeable prototype, characterized by: (1) lower
7
A. De Luca and L.G. Guidi
Table 8
BIS characteristics of Del Mare Hospital.
System Type n. Amax [m2]
Hybrid (327 HDRB þ 24 SB) HDRB600 108 39.80
HDRB650 122 48.70
HDRB800 800 53.80
Fig. 11. CASE Project. 3D prototype model (upper left), columns with seismic devices on top (upper right), parking and structural grid (lower left), seismic devices
layout (lower right).
foundation slab, rigidly linked to the ground; (2) intermediate isolation
system, made of PTFE Curved Surface Sliders (CSS); (3) upper slab, upon
which a residential building stands, capable to slide in longitudinal and
transversal directions.
To ensure the effectiveness of this system, “cutting” the upper
structure from the foundations, anti-seismic devices, as well as infra­
structure links and technical installations have to cope with adverse
seismic effects without being damaged, ensuring a displacement ca­
pacity not less than the displacement demand posed by the earthquake.
Each three-storeys residential building is erected on a 21 m � 57 m R.C.
platform, 50 cm thick and supported by 40 steel or R/C columns, ar­
ranged in a regular grid (6 m � 6 m), having 9 spans longitudinally and 3
spans transversally. With a height of 2.70 m, the “isolation storey” can
host 36 car parks, Fig. 11 lower left, serving 25–30 upper apartments,
Fig. 11upper left.
The upper platform is connected to 40 columns through as many
anti-seismic devices. In the design stage, two different BIS were pro­
posed. The first one characterized by 12 HDRB and 28 PTFE sliding
devices, Fig. 11 upper right; the second solution, later to be used, was
made of 40 CSS, able to ensure a Tiso of 4.46 s. The aim to define a unique
BIS prototype, which could be replicated 185 times, led to the selection
of the seismic device, CSS (manufactured by FIP Industriale Spa and by
Alga Spa), well suited to changing upper building housing units (wood,
steel, R/C). This structural solution does not endorse the “superiority” of
the CSS solution to the hybrid one (HDRB and SB), underlying the
effectiveness of the friction pendulum system for C.A.S.E. specific case,
characterized by relatively low axial forces upon the seismic devices and
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105912
Nmax [kN] σmax [MPa] Amean [m2] Nmean [kN] σmean [Mpa]
4185 14.8 32.10 3375 11.94
5120 15.43 41.60 4374 13.18
5657 11.25 40.20 4221 8.4
large horizontal displacement demands.
3.3.2. New Centre of Civil Protection Department “Operation Rooms”,
Foligno (PG), 2011 (design by Parducci, Marimpietri, Mezzi, Tommesani)
The New Centre of Civil Protection Department in Foligno is a
complex of seismic isolated buildings designed with the purpose of
spreading BIS technology without any restriction due to the architec­
tural layout. The Control rooms, i.e. the Department’s core, is certainly
the most significant element of the entire complex. With the shape of a
semi-spherical dome, it has a diameter of 32 m, Fig. 12. The main
structure consists of ten R/C arches connected at the base through a
perimeter ring. Below the ring there is a spatial system of arches devoted
to transfer the loads to the 10 HDRBs (1000 mm diameter) arranged at
the base of the building. This system, characterized by a secondary shape
factor S2 ¼ 3.1, ensures the structure a vibration period Tiso ¼ 2.6 s and a
design displacement of 26 cm. As mentioned by Martelli et al. [25], the
New Centre of Civil protection can be considered the first example of
isolated building in Italy where the choice of adopting BIS is part of an
integrated design process, involving various professionals engaged in
the conception and construction of the building, Table 9.
3.3.3 NATO Joint Force Command South, Giugliano (NA). Building
A, 2014 (design by Gubitosi, Arnaboldi and Chesi).
NATO headquarters in Giugliano stand on a surface of about 300
thousands square meters and it is divided in 11 different functional
areas. The Building “A” refers to the NATO Joint Force Command South,
Fig. 13 left. It consists of four interconnected blocks, each one having
four storeys above ground and two under-ground levels. At the
8
A. De Luca and L.G. Guidi
Fig. 12. New Centre of Civil Protection Department,“Operation Rooms”, Foligno (PG), 2011. BIS layout (left) and meridian cross section (right).
Table 9
BIS characteristics of New Centre of Civil Protection Department “Operation Rooms”.
System Type n. Amax [m2] Nmax [kN]
All rubber HDRB1000 10 80.40 3365
Fig. 13. NATO Joint Force Command South (2014). External view (left) and hysteretic dampers (right).
basement, the structure has a 155 m � 104 m rectangular-shaped plan. A
R/C special frame structure extends from the ground floor down to the
other two underground levels, while R/C cast in site elements compose
the superstructure vertical cores that contain stairs and services. For
each storey, decks, with a depth of 25 cm or 30 cm, are made of prefab
Spiroll honeycomb extruded panels, completed with a 5 cm thick con­
crete slab. Upon the R/C basement, the upper structure is made of steel
elements, bolted in situ.
An isolation system consisting of 298 rubber bearings, arranged on
the foundation, in parallel with 105 hysteretic dampers, Fig. 13 right,
was adopted in order to ensure a Tiso of 3 s and a displacement demand
of about 30 cm. The base isolation system is located between the lower
basement and the foundation system. A rigid transferring system, made
of a R/C frame, guarantees the connection of the upper structure to this
one, while the foundation consists of a 50 cm deep R/C mat, made stiffer
by a grid of beams (70 cm � 60 cm), laid in longitudinal and transversal
directions.
9
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105912
σmax [MPa] Amean [m2] Nmean [kN] σmean [MPa]
4.28 80.40 3365 4.28
3.4. Discussion about “all rubber solution”: the progress of Italian base
isolation design
Even though Italy is the fourth in the world and first in Europe for
number of seismically isolated buildings already completed, BIS evolu­
tion through three successive generations makes easy to note the diffi­
culties in following design worldwide trends, in reaching longer
vibration period by using larger devices diameters.
Apart from rare cases, the following comments, on the graphs of
Fig. 14, underline the use of a design approach whose results are quite
far from the desired optimum condition, derived from worldwide ap­
plications. Case studies taken into account for parametric analysis are:
(ND) 1992 for Navy Department in Ancona; (MC) 1993 for Medical
Centre of Italian Navy in Augusta; (AR) 1994 for Residential buildings
for the Italian Navy in Augusta; (FH) 2000 for Frosinone Hospital; (RR)
2001 for Rapolla Residential building; (GH) 2002 for Gervasutta Hos­
pital; (TIB) 2006 for Technical Institute Lombardo Radice in Bojano;
(FJS) 2007 for Francesco Jovine School in San Giuliano; (RBM) 2008 for
Residential building in Messina; (CP) 2011 for New Centre of Civil
A. De Luca and L.G. Guidi Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105912

Fig. 14. BIS Italian evolution: (Tiso, δ, φ).

Protection in Foligno; (DMH) 2015 for Del Mare Hospital in Naples.
In terms of design issues, maximum vibration period is in the order of
2.50 s, while the corresponding displacements do not exceed 25 cm.
Looking at Italian building code, previous values appear consistent with
typical acceleration or displacement design response spectra, valued on
the base of Italian seismic hazard, which is quite different from Japan or
California seismic hazard. Aforementioned case studies reveal that this
not achieved effectiveness in applying base isolation reflects in low
value of device diameters, not exceeding a mean value of 900 mm,
against 1300 mm adopted in USA for the retrofit of Los Angeles City Hall
[26] or in Japan for the buildings of Shimizu Corporation in Tokyo [27,
28].
Another key to interpret the evolution of base isolation design in
Italy is given by vertical stress, σ, and device tributary area, A. Despite of
worldwide trend, in Italy a substantial increase of compressive stress
upon devices is recorded, Fig. 15, exceeding 15 MPa in the case of Del
mare Hospital, but corresponding vibration periods never reach 3 s. At
the same time, trends to increase tributary area, by reducing number of
devices, in order to guarantee device stability, are not perceived by
Italian designers. While Shimizu Corporation main building (2003) is
characterized by a mean tributary are of 266 m2 per isolator and the
pioneering solution of Glendale Municipal Services Building (1966) for
the seismic retrofit exploits a tributary area of 360 m2 per isolator as
explained by Platt and Babakhani [29,30], in Italy a tributary area of
80 m2 is reached only for the New Centre of Civil Protection Department
in Foligno (2011).
Previous attempts to optimize BIS design led to vibration period in
the maximum range [2.40 s–2.60 s], corresponding to displacements

Fig. 15. BIS evolution. Vertical stress upon devices (left) and Tributary area (right).

10
A. De Luca and L.G. Guidi
lower than 30 cm, accommodated by devices diameters not exceeding
1000 mm. As consequence, high vertical stresses upon isolators, result­
ing from small tributary areas, give no possibilities to achieve the rela­
tive advantages of BIS application effectively. In the previous cases the
bearing pressure is generally modest and less than the value recom­
mended for acceptance tests.
4. Conscious approach to BIS design: “all rubber” solution for
larger tributary areas
Among base isolation solutions, the “all rubber “one has already been
established as the most common and effective one for base isolated
structures, as pointed out by Giangreco, De Luca et al. [31–33]. The
choice for this option is due to an increasing awareness in the efficiency
of the rubber bearing system, supported by decades of experimentation,
since the 1980’s in USA. On the contrary, the CSS solution used for the
L’Aquila C.A.S.E. project during 2009-post earthquake reconstruction, is
still a quite recent system, not fully tested, especially in the case of
destructive events. The limited experience in the CSS field, leads to
prefer “all rubber” solutions, sometimes coupled with any sliding de­
vices only in the case of irregular structures. The succeeding examples
examine the effectiveness of “all rubber” solutions, looking at more
conscious applications. The efficiency of BIS technology results by
matching the requirement for growing periods and the use of larger
devices, obtained by increasing tributary area, i.e. by using a long span
structural grid that guarantees the reduction of bearing points. In
particular, the results of a personal research path, De Luca et al. [34], are
described as examples of application of BIS in Italy in line with world­
wide design trends.
4.1. Towards versatile living spaces: from residential buildings to a
“multifunctional centre” in caserta (CE), 2002 (design by De Luca and
scognamiglio)
The following structural solution is part of a high-profile project
involving the City of Caserta for a multifunctional centre. This campus,
originally planned to host facilities for the Air force, has been designed
as a complex of four different buildings that creates a court having a
single open front, Fig. 16 left. Building “A” is reserved to housings,
building “B” is destined to a military school; building “C” is allotted to
laboratories and spa; building “D” is used as an auditorium.
With the exception of building “D”, all the other blocks have a great
flexibility in the organization of inner spaces. This characteristic is due
to a long span structural grid that corresponds to a reduced number of
pillars to limit space articulation. The building structural grid is made up
of constant 5.10 m long spans longitudinally, while in the transverse
direction a central span 11.20 m long is linked to two lateral spans
5.60 m long, Fig. 17.
Structural and architectural design have proceeded in parallel,
Fig. 16. Multifunctional Centre. Plan view (left) and Rendering of Building A (right).
11
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105912
ensuring versatile inner space by using a regular and modular long span
grid. For the structural solution, two hypotheses have been evaluated,
Fig. 18 and Fig. 19: (1) a fixed-base solution with R/C walls having load
bearing function; (2) a base isolated solution with the main structure
made of R/C columns. Looking at the first solution, the whole block is
divided into three portions, each one of (60 m � 20 m). In order to
ensure the maximum spatial flexibility, using R/C walls to counteract
seismic loads, slab hidden beams are adopted in the central portion
while exposed beams stand along perimeter.
A R/C slab, 40 cm deep, made of predalles, is laid in parallel to the
hidden beam 11.20 m long. Standing upon 6 m - 11 m deep foundation
piles, this solution needs R/C cross walls to make the structure stiffer. In
the second case of the base isolated solution, that guarantees a Tiso of
2.40 s and a design displacement of 18 cm, horizontal seismic force are
greatly reduced. This gives the possibility to use a slender structure
made of few pillars (having a cross section 50 cm � 50 cm).
BIS consists of n. 28 HDRB with diameter 600 mm, and n. 16 HDRB
with diameter 700 mm, Table 10. Both bearing types have a total rubber
thickness of 200 mm, corresponding to a secondary shape factor S2 of
3–3.5, and a single rubber layer thickness of 8.3 mm, corresponding to a
primary shape factor S1 of 18–21. Great economic advantages derivable
from BIS are a reduced amount of concrete and the possibility of using a
direct foundation system. At the same time, BIS guarantees: (1) greater
seismic performance, compared to the fixed base proposal; (2) high
structural reliability; (3) extraordinary flexibility and versatility in
organizing inner spaces, by replacing stiff walls with slender pillars.
4.2. Structure integrated in the surrounding context: complex ‘‘La
Cicogna’’ at II polyclinic in Naples, 2010 (design by De Luca, De Maio,
Marangi, Dori)
This structural solution concerns the enlargement of Complex n.2 at
the II Polyclinic Hospital in Naples, appearing as a suburban agglom­
eration with its own structural, architectonic and landscaping charac­
terization. The integrated block functionally interacts with the existing
structure, although both parts are structurally independent from each
other. The building is a parallelepiped block, Fig. 20, having a rectan­
gular base (91.61 m � 19.31 m).
It stands upon 8 couples of concrete pilotis, placed within 15 m in
transverse direction; longitudinally these columns follow a regular grid
made of five spans 12.16 m long and two lateral ones, each 11.40 m
long, Fig. 21. The upper steel structure, using 18 m long beams, gua­
rantees freedom in organizing spaces. BIS solution, Table 11, has been
preferred to an original fixed base proposal that provided for a thick
succession of concrete columns, 3.80 m apart. The BIS solution,
Table 11, is characterized by a columns arrangement in 2 longitudinal
alignments and in 8 transversal ones; each column is cut at (þ6.10 m)
from the ground to insert n.16 rubber bearings with diameter 600 mm.
The isolators have a total rubber thickness of 202.5 mm for a
A. De Luca and L.G. Guidi
Fig. 17. Caserta Multifunctional Centre. Front view (upper drawing) and plan view (lower drawing) of Building “A00
Fig. 18. Building A. Module inner space distribution for Fixed base solution (left) and Module inner space distribution for Base isolated solution (right).
secondary shape factor S2 of 3, and a single rubber layer thickness of
7.5 mm for a primary shape factor S1 of 20. In addition, 8 sliding devices
are used to connect the main block to the external stairwells. In this case
BIS solution guarantees a Tiso of 2.80 s and a design displacement of
18 cm.
4.3. Articulated shape and free spaces: Palace of Justice at L’Aquila,
2011 (design by De Luca; cutillo; Romano)
The following case of study aims to integrate a strategic public
building within an already firmly established urban context, full of
cultural and historical constraints, as expected in any neighbourhood of
L’Aquila; the city was affected by the destructive earthquake of 2009.
The Palace of Justice at L’Aquila proposes again a rectangular plan
scheme (16.50 m � 136.00 m), Fig. 22.
The isolation system is put at ( 3.50 m); below it, the underground
level ( 7.00 m) is occupied by car parking. The upper structure consists
of 5 storeys: the first one, at ( 3.50 m) is partially used as urban park,
while the other level includes offices. The use of BIS solution guarantees
a great freedom in articulating volumes and organizing inner spaces.
The choice of the steel structure for the upper building allows the use of
a single central span 11.50 m long, coupled with two sturdy lateral
cantilevers 2.50 m long. The isolation system stands between the lowest
12
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105912
storey occupied by garages and the covered public space. In particular,
28 HDRBs (1200 mm) are used, on a structural grid of 11.50 m (trans­
versally) x 10.50 m (¼ 3 � 3.50 m, longitudinally), Fig. 23 and Table 12.
Each isolator has a total rubber thickness of 224 mm, for a secondary
shape factor S2 of 5.3, and a single rubber layer thickness of 16 mm for a
primary shape factor S1 of 18.75. In this case BIS solution guarantees Tiso
of 3.10 s and a design displacement of 2 cm. The “cut” due to the
isolation system gives the possibility to accommodate any architectural
requirements, guaranteeing a high seismic performance to the upper
structure. This solution allows for complex volume interactions, in plan
and in elevation.
4.4. Extreme application of BIS technology supporting urban planning:
proposal for “artificial ground“as part of PUA for east-side Naples areas
owned by Kuwait petroleum Italia, 2012 (design by De Luca and
Gasparrini)
Current applications of BIS technology on urban scale are lesser
known, as mentioned by Martelli et al. [6]. The Japanese have
confirmed this trend, initiated some years ago, that consists in the
isolation of even high-rise buildings and sets of buildings by a common
isolated R/C structure, called an “artificial ground”, a solution that al­
lows large savings in construction costs. In Sagamihara City, near Tokyo,
A. De Luca and L.G. Guidi Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105912

Fig. 19. Centro ipertensione. Building A. Structural Grid for Fixed base solution (left) and Structural Grid for Base isolated solution (right).

Table 10
BIS characteristics of Multifunctional Centre in Caserta (De Luca).
System Anti-seismic device Type n. S1 S2 Amax [m2] Nmax [kN] σmax [MPa]
All rubber HDRB HDRB 700 16 21 3.5 25.80 1420 3.70
HDRB 600 28 18 3.0 18.70 490 1.70

Fig. 20. Complex “La Cicogna”. Front view. Fixed base solution (upper drawing) and BIS solution (lower drawing).

13
A. De Luca and L.G. Guidi Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105912

Fig. 21. BIS structural solution of “La Cicogna”. Longitudinal cross section (upper drawing) and plan view (lower drawing).

A more complex situation has been faced, in designing the

Table 11
130 m � 230 m R/C slabs, in order to host different types of buildings
BIS characteristics of Cicogna complex (De Luca).
(from 1 to 15 storeys in height). For each of two slabs, 336 HDRB
System Anti- Type n. S1 S2 Amax Nmax σmax 600 mm are used on a (10 m � 10 m) structural grid; to each isolator a
seismic [m2] [kN] [MPa]
tributary area of 100 m2 corresponds. Even if the basement volume,
device
between foundation and the isolation plane, would be intended for
Hybrid HDRB HDRB 16 20 3.0 119 1120 4.00
parking (as in the case of C.A.S.E. project), the upper complex would
(16 600
HDRB involve structures having different heights and weights (i.e. different
þ 8 SB) seismic response). For this reason, an accurate modelling has been
necessary to understand the structural behaviour of this articulated
system, standing upon a common artificial ground over an area of
a large concrete slab, with 21 separate buildings of 6–14 storeys has 29900 m2 per slab, Fig. 25.
been built on 242 isolation devices which include very large rubber
bearings [35].
In Italy this approach has been applied for the first time in the 4.5. BIS effectiveness by increasing tributary areas: retrofit solution for
aforementioned C.A.S.E. project. No attempts to expand this concept carabinieri barrack in Quindici (Av)
have been done yet, looking at urban scale. The proposal for “artificial
ground” to rehabilitate urban areas owned by Kuwait Petroleum Italia in Dolce et al. [36], Martelli and Forni [37], De Luca et al. [38], Cuomo
East-side Naples tries to integrate BIS solution to urban planning fore­ et al. [39] confirm the benefit of applying base isolation also to retrofit
casts provided for PUA (Italian acronym of Piano Urbanistico Attuativo, i. of existing structures. In this field, a remarkable application is the
e. Urban Implementation Plan), Fig. 24. structural solution, designed by De Luca et al. [34], adopted for the

Fig. 22. Palace of Justice at L’Aquila. Longitudinal cross-section (upper left), typical plan (lower left) and transverse cross-section (right).

14
A. De Luca and L.G. Guidi Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105912

Fig. 23. Palace of Justice at L’Aquila. Plan view of structural solution with pillars details (þ6.30 m) (upper drawing) and BIS layout (lower drawing).

Table 12
BIS characteristics of Palace of Justice at L’Aquila (De Luca).
System Anti-seismic device Type n. S1 S2 Amax [m2] Nmax [kN] σmax [MPa]
All rubber HDRB HDRB 1200 28 18.75 5.3 89.25 4350 3.80

Fig. 24. Artificial ground“for East-side Naples PUA. 336 HDRB 600 for Slab (A) (left)- 336 HDRB 600 for Slab B (right).

Fig. 25. PUA – East side Naples. Rendering (left and centre) - “Modelling for Slab A (upper right) and Slab B (lower right).

15
A. De Luca and L.G. Guidi
Carabinieri barrack in Quindici (Av). The original fixed base R/C
structure, dating back to 1980’s, consisted of three independent blocks;
the whole complex counts 68 pillars, connected to inverted T-beam strip
footings. The innovative solution used to isolate the structures lead to
transfer loads carried by the 68 pillars, Fig. 26, upon only 31 HBRDs.
The necessary transferring system consists of an upper horizontal
framework including the first floor beams, and a lower beam framework
including the foundation system. The “all rubber” solution adopted to
“cut” the upper structure from the ground lies between these stiff
transferring systems. The BIS solution includes a range of three different
diameters (500 mm, 600 mm, 700 mm), for a design displacement of
27 cm. New bearing points, i.e. 31 HBDRs, are never placed along the
vertical of the upper pillars, assuming a new position in transferring
loads to foundations. The uniqueness of this solution is given by its
transferring system; the stiffer upper beams guaranteed to work safely
also during the pillar-cutting stages, ensuring load transfer from the
upper structure to the isolators without any jacking system. A detailed
planning of dismantling – rebuilding stages makes this solution unique
of its kind.
5. The effect of tributary area: Italian applications
In line with contents of the companion paper that refers to BIS
worldwide applications, a classification in three successive generations
has been proposed also for Italian solutions. To this end, the evolution in
time both of isolation period (Tiso) and of average tributary area for
isolator has been evaluated. In particular, it can be observed that the 1st
generation of isolated buildings is characterized by isolation period in
the range 1.5 s–2 s, due to the application of all-rubber solution with
small diameters (generally in the range 400 mm–600 mm). Furthermore,
isolated buildings of 1st generation have a low-to-medium values of
tributary area per device, in the range 10 m2–30 m2; a large number of
bearings leads to a low stress level (average vertical pressure
σ ¼ 2 MPa–3 MPa).
Fig. 26. Carabinieri Barrack in Quindici. (left) Original fixed base solution: plan (above) and cross section (below); (right) Retrofit: Plan with isolation bearings new
framework (above) and cross section (below).
16
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105912
The second generation shows the prevailing use of hybrid solutions
to achieve greater isolation periods (2.0 s - 2.8s). The average tributary
area of bearings varies in the range 30 m2–40 m2, higher than in the 1st
generation. At the same time, the average vertical stress on the isolators
remains comparable with the one evaluated in the earliest applications.
In this case, the increase of vibration periods and of design displace­
ments require diameters (600 mm–700 mm) greater than the ones used a
decade before. From the 1st to the 2nd generation, the experience and
the increased awareness of the BIS technology make possible to achieve
higher earthquake performance, even if the use of BIS doesn’t enter an
integrated design process which might ensure new degrees of freedom in
the structure-architecture interaction in seismic areas. In the 3rd gen­
eration all-rubber solution prevails, ensuring higher vibration periods
(up to 3.0 s). This is achieved by a reduction of the number of bearing
points and an increase of device diameters. The consideration of the
isolation system in the design process allows to adopt new architectural
forms.
Despite of progresses in BIS design during the latest three decades,
Fig. 27, only the latest examples appear the result of a conscious design
approach, that looks at base isolation as a crucial stage of an integrated
design procedure. BIS gives the possibility to merge the structural effi­
ciency against earthquakes with the benefits gained in optimizing
structural solutions, achieving long span structural grids and unexpected
cantilevered parts that satisfy the most daring architectural re­
quirements. From a structural point of view, the reduction of the number
of bearing points and the increase of both device diameters and tributary
area allow larger displacements and greater device stability; from an
architectural point of view, a great functional flexibility is conferred to
the upper structure, by using a long span structural grid.
Even if this awareness in using BIS technology is more consolidated
in Japanese, as well as U.S. or New Zealand design procedures, the latest
aforementioned Italian cases, Fig. 28, show that the evolution in BIS
design is still on course and aims towards a growing consciousness in the
application of this structural solution.
A. De Luca and L.G. Guidi Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105912

Fig. 27. BIS evolution in terms of (Tiso, δ, φ) as traced by De Luca in “all rubber” applications.

Fig. 28. BIS evolution in terms of (σ, A) as traced by De Luca in “all rubber” applications.

Latest applications reveal that the optimum condition, especially for
“all rubber solution”, might be reached by limiting compressive stresses
upon rubber bearings, pursuing long periods of vibration (Tiso > 3.0 s)
by using large diameter isolators (φ > 1200 mm) capable to accommo­
date design displacements (δ) in line with Italian seismic hazard.
6. Conclusion
the search of an optimum solution, by increasing device tributary areas,
A, while reducing number of bearing points. With the aim of establishing
an integrated design procedure that combines structural and architec­
tural requirements, the recommended design procedure should aim at
larger design displacements and longer vibration periods through an
effective isolation system, which provides freedom and flexibility in
organizing upper structure spaces.

In the past 30 years the spreading and development of base isolation
design in Italy have been encouraged on a large scale, even though a
certain delay in comparison to worldwide applications. Italian common
trends exhibit short design vibration period (not exciding 3 s), design
displacements lower than 30 cm, device’s diameters smaller than
1000 mm, device compressive stress greater than 9 MPa. In this way, BIS
effectiveness cannot be fully exploited. Recent applications, as results of
a personal research path [De Luca et al.], mark a great step forward in
Acknowledgements
The support provided by consortium ReLUIS is acknowledged.
Within the working group at the Department of Structures for Engi­
neering and Architecture of Federico II University in Naples, the con­
tributions of Prof. Elena Mele, Prof. Maura Imbimbo and Prof. Giuseppe
Brandonisio for their personal commitment to this subject are also
acknowledged, and to Engrs. Simona Luongo and Francesca Esposito,

17
A. De Luca and L.G. Guidi
who worked on this subject for their Degree Theses.
References
[1] Martelli, Di Pasquale G, San� o T, Bonacina G, Marioni A. State of Art on base
isolation development. In: Proceedings of the international meeting on earthquake
protection of buildings. Ancona. June 6 – 8; 1991.
[2] Dolce M, Santarsiero G. Development of regulations for seismic isolation and
passive energy dissipation of buildings and bridges in Italy and Europe. In:
Proceedings 13th world conference on earthquake engineering. Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada. August 1-6; 2004. Paper No. 2991.
[3] Martelli A. Recent progress of application of modern anti-seismic systems in Europe
– Part 1: seismic isolation. The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering.
2008. October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China.
[4] Dolce M, Serino G. Technologies for the seismic isolation and control of structures
and infrastructures. The state of art of earthquake engineering research in Italy: the
ReLUIS – DPC 2005 – 2008 project. 2009. p. 271–320.
[5] Martelli A, Clemente P, De Stefano A, Forni M. Recent development and
application of seismic isolation and energy dissipation and conditions for their
correct use. Perspectives on European Earthquake Engineering and Seismology;
2014. p. 449–88.
[6] Martelli A, Clemente P, Forni M. Worldwide state-of-the-art of development and
application of anti-seismic systems based on the information provided at the
ASSISi. In: Proceedings of the 14th ASSISi Conference on seismic isolation, energy
dissipation and active vibration control of structures (14WCSI). California, San
Diego: Opening Keynote lecture; 2015.
[7] Consiglio Superiore dei Lavori Pubblici (Italy), Linee Guida per Progettazione,
Esecuzione e Collaudo di Strutture Isolate dal Sisma. Presidenza del Consiglio
Superiore del LL.PP. Servizio Tecnico Centrale; 1998.
[8] De Luca A., Guidi L.G., State of Art on the Worldwide Evolution of Base Isolation
Design. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
soildyn.2019.105722. Volume 125, October 2019, 105722.
[9] Naeim F, Kelly JM. Design of seismic isolated structures: from theory to practice.
John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1999.
[10] Ministero d’Agricoltura, Industria e Commercio (Italy), Ufficio della Propriet� a
industriale. Elenco n.216 degli attestati di privativa industriale. Foglio di
supplemento alla “Gazzetta Ufficiale” n.150. 27 June, 1911.
[11] Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (Italy), Ordinanza No.3274 del 20/03/2003.
Primi Elementi in Materia di Criteri Generali per la Classificazione Sismica del
Territorio Nazionale e di Normative Tecniche per le Costruzioni in Zona Sismica
(Suppl. Ord. No.72). Gazzetta Ufficiale 08/05/2003 No.105.
[12] Ministero delle Infrastrutture (Italy), Norme tecniche per le Costruzioni. D.M. 14/
01/2008. Gazzetta Ufficiale No.29 del 04/02/2008.
[13] Ministero delle Infrastrutture (Italy), Aggiornamento delle norme tecniche per le
Costruzioni. D.M. 17/01/2018. Gazzetta Ufficiale No.42 del 20/02/2018.
[14] Architectural Institute of Japan. Design Recommendations for seismically isolated
buildings. fourth ed. 2016.
[15] Antonucci R, Giacchetti R Mancini A. Base isolation of a strategic building in
Ancona. Proceedings of the international meeting on earthquake protection of
buildings. 1991. Ancona. June 6 – 8.
[16] Lupoi G, Lupoi A, Callari C. The design of a new isolated Hospital in Frosinone. http
://host.uniroma3.it/dipartimenti/dis/ricerca/Hospitals/Articoli_pdf/llc.01.eng.
pdf; 2010.
[17] Martelli A. Seismic isolation and energy dissipation: worldwide application and
perspectives. In: Earthquake resistant engineering strucutres VI, vol. 93. WIT Press;
2007. p. 105–17.
[18] Martelli A, Forni M. Progress on the development and application of the seismic
vibration control techniques in Italy. 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering. Vancouver. 2004. Paper No. 2180.
[19] Dusi A, Mezzi M. L’isolamento sismico del nuovo Istituto Tecnico G. Lombardo
Radice di Bojano (Campobasso). www.assisi-antiseismicsystems.org; 2006.
[20] Indirli M, Clemente P, Spadoni B. The reconstruction of san Giuliano di Puglia after
the october 31st 2002 earthquake – 13th world conference on earthquake
engineering vancouver, B.C., Canada. 2004. Paper No. 1805.
18
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 130 (2020) 105912
[21] Clemente P, Buffarini G, Dolce M, Parducci A. La scuola Angeli di San Giuliano: un
esempio significativo di isolamento sismico. Energ Ambiente Innov 2009;3:107–16
[ENEA, Roma].
[22] Di Sarno L, Chioccarelli E, Cosenza E. Seismic assessment of an irregular base
isolated hospital. 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Beijing,
China. 2008.
[23] Cosenza E, Di Sarno L, Chioccarelli E, De Risi B, Mascolo C, Pecce MR. L’Ospedale
del Mare in Napoli: il Record Europeo dell’Isolamento Sismico. Progettazione
Sismica; 2009.
[24] Calvi GM, Bertolaso G, Gabrielli F, Stucchi M, Manfredi G, Dolce M. L’AQUILA. Il
progetto C.A.S.E. Complessi antisismici sostenibili ed ecocompatibili. IUSS Press.
Fondazione Eucentre; 2010.
[25] Martelli A, Forni M, Clemente P. Recent worldwide application of seismic isolation
and energy dissipation and conditions for their correct use. Lisboa: 15th World
Conference of Earthquake Engineering; 2012.
[26] Youssef Nabih, Owen Hata. Seismic retrofit and instrumentation of Los Angeles city
Hall. SMIP05 seminar proceedings. California: Seminar on Utilization of Strong-
Motion Data; 2005. p. 115–30.
[27] Nakamura Y, Hanzawa T, Hasebe M, Okada K, Kaneko M, Saruta M. Report on the
effects of seismic isolation methods from the 2011 Tohoku–pacific earthquake.
J. Anti Seism. Syst. Int. Soc. (ASSISi) 2011;2(1):57–74. https://doi.org/10.2140/
siaps.2011.2.57.
[28] Shimazaki D, Nakagawa K. Seismic Isolation System incorporation with RC core
walls and precast concrete perimeter frames. Int J High Rise Build 2015;4(No.3):
181–9. CTBUH Research paper.
[29] Platt J, Babakhani A. City of glandale. Interdivisional communication. Staff report.
September 23, http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/government/packets/HPC_092313/
7a.pdf; 2013.
[30] Platt J, Babakhani A. Recommendation Regarding Glendale Register of Historic
Resources Nomination for 633 East Broadway. City of Glendale, Interdivisional
Communication, Staff Report. 2013. p. 1–4. http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/
government/packets/HPC_092313/7a.pdf.
[31] Giangreco E, De Luca A. Sistemi innovativi di protezione sismica: l’isolamento
sismico. Convegno Terremoti d’Italia. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei; 1995.
[32] De Luca A, Mele E. State-of-the-Art report on base isolation and energy dissipation.
In: Proceedings of International Workshop and Seminar on behavior of steel
structures in seismic areas. STESSA 94. Timisoara, Romania, 26-29 June; 1994.
[33] De Luca A. Innovative strategies and techniques for seismic protection. Proceedings
of “Japan in Italy 95-96” symposium on “safe city”, napoli. 1996. February 9-10.
[34] De Luca A, Brandonisio G, Luongo S, De Martino A, Mautone G, De Stefano G,
D’Onofrio G. Una soluzione tutta gomma per l’isolamento di una struttura esistente
in c.a.. Le “strutture di trasferimento”. Atti del XVI Convegno ANIDIS, Associazione
Nazionale Italiana di Ingegneria Sismica. 2015.
[35] Martelli A, Clemente P, De Stefano A, Forni M, Salvatori A. Recent Development
and Application of seismic Isolation and energy Dissipation and Conditions for
their correct use. Perspectives on european earthquake engineering and
seismology. In: Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering, vol. 34.
Springer; 2014.
[36] Dolce M., Laterza M., Masi A., Troiano F., Adeguamento sismico di edifici in c.a.
mediante isolamento alla base: applicazione ad un caso reale. Protezione sismica
dell’edilizia esistente e di nuova edificazione attraverso sistemi innovativi. Final
Workshop, 12 – 13 maggio 2000, Napoli.
[37] Martelli A., Forni M. Seismic retrofit of existing buildings by means of seismic
isolation: some remarks on the Italian experience and new projects – 3rd
ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering – Corfu, Greece – 25-28 May 2011.
[38] De Luca A, Mele E, Molina J, Verzeletti G, Pinto AV. Conventional and base
isolated historical buildings: comparison of seismic performance through
experimental investigation. In: Proceedings VIII ANIDIS “L’ingegneria sismica in
Italia”, Torino; 1999. September.
[39] Cuomo G, De Luca A, Mele E. Design aspects in seismic isolation: application to
retrofit churches. Int J Archit Herit 2008;2:247–73. 1558-3058.