Evaluating Seismic Isolation Design: Simplified Linear Methods vs. Nonlinear Time-History Analysis

Seismic isolation is a vital strategy for improving the earthquake resilience of structures, utilizing flexible components such as lead–rubber bearings (LRBs) and curved surface sliders (CSSs) to attenuate ground motion effects. This paper presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of seismic isolation design methodologies prescribed in the U.S. code (ASCE 7-22) and the European code (EC8). The focus is on the equivalent lateral force method, also known as the simplified linear method, renowned for its simplicity and efficiency in seismic design applications. A six-story steel building serves as a case study to examine the discrepancies between the two codes. The structure was modeled and subjected to nonlinear time-history analysis (NTHA) using 20 ground motion records, selected and scaled to match a conditional mean spectrum (CMS). Key performance indicators—including displacement at the isolation level, base shear forces, story shear forces, and story drifts—were compared to assess the reliability and effectiveness of each code’s design approach. The findings reveal notable differences between ASCE 7-22 and EC8, particularly in seismic hazard characterization and the calculation of design displacements. ASCE 7-22 generally adopts a more conservative stance, especially for CSSs, resulting in overestimations of design displacements and lateral seismic forces. In contrast, EC8’s simplified method aligns more closely with observed performance for LRBs. However, when applied to CSSs, simplified methods prove less reliable, underscoring the need for more precise analytical techniques.