2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

Comparison of US and Japanese Codes and Practices for Seismically Isolated

Buildings
T. C. Becker1, S. Furukawa2, S. A. Mahin1 and M. Nakashima2
1

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California

Berkeley, 750 Davis Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720
2
Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Gokasho, Uji, Kyoto, 6110011, Japan
ABSTRACT
The number of base isolated building in Asian countries, especially Japan, far
outstrips the number in the United States. Base isolated buildings in Japan number in
the thousands while the number in the U.S. remains around one hundred. Unlike its
use in Japan, isolation technology in the U.S. has remained within mainly essential,
public buildings such as hospitals, city halls or 911 centers. The technology has not
spread to use in typical office or residential buildings, which may also see increased
safety and performance benefits.
This paper compares the codes and practices for designing seismically isolated
buildings in the U.S. and Japan. The design spectra are developed for buildings of the
same occupancy rating located in comparable seismic regions in both countries. The
design process is discussed from determining the ground motion demands through
peer review and isolation device testing. Special attention is made to the code design
methods for isolated building in the two countries with focus on the displacement
demands for isolation devices. A comparison of the displacement demands for a
three-story office building is made.
INTRODUCTION
Use of isolation in the United States has been seriously limited for a number
of reasons. One of the main limiting factors is extra complexity in the design code for
isolated buildings resulting in both time and cost spent on a project. Thus, the
majority of isolation use is in hospitals, historical retrofits, or high tech facilities
(Higashino and Okamoto, 2006). Contrastingly, Japan has a streamlined process,
which facilitates the design of isolated buildings. For this reason seismic isolation has
flourished in Japan. In fact, over half of isolated buildings today are apartment or
office buildings (Pan et. al. 2005). Ease of design should be encouraged in the U.S.,
as the benefits of seismic isolation as a protective system are well known and the
proliferation of isolation has the potential to greatly improve the safety of the public
in an earthquake.
As a method of evaluating the U.S. design process, we can compare it to that
of Japan. The main aspects of the design process evaluated are: demand requirements,

2330

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

analysis procedure, peer review and isolation device approval. For both Japan and the
U.S. the superstructure forces are based on an approximately 500-year earthquake.
However, the isolator displacement is designed for a 500-year event in Japan and a
2500-year event in the U.S. Both countries require nonlinear time history analysis.
However, the countries differ in their method for selecting design earthquake records
and their method of modeling in the building for analysis. A government mandated
committee in Japan oversees the peer review process whereas, in the U.S. the process
and review members changes for each project. Lastly, Japan isolation device
manufactures provide designers with pre-approved device catalogues. In the U.S. the
owner must pay for testing of the devices to be used in the project, and the designer
must specify the device testing. By adopting some of the practices used in Japan, the
use of isolation in the U.S. could be increased.
DEMAND REQUIREMENTS
The U.S. codes limits are based on what are called the maximum considered
earthquake (MCE) and the design basis earthquake (DBE). The MCE is defined as an
earthquake of 2% probability in 50 years. This is a 2500-year return period. The DBE
is defined as 2/3 of the MCE (ACSE, 2006). In earthquake prone regions such as the
west coast, the DBE has approximately 10% probability of occurring in 50 years.
This is a 475-year return period. In the U.S., the superstructure must remain elastic
for the DBE while the isolators must accommodate the MCE displacement.
In Japan designs are based off of Level 1 and Level 2 earthquakes. A Level 1
earthquake has a peak ground velocity (PGV) of 25 cm/s. A Level 2 earthquake has a
PGV of 50 cm/s. The Level 1 earthquake is a service level event, for which the
superstructure must remain elastic. The Level 2 earthquake has a return period of
approximately 500 years and is comparable to the U.S. DBE. At this level, a small
level of yielding in the superstructure is acepted. There is no official MCE level event
in Japanese codes. A Level 3 event is used to check for collapse safety at the
discretion of the owners and designers. In this case, a 50% increase in Level 2 motion
is often used (Pan et. al., 2005). The isolator displacement capacity is based off of the
Level 2 displacement.
Response Spectrum. The design spectra for the U.S and Japan differ in how they
change with location. In constructing a U.S. design spectrum the spectral acceleration
at periods of 0.2s and 1s are found for and earthquake with a probability of 2% in 50
years based on the latitude and longitude of the location. These values are known as
SS and S1 and can be used to describe the bedrock spectra for the MCE. These are
found on the USGS earthquake hazards website (USGS 2009). Thus, locations within
the same city may have different design spectra, altering in both amplitude and corner
period, the period at which the design acceleration begins to decrease inversely with
period.
Although latitude and longitude specific data is available for Japan (NIED,
2006), the design spectrum for Japan has a constant backbone for the entire country.
Additionally, the design spectrum is created directly for a Level 2 earthquake. Minor
amplification change is due to the seismic hazard zone factor (Z), which can decrease

2331

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

the amplitude of the spectrum. Z is taken as 1.0 for the majority of the country. The
lowest value of Z is 0.7 for the island of Okinawa. (Higashino and Okamoto, 2006).
For the bedrock spectrum, there is no change in corner period for the country.
The adjustment for site classification has a similar result in both U.S. and
Japanese design spectra. Softer soils result in an increase in both amplitude and
corner period in the acceleration spectra. Where the U.S. has site classes A-F, Japan
has site classes 1-4. Site classes 1 through 3 correspond to rock, stiff soil and soft soil
respectively. Japanese site class 4, similar to U.S. site class F, requires site-specific
investigation. To alter the Japanese design spectrum for the site class the acceleration
spectrum values are multiplied by Gs, a function of the period. Gs is constant for all
soil types at small periods and larger for softer soils and larger periods (Higashino
and Okamoto, 2006). Adjustment for site classification in the U.S. code is done using
the Fa and Fv values. These values are based on SS and S1 respectively as well as the
site class. Fa and Fv are multiplied to SS and S1 to find get SMS and SDS, the surface
spectral accelerations at periods of 0.2 s and 1.0 s for the maximum considered
earthquake (ASCE, 2006).
Damping is considered similarly in both codes. The Japanese code multiplies
the spectrum by a value Fh a function based on the effective viscous and hysteretic
damping (Higashino and Okamoto, 2006). The U.S. code divides by a damping
coefficient BD, which is based on total effective damping. There is a larger decrease
in the Japanese spectra. An increase in hysteretic damping from 5% to 20% decreases
the Japanese spectrum by 42% as opposed to 33% in the U.S. spectrum. The damping
value is caped by 30% critical in the U.S. code (ASCE, 2006).
A comparison of the U.S. and Japanese design spectra is shown in Figure 1.
The U.S. site selected for comparison is the site selected for the NEES Tools in
Isolation and Protective Systems (TIPS) theme building (Morgan, 2008). The
building is located in Los Angeles, CA. The parameters used for in constructing the
design spectra are given in Table1.
Table 1. Parameters for the code design spectra for Los Angeles, CA DBE and
Japan Level 2 earthquake.
Japan
Los Angeles, CA
Importance factor
1.0
1.0
Site class
2
D
Seismic hazard zone factor (Z)
1.0
n/a
2% in 50 yrs SA at T=0.2s (Ss)
n/a
2.2g
2% in 50 yrs SA at T=1s (S1)
n/a
0.74g
Site coefficient Fa
n/a
1.0
Site coefficient Fv
n/a
1.5
The spectra show that the design acceleration is higher for the Los Angeles,
CA spectra than the Japanese spectra for the short period and vice versa for the long
period. The larger amplification of design acceleration in the Japanese spectra may be
a response from the Kobe earthquake in which building at the same epicentral
distance experienced very different acceleration. The Kobe earthquake was the
impetus to including site classifications in the design code (Pan et. al. 2005).

2332

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

2333

Since building isolation systems have large periods, the design displacement
for isolation systems for the 475 year (or 500 year in Japan) return period is greater in
Japan. However, after the reduction due to higher damping is included, the difference
between long period portions of the spectra is decreased. Thus, the isolated building
demands are similar.
1.6
Japan 5% damping
Los Angeles, CA 5% dmaping
Japan 20% dmaping
Los Angeles, CA 20% dmaping

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Period (s)

Figure 1. Los Angeles, CA DBE and Japan Level 2 code design spectra for 5%
and 20% damped systems.
Design ground motions.
In both the U.S. and Japan, nonlinear analysis is still
used for the majority of isolated building design. The nonlinear design guidelines for
isolated buildings from Japan were adapted from guidelines originally implemented
in the 1970s for buildings greater than 60 meters in height. All isolated buildings and
tall buildings in Japan are always subjected to the same three earthquakes or the
golden set. These earthquakes are El Centro NS 1940, Taft EW 1952 and
Hachinohe EW 1968. The Hachinohe record is well known for its long period peak
response. The records used have been scaled to a PGV of 0.5 m/s. The acceleration
response spectra are shown in Figure 2. As seen in Figure 2, the standard ground
motions used in Japan fall below the design spectra.
In addition to the standard ground motions, a suite of three regionally specific
motions is developed (Pan et. al., 2005). These earthquakes must match the site
design spectrum. This set generally includes the JMA Kobe record. The maximum
response values from all input earthquakes are used as design values for the project.
In the U.S., a geotechnical engineer is hired for each project to develop a suite
of site-specific ground motions for use in the analysis. The ground motions must
reflect the fault characteristics for the maximum considered earthquake at that
location (ASCE, 2006). The geotechnical peer review must then review and approve
the ground motions. The U.S. uses the average response from seven ground motions
or the maximum response from three ground motions for design values. Many
projects use greater than seven ground motions. The average of the square root of the

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

sum of the squares of the components of each of the ground motions selected for a
project in the U.S. must not fall below 1.3 times the design spectrum by more than
10% (ASCE, 2006).

Figure 2. Japan Level 2 design spectra and acceleration response spectra for El
Centro, Taft and Hachinohe for 5% and 20% damped systems.
Design Displacement.
The U.S. code requires the isolator displacement
capacity to be designed for the MCE. Conversely, the Japan code leaves the Level 3
criteria up to the owner and designer, thus the isolator displacement can be designed
for the Level 2 displacement with a safety factor. Using the NEES TIPS theme
building isolation characteristics (Morgan, 2008), we can compare the necessary
isolation capacity corresponding to the Japanese and U.S. design spectra. The theme
building is a three-story office-building intended for normal use; information is
shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Design displacement for Los Angeles, CA and Japan using NEES TIPS
theme building isolation properties.
Isolation Properties
DBE / Level 2 MCE / Level 3
Effective period
2.77 s
3.07 s
Effective damping
24.2%
15.8%
Los Angles, CA code disp
12.7 in
24.3 in
Japan code disp
14.6 in
-

2334

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

The Japanese code requires a higher displacement for the DBE/Level 2

displacement. However, as the required isolator capacity is based on the MCE
earthquake in the U.S., the capacity required for U.S. isolators is a little under twice
that of the Japanese isolators for the same building.
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
Nonlinear, dynamic analysis is still the predominant form of analysis used in
designing isolated buildings. However, the Japanese and U.S. procedures for
nonlinear analysis vary greatly. In Japan, buildings are modeled in one dimension for
non-linear analysis. Masses are lumped at the floor levels. The design shear force for
each story is determined, and a push-over analysis is conducted using external lateral
forces given by design shear force to get the backbone curves. These backbone curves
are used in the non-linear analysis to represent the story stiffnesses (Higashino and
Okamoto, 2004).
In the U.S, dynamic analysis requires a full three-dimensional model. Each
floor must include a minimum of three degrees of freedom: two horizontal and one
torsional about the vertical axis. Superstructure elements may be modeled linear
elastically provided that the superstructure lateral force resisting system remains
elastic for the DBE. Nonlinear modeling of the isolators is necessary. Both
components of a ground motion must be applied simultaneously to the model, and
accidental torsion is accounted for the mass offsets at each floor diaphragm (ASCE,
2006).
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
In the U.S. and Japan mostly all isolated building are peer reviewed. One of
the main reasons structural isolation has flourished in Japan is that there was already a
streamlined peer review process for isolated buildings before the Kobe earthquake
catalyst occurred (Clark et. al., 1999). The same review guidelines that have existed
since the 1970s for tall buildings. Unlike in the U.S. where the peer review process
varies from project to project and can take anywhere from 3 months to over a year,
the Japan process is standardized and typically takes on the order of one or two
months.
In 2000, with Notification No. 2009 from the Ministry of Construction,
Japan enforced a design code for isolated building in which an equivalent linear
method (based on the capacity spectra design methodology) was adopted. Linear
design was made applicable for isolated buildings that are not greater than 60 m and
are constructed on firm soil with no possibility of liquefaction (Otani and Kani,
2004). At the time of this enforcement, no peer-review was required if the code was
adopted. However, a serious 2005 scandal occurred involving serious deception of
seismic design, and a new peer check system was introduced, intending to avoid such
deception. This peer check differs from the long-standing peer review process for
isolated buildings designed with nonlinear analysis. The reviewers tend not to be
familiar with design of isolated buildings and thus the process becomes burdensome

2335

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

and prolonged. For these reasons, Japanese designers opt for the nonlinear analysis
route where the peer review is well defined and run by field experts (Nakashima,
2009).
Peer reviewers.
The Building Center of Japan organizes the review committee
for isolated buildings. The designers give a presentation to the committee and respond
to initial questions. Afterwards two members of the review board are assigned to
thoroughly review the project. The reviewers will meet with the designers one to
three times over the course of the review. The reviewers report back to the committee,
which ultimately approves the design (Pan et. al. 2005).
In the U.S. the peer review teams are different for each building. The owner or
jurisdiction chooses the teams, often from a list provided by the designer, the building
authority or a local engineers association (Larsen, 2008). Typically there are three
members of the peer review team: a structural engineer, an expert on ground motions
and an expert in seismic isolation (Naeim and Kelly, 1999).
Scope. In the U.S. there are disagreements about the scope of the peer review and
what authority the reviewers have. The code requires review of earthquake ground
motions, design and maximum displacements, final design of the entire structural
system and prototype and qualification testing for the isolation devices. However, the
code specifically says that the review is not limited to these topics (ASCE, 2006). As
the same committee reviews all isolated buildings in Japan, the scope of the review
remains constant. Adopting a process similar the Japanese peer review would greatly
cut down on time and money in the design and review process.
ISOLATION DEVICES
A large difference between Japanese and America isolation design is in the
technology used. Japan relies, almost entirely, on rubber bearings, sometimes with the
additional use of flat sliders. Rubber bearings include natural rubber bearings, high
damping rubber bearings and lead core rubber bearings. Japanese engineers often opt
for natural rubber bearings in order to have the ability to select the isolation period
and damping ratio independently.
In the U.S. both rubber and friction pendulum bearings are used, and both
systems competitively bid on projects. Japanese designers appear to be interested in
the use of friction pendulum bearings; however, this technology has not been used in
any peer-reviewed building.
Device Approval.
In Japan each bearing manufacturing company has a catalogue
of pre-approved devices. The devices go through an accreditation process run by the
same committee that reviews the design process. Manufactures submit the data
required for accreditation. A minimum of three specimens of a device type must be
tested. Full-scale results are required for design level properties. Reduced-scale
results are accepted for limit state properties. The dependence of isolator properties
on age, compressive force, temperature, velocity, and number of cycles must be
provided (Pan et. al. 2005).

2336

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

In the U.S. isolation devices are approved for use on a case-by-case basis. The
designer specifies testing procedures for the isolation bearings per the design code
and the owner pays for these tests. Testing includes prototype testing and quality
control testing. The peer review team reviews the testing procedures. They are also
responsible for observing the prototype testing. Prototype testing, which is similar to
the Japanese accreditation process, is required of two of each bearing type. The code
specifies a loading history based on the DBE and MCE displacements of the isolated
building. Additionally, static vertical load tests are done with bearing at the maximum
displacement. If the behavior of the isolation device is dependent on the loading rate
then tests must be run at the DBE effective frequency. Reduced-scale results are
accepted for loading rate dependence. The availability of catalogues of pre-approved
devices would cut down on prototype testing costs as well as peer review cost.
The quality control testing program applies to all isolation devices going into
the building. In general, the designer specifies the number of cycles and the
displacement for the devices to be tested. The axial load under which the tests are
preformed is also specified. The designer may stipulate acceptable ranges for the
devices properties. These ranges may apply to either individual devices or the average
of the entire set of devices for the project.
CONCLUSION
There are many topics on which U.S. and Japan isolation design differ. As
shown, the same building may require the isolators to have twice the capacity is it is
located in the U.S. compared to being located in Japan. Japanese design for isolated
buildings is faster and less expensive then U.S. design for many reasons including but
not limited to: standardized ground motions, 1D nonlinear analysis, streamlined peerreview and pre-approved isolation devices. Furthermore, culture has a large affect on
both the design philosophies and client requests in each country. However, by
understanding how design practices vary and the pros and cons of each side, we can
improve overall practice and increase the use of isolation as a protective system in
buildings in the United States.
REFERENCES
ASCE (2006). ASCE 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, Reston: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Clark, P.W., Aiken, I.D., Nakashima, M., Miyazaki, M. and Midorikawa, M. (1999).
The 1995 Kobe (Hyogo-ken Nanbu) earthquake as a trigger for
implementing new seismic design technologies in Japan. Lessons Learned
Over Time, Learning From Earthquakes, Volume III, EERI.
Higashino, M. and Okamoto, S. (eds) (2006). Response control and seismic isolation
of buildings, Taylor & Francis, New York.
Larsen, D. (2008). A study on the design review process for seismic isolated
structures. Masters Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Utah State
University, Logan, UT.

2337

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE

Morgan, T.A. (2008). Summary of design basis for 3-story NEES-TIPS model
buildings. NEES Tips,
<http://www.neng.usu.edu/cee/faculty/kryan/NEESTIPS/PBEE_study.html>
(Jan. 18, 2010).
Naeim, F. and Kelly J. M. (1999). Design of seismic isolated structures, Wiley, New
York.
Nakashima, M. (2009). Personal communication. Professor at the Disaster Prevention
Research Institute, Kyoto University.
National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention. (2005). Japan
seismic hazard information station. <http://wwwold.j-shis.bosai.go.jp/jshis/index_en.html> (Jan. 18, 2010).
Otani, S. and Kani, N. (2002). Japanese state of practice in design of seismically
isolated buildings. 4th US-Japan workshop on performance-based earthquake
engineering methodology for reinforced concrete building structures, Toba,
Japan.
Pan, P., Zamfirescu, D., Nakashima, M., Nakayasu, N. and Kashiwa, H. (2005).
Base-isolation design practice in Japan: Introduction to the post-Kobe
approach, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 9(1), 147:171.
United States Geological Survey. (2009). Seismic design for engineers. Hazards,
<http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/javacalc.php> (Jan. 18,
2010).

2338