Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Earthquake-resistant structures

Earthquake-resistant structures are buildings, bridges, and other civil engineering constructions specifically designed and detailed to withstand the ground shaking and associated hazards of earthquakes, prioritizing life safety, structural integrity, and minimal damage through engineered principles like ductility, stiffness, and energy dissipation.^[1] These designs aim to prevent collapse during major seismic events, such as the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) with return periods of 1,000–3,000 years, while limiting nonstructural damage during more frequent design earthquakes.^[1] In the United States, as of 2024, nearly 75% of the population (approximately 250 million people) lives in areas that could experience damaging earthquake shaking, with annual economic losses estimated at $14.7 billion.^[2]^[3] The foundational principles of earthquake-resistant design emphasize stiffness to resist deformation and control lateral displacements, strength to endure seismic forces calculated via base shear (V = C_s W), and ductility to allow inelastic deformation without failure, enabling structures to absorb and dissipate energy from ground motions.^[1] These concepts are integrated into modern building codes, such as the International Building Code (IBC) and ASCE/SEI 7-22, which categorize structures by Seismic Design Categories (A–F) based on risk levels and mandate features like continuous load paths, redundancy, and regular geometry to avoid vulnerabilities such as soft stories or torsional irregularities.^[1] Collaborative design among architects, engineers, and stakeholders from project inception ensures compliance with these standards, often without significant cost increases when using capacity design methods.^[4] Key strategies include base isolation, which decouples the structure from the ground using isolators to reduce transmitted accelerations, and energy-dissipating devices like viscous or hysteretic dampers that absorb seismic energy, typically adding only 1–2% to structural costs.^[5] Lateral force-resisting systems, such as shear walls, braced frames, and moment-resisting frames, distribute forces effectively, while nonstructural components—like cladding, ceilings, and equipment—must be braced and anchored to prevent hazards during shaking.^[1] Foundations are engineered for stability against overturning, sliding, and soil liquefaction, often incorporating deep piles in vulnerable sites, and adjacent structures are separated by joints to avoid pounding.^[4] Performance-based design approaches, beyond prescriptive codes, enable tailored resilience for critical facilities, reflecting advancements under programs like the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP).^[1]

Seismic Hazards and Fundamentals

Earthquake Dynamics

Earthquakes are sudden releases of energy in the Earth's crust, typically occurring along faults where accumulated tectonic stresses cause rocks to slip abruptly, generating seismic waves that propagate through the Earth.^[6] This process is most commonly associated with tectonic earthquakes, which result from the movement of tectonic plates; however, earthquakes can also be volcanic, triggered by magma movement beneath volcanoes, or induced by human activities such as fluid injection in oil and gas operations or reservoir impoundment behind dams.^[6]^[7]^[8] Key parameters describe the source and impact of earthquakes. Magnitude quantifies the total energy released, with the Richter scale measuring the logarithm of the maximum amplitude of seismic waves recorded by seismographs, though it has largely been superseded by the moment magnitude scale, which accounts for fault area, slip, and rock rigidity for a more accurate assessment across all sizes.^[9]^[10] Intensity, in contrast, measures the effects at specific locations using scales like the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale, which ranges from I (not felt) to XII (total destruction) based on observed damage and human perception.^[11]^[12] The epicenter is the surface point directly above the hypocenter (or focus), the underground rupture origin, from which seismic waves radiate outward.^[6] Seismic waves include primary (P) waves, which are compressional and travel fastest through solids, liquids, and gases; secondary (S) waves, which are shear waves that propagate only through solids and cause perpendicular ground motion; and surface waves, such as Love and Rayleigh waves, which travel along the Earth's surface and typically cause the most damage due to their larger amplitudes and lower frequencies.^[13]^[14]^[15] Ground motion at a site is characterized by parameters such as acceleration (rate of velocity change), velocity (rate of displacement change), displacement (ground shift), duration (length of significant shaking), and frequency content (distribution of wave periods), which together determine the shaking's potential to damage structures.^[16] Peak ground acceleration (PGA), expressed in units of g (gravitational acceleration), serves as a primary measure of shaking intensity, with values exceeding 0.2g often causing significant structural concern in design contexts.^[17]^[18] These dynamics provide the foundational inputs for estimating seismic loads on structures, as detailed in subsequent analyses.^[19] Seismic waves attenuate—lose energy and amplitude—with increasing distance from the epicenter due to geometric spreading and material absorption, resulting in weaker shaking farther away.^[20] Site effects further modify ground motion: soft or loose soils can amplify waves, particularly low-frequency components, by factors of 2–5 compared to firm rock sites, while resonance occurs when the site's natural frequency aligns with the dominant wave frequencies, prolonging and intensifying shaking.^[21]^[22] In saturated cohesionless soils, intense shaking can lead to liquefaction, where pore pressure buildup causes the soil to lose strength and behave like a fluid, potentially resulting in ground settlement or lateral spreading.^[23]^[24]

Structural Vulnerability

Conventional structures are particularly susceptible to damage during earthquakes due to their inability to accommodate intense lateral forces, vertical accelerations, and ground deformations generated by seismic waves. These vulnerabilities manifest in various failure modes that can lead to partial or total collapse, underscoring the importance of understanding structural responses to motivate advanced design approaches.^[1] Common failure mechanisms include shear failure in beams and columns, where lateral forces exceed the shear capacity, resulting in diagonal cracking or sliding of elements and potential progressive collapse.^[1] Pancake collapse occurs when vertical load-bearing elements fail, causing floors to stack upon one another, often initiated by out-of-plane wall failures in unreinforced masonry structures.^[1] Soft-story failures are prevalent in multi-story buildings with weaker ground floors, such as those featuring open parking or lobbies, where the reduced stiffness leads to excessive deformation and concentration of damage at the base.^[1] Torsional effects arise from uneven twisting due to misalignment of the centers of mass and rigidity, amplifying stresses in irregular layouts and contributing to localized failures.^[1] Several factors exacerbate structural vulnerability, including irregular geometry such as reentrant corners or diaphragm discontinuities, which unevenly distribute seismic forces and heighten damage at discontinuities.^[1] Heavy roofs increase inertial loads, straining supports and elevating collapse risk under dynamic shaking.^[25] Unreinforced masonry buildings are highly prone to brittle failure due to their low tensile strength and lack of ductility, often resulting in sudden cracking and out-of-plane wall collapses.^[25] Poor foundation-soil interaction, particularly on soft or saturated soils, can amplify ground motions through liquefaction or differential settlement, further destabilizing the structure.^[1] A stark historical example is the 1985 Michoacán earthquake (magnitude 8.0), which struck 350 km from Mexico City but caused extensive collapses primarily in the city's lake-bed zone due to soil amplification. Mid-rise buildings (6-15 stories) suffered the most, with approximately 60% of damaged or collapsed structures in this category, as the soft clay layers resonated with their natural periods, intensifying vibrations up to 0.65g spectral acceleration at 2.0 seconds.^[26]^[27] At the core of these vulnerabilities lies the concept of a building's natural frequency, defined as the inherent rate at which it vibrates when disturbed, typically measured in seconds per cycle and influenced by height, mass, and stiffness. Resonance occurs when this natural frequency aligns closely with the dominant periods of earthquake ground motions, leading to amplified vibrations that can multiply displacement by factors of several times, severely stressing connections and elements.^[28]^[29] While ductility can help absorb energy and prevent brittle failures in such scenarios, its role is explored further in seismic design principles.^[1]

Core Principles of Seismic Design

Seismic Load Analysis

Seismic load analysis is the process of quantifying the forces and accelerations induced by earthquakes on structures to inform their design, serving as the foundational step in ensuring resilience against seismic events. This analysis accounts for the dynamic nature of ground motions, which vary in intensity, duration, and frequency content depending on the earthquake's magnitude, distance from the fault, and local site conditions. Methods for seismic load analysis range from simplified static approaches suitable for regular, low-to-medium rise buildings to more advanced dynamic techniques for complex or critical structures, as prescribed in standards like ASCE/SEI 7 and Eurocode 8.^[30] The equivalent static method provides a simplified approach to estimate lateral seismic forces by treating the earthquake as an equivalent static load applied horizontally to the structure. In this method, the total base shear V is calculated as V = C_s \times W, where C_s is the seismic response coefficient and W is the effective seismic weight of the structure. The coefficient C_s is determined by factors including the seismic zone factor (reflecting regional hazard intensity), the importance factor (accounting for the structure's criticality, such as hospitals versus residential buildings), and the response reduction factor (which allows for ductile behavior to reduce design forces). This method is particularly applicable to structures with regular mass and stiffness distribution, as outlined in ASCE/SEI 7-22 Section 12.8, and is computationally efficient for preliminary design.^[31] Response spectrum analysis offers a more refined dynamic evaluation by using an elastic design response spectrum to determine maximum responses across a range of structural periods. The spectrum plots pseudo-acceleration against natural periods of vibration, incorporating parameters such as peak ground acceleration, damping ratios (typically 5% for structures), and site-specific amplification factors derived from codes like ASCE/SEI 7 or Eurocode 8. For instance, Eurocode 8 defines Type 1 and Type 2 spectra for higher and lower seismicity regions, respectively, with plateau values and decay rates tailored to soil conditions and return periods (e.g., 475 years for design basis earthquakes). This modal superposition technique combines responses from multiple vibration modes to compute forces, displacements, and stresses, providing a statistically based envelope of expected demands without simulating time-varying motions.^[30]^[32] Time-history analysis represents the most detailed approach, involving the direct integration of recorded or synthetic accelerograms to simulate the structure's response over the earthquake's duration. This method applies time-series ground motion records (accelerograms) as input to the structural model, capturing the full dynamic interaction and allowing for both linear and nonlinear behavior. Nonlinear effects, such as material yielding or geometric nonlinearity, are explicitly modeled to assess realistic deformation demands under specific seismic scenarios, making it essential for irregular or high-rise structures as recommended in ASCE/SEI 7 Chapter 16. Multiple ground motion suites are typically scaled and matched to the target spectrum to ensure robust results, with peer-reviewed studies emphasizing its accuracy for performance-based design.^[33]^[34] Site-specific factors are critical adjustments in seismic load analysis to reflect local ground conditions and proximity to the earthquake source. Soil type is classified into categories such as Site Class A (hard rock) through D (stiff soil) in ASCE/SEI 7, based on parameters like shear wave velocity and soil depth, which amplify or attenuate ground motions—soft soils (Class D) can increase spectral accelerations by up to 1.5 times compared to rock sites. Near-fault effects, including directivity (forward rupture propagation causing velocity pulses) and fling-step (permanent displacement from fault slip), further modify demands within about 10-15 km of the fault, often requiring scaled spectra or specialized records to account for these impulsive characteristics. These factors ensure that load calculations are tailored to the site's geology and seismotectonic setting.^[35]^[36] The resulting seismic loads from these analyses are often reduced by response modification factors that incorporate ductility, enabling structures to absorb energy through controlled deformation (detailed in the Ductility and Energy Absorption section).

Ductility and Energy Absorption

Ductility in seismic design refers to the ability of a structure or its components to undergo significant inelastic deformation without substantial loss of strength or stiffness, enabling it to absorb and dissipate seismic energy while preventing brittle failure.^[37] It is quantitatively defined as the ratio of the ultimate deformation (δ_u) to the yield deformation (δ_y), expressed as μ = δ_u / δ_y, where values typically range from 3 to 8 for ductile systems depending on material and configuration.^[37] This deformation capacity allows structures to endure repeated cycles of loading during an earthquake, distributing energy demands across multiple elements rather than concentrating them in fragile connections.^[38] Complementing ductility is the overstrength factor (Ω), which accounts for the reserve strength beyond the nominal yield capacity, arising from material properties, design conservatism, and strain hardening effects.^[39] In seismic codes, Ω is applied to amplify forces in critical elements to ensure they remain elastic while ductile members yield preferentially, typically ranging from 2 to 3 for common systems like moment frames.^[39] This factor enhances overall system reliability by providing a margin against unexpected demands, such as those from higher-mode effects or accidental torsion.^[40] Energy dissipation in earthquake-resistant structures primarily occurs through hysteretic behavior, where structural elements cycle through loading-unloading paths that form stable loops, converting kinetic energy into heat via plastic deformations.^[41] In steel moment-resisting frames, this is achieved by yielding of beams and connections, which exhibit wide hysteretic loops due to the material's high ductility and low-cycle fatigue resistance, allowing dissipation without fracture.^[38] For concrete structures, energy absorption relies on confined reinforced elements, where hysteretic damping arises from the crushing of confined concrete and yielding of longitudinal steel, often in coupled shear walls or frames.^[42] Braced systems, such as concentrically braced frames in steel or reinforced concrete, dissipate energy through axial yielding of braces, which buckle in compression but elongate in tension, forming pinched but effective hysteresis loops that control interstory drifts.^[38] These mechanisms collectively reduce peak accelerations and displacements, with experimental studies showing dissipation capacities in well-detailed systems.^[43] The capacity design philosophy underpins these concepts by establishing a hierarchy where ductile elements, such as beams in moment frames, are intentionally weaker to yield first, protecting brittle components like columns and joints from excessive demands.^[40] This approach, formalized in modern codes, sizes non-ductile members to resist forces amplified by the overstrength factor (Ω) of yielding elements, ensuring a predictable failure mode.^[44] Detailing requirements are critical for concrete structures, including confinement reinforcement such as closely spaced ties or spirals around potential plastic hinge regions to prevent shear failure and buckling of bars, maintaining ductility under cyclic loading.^[42] In steel, similar principles apply through connection designs that promote beam hinging via reduced beam sections or haunched configurations.^[40] Capacity design thus shifts from elastic analysis to inelastic mechanism control, with validation through nonlinear simulations confirming beam yielding precedes column distress by factors of 1.2-1.5 in strength ratios.^[44] Performance-based seismic design integrates ductility and energy absorption to achieve defined structural performance levels under varying earthquake intensities, as outlined in FEMA frameworks.^[45] The immediate occupancy level requires minimal structural damage, with deformations limited to elastic ranges (μ ≈ 1-2), allowing rapid re-entry post-event for essential facilities.^[1] Life safety targets controlled inelastic behavior (μ ≈ 3-5), where significant energy dissipation occurs but collapse is averted, ensuring occupant survival during design-basis earthquakes.^[46] Collapse prevention, the highest demand level, permits extensive yielding (μ > 6) and local hinging while maintaining global integrity against maximum considered earthquakes, often with overstrength provisions to limit drifts to 4-5% of height.^[45] These levels guide code-compliant designs, with ductility factors influencing load reduction in equivalent lateral force procedures.^[39]

Design Strategies and Techniques

Base Isolation Methods

Base isolation methods decouple a building's superstructure from the ground during an earthquake by introducing flexible elements at the foundation level, thereby reducing the transmission of seismic accelerations to the structure. These isolators function as low-stiffness links that increase the fundamental period of vibration, typically shifting it from less than 1 second to 2–3 seconds or more, which avoids resonance with dominant earthquake frequencies and lowers the inertial forces experienced by the building. This approach relies on the principle that longer-period structures experience smaller spectral accelerations, leading to decreased base shear and inter-story drifts.^[47]^[48] Common types of base isolators include elastomeric bearings and sliding systems. Lead-rubber bearings (LRB) consist of alternating layers of rubber and steel plates with a central lead core that provides hysteretic damping through plastic deformation during shear, offering initial high stiffness for service loads and post-yield flexibility for seismic events. High-damping rubber (HDR) bearings incorporate specialized rubber compounds with inherent viscoelastic properties, achieving damping ratios of 20–30% without a metallic core, and maintain relatively constant stiffness across a range of shear strains from 20% to 120%. Friction pendulum systems (FPS) utilize a curved sliding surface, often concave, where the structure's weight provides a restoring force via the pendulum effect, combined with friction for energy dissipation.^[49]^[48]^[47] Design of these isolators involves calculating effective properties to model their nonlinear behavior under dynamic loading. For lead-rubber bearings, the effective stiffness k_{\text{eff}} approximates the parallel contribution of rubber and lead components as k_{\text{eff}} = k_{\text{rubber}} + k_{\text{lead}}, where k_{\text{rubber}} = \frac{G_r A_r}{t_r} (with G_r as rubber shear modulus, A_r as rubber area, and t_r as total rubber thickness) and k_{\text{lead}} derives from the lead core's yield properties; more precisely, post-yield effective stiffness is k_{\text{eff}} = \frac{Q_d + k_d D}{D}, with Q_d as characteristic strength and k_d as post-yield stiffness. The damping ratio \zeta is determined from the energy dissipated per cycle, given by \zeta = \frac{E_D}{2\pi E_S}, where E_D is the hysteretic energy loss and E_S is the peak stored elastic energy; for LRB, this typically yields 15–30%. For FPS, effective stiffness is k_{\text{eff}} = \frac{W}{R}, with W as vertical load and R as radius of curvature, and damping from friction coefficient \mu, often 5–10%. These parameters ensure the isolated period T_b = 2\pi \sqrt{\frac{W}{n g k_{\text{eff}}}} (where n is the number of isolators and g is gravity) aligns with isolation goals.^[49]^[47] Advantages of base isolation include substantial reductions in seismic demands, with base shear potentially decreased by up to 80% compared to fixed-base structures, as demonstrated in bridge applications where acceleration reductions exceed 65%. This enhances occupant safety and minimizes structural damage. However, limitations include restricted vertical load capacity, often capped at several thousand kips per isolator depending on design (e.g., 446 kips per column in some models), necessitating careful sizing for heavy superstructures, and higher initial costs due to specialized manufacturing and installation, though long-term benefits may offset these through reduced repair needs.^[49]^[48]^[47]

Damping and Vibration Control

Damping and vibration control systems in earthquake-resistant structures incorporate supplemental devices to augment energy dissipation and mitigate dynamic responses, targeting vibrations induced by seismic forces. These add-on mechanisms operate within the superstructure to absorb and dissipate kinetic energy, reducing displacements, accelerations, and inter-story drifts without relying solely on the material damping inherent to the building. By converting seismic energy into heat or other non-structural forms, such systems enhance overall structural integrity and occupant safety during earthquakes. Passive damping systems represent the most established and reliable approach, utilizing devices that do not require external power. Viscous dampers function by forcing a fluid, such as silicone oil, through orifices via a piston, generating a dissipative force proportional to relative velocity raised to the power α, expressed as F = c v^{\alpha}, where c is the damping coefficient and α typically ranges from 0.3 to 1.0 for nonlinear behavior that excels at high velocities.^[50] This configuration provides stable performance across a range of seismic intensities, with energy dissipation per cycle given by W = c v_o (4 / \alpha) \Gamma(1 + 1 / \alpha), where v_o is the velocity amplitude and \Gamma is the gamma function.^[50] A notable application is the San Bernardino County Medical Center retrofit, where 184 such dampers, each capable of 1400 kN at 1.5 m/s, reduced peak drifts by absorbing high-velocity pulses.^[50] Metallic yielding dampers, such as added damping and stiffness (ADAS) devices, dissipate energy through the plastic deformation of mild steel elements, often configured as X- or triangular-shaped plates to promote uniform yielding. These exhibit bilinear hysteretic behavior, featuring an initial elastic stiffness followed by a post-yield plateau, with energy dissipation per cycle approximated as W = 4 F_y x_y f, where F_y is the yield force, x_y is the yield displacement, and f is a shape factor less than 1.^[51] The stable, rate-independent hysteresis ensures predictable performance and low-cycle fatigue resistance, making them suitable for seismic retrofits. In the Wells Fargo Bank building in San Francisco, seven ADAS devices with a 150 kip yield force were installed in braced frames, effectively limiting structural demands.^[51] Tuned mass dampers (TMDs) offer targeted vibration control by attaching a secondary mass-spring-dashpot system tuned to the primary structure's dominant frequency, inducing out-of-phase motion to counteract resonances. The optimal tuning frequency is given by \omega_{tmd} = \omega_{structure} \sqrt{\frac{1}{1 + \mu}}, where \mu is the mass ratio (TMD mass divided by structural mass, typically 1-5%). This design can reduce peak displacements by 40-60% under seismic loading, depending on tuning accuracy and excitation characteristics.^[52] Active and semi-active control systems provide adaptive damping through real-time feedback, employing sensors to measure accelerations or displacements and actuators to apply corrective forces or modulate properties. Active systems use hydraulic or piezoelectric actuators for direct opposition to motions, while semi-active variants, like magnetorheological dampers, vary damping via electromagnetic fields without full power input. These enable precise adjustments via algorithms such as linear quadratic regulation, potentially outperforming passive methods in variable conditions. However, they remain less common in practice due to reliability concerns, including power failures, sensor malfunctions, and communication delays during intense earthquakes, which necessitate backup passive modes per building codes.^[53] Combined solutions, or hybrid systems, pair damping devices with base isolation to bolster multi-hazard resilience, such as against earthquakes and winds, by integrating supplemental dissipation for enhanced frequency decoupling and energy management. For instance, oil dampers connecting base-isolated buildings to adjacent stiff walls at multiple stories can reduce inter-story drifts and top accelerations by up to 50% for long-period motions, offering redundancy without compromising isolation benefits.^[54]

Materials and Construction Innovations

Advanced Building Materials

Advanced building materials play a crucial role in enhancing the seismic resilience of structures by providing superior strength, ductility, and energy dissipation capabilities while often reducing overall weight. These materials are engineered to withstand extreme cyclic loading during earthquakes, minimizing damage and facilitating post-event recovery. Innovations in this area focus on composites and alloys that outperform traditional concrete and steel in high-risk zones, enabling more efficient designs without compromising safety.^[55] Ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) represents a significant advancement in cementitious materials for seismic applications, achieving compressive strengths exceeding 150 MPa through optimized particle packing and low water-cement ratios.^[56] Incorporation of steel or synthetic fibers into UHPC enhances its post-cracking tensile strength, typically above 5 MPa, which helps control crack propagation and improves ductility under seismic loads.^[57] This fiber reinforcement allows UHPC elements, such as beams and columns, to exhibit high energy absorption and reduced spalling, making it suitable for earthquake-prone regions where traditional concrete fails prematurely.^[58] Shape memory alloys (SMAs), particularly nickel-titanium (NiTi) variants, offer self-centering properties that revolutionize seismic design by enabling structural elements to recover from large deformations with negligible residual displacement. NiTi SMAs can recover up to 6% strain through superelastic behavior, where the material reverts to its original shape upon unloading, thus dissipating energy while maintaining stiffness.^[59] In self-centering beams, these alloys are integrated as tendons or bars, providing recentering forces that counteract earthquake-induced drifts and limit permanent deformations to less than 1% in tested configurations.^[60] Their high fatigue resistance and corrosion immunity further support long-term performance in dynamic environments.^[61] Fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP), such as carbon fiber sheets bonded with epoxy resins, are widely used for retrofitting existing columns to boost seismic capacity through external confinement. These wraps apply lateral pressure to the concrete core, increasing axial load-carrying capacity by 20-50% and enhancing ductility by delaying buckling of longitudinal reinforcement.^[62] The lightweight nature of FRP—typically adding less than 5% to the column's mass—avoids overloading foundations while providing uniform confinement, particularly effective for circular sections where hoop stress is optimized.^[63] Applications in bridge and building columns have demonstrated up to threefold improvement in drift tolerance before failure.^[64] Engineered bamboo composites emerge as sustainable alternatives to steel reinforcement in low-rise structures within seismic zones, leveraging bamboo's rapid renewability and tensile strength comparable to mild steel (around 200-300 MPa).^[65] These composites, formed by laminating or scrimbering treated bamboo strips with resins, exhibit enhanced shear and flexural resistance when embedded in concrete, reducing embodied carbon by up to 80% compared to steel.^[66] In low-rise buildings, they provide adequate ductility for moderate earthquakes, with treatments like borax impregnation mitigating moisture degradation and improving bond strength. Timber innovations, such as cross-laminated timber (CLT), complement these by offering lightweight panels for walls that dissipate energy through frictional interfaces, though detailed applications appear in specialized structural systems.^[67]

Specialized Structural Systems

Steel plate shear walls (SPSWs) consist of thin steel plates infilled within a moment-resisting frame, providing high initial stiffness and ductility for resisting seismic loads. These systems function through a tension field action mechanism, where the plate buckles under compression but develops diagonal tension struts post-buckling to carry lateral forces efficiently. Unstiffened plates, typically 3-6 mm thick, are commonly used in North America for cost-effectiveness, allowing early buckling followed by stable energy dissipation during cyclic loading. Buckling-restrained variants incorporate boundary elements or stiffeners to prevent out-of-plane buckling, enhancing overall performance in high-seismic regions.^[68] Buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBFs) employ braces with a steel core encased in a concrete-filled steel tube or mortar, preventing compression buckling while allowing symmetric yielding in both tension and compression. This configuration enables energy dissipation primarily through axial deformation of the core, achieving stable hysteretic behavior and ductility factors up to R=8 under seismic design provisions. The restraining mechanism ensures the brace maintains its full tensile capacity in compression, avoiding the instability common in conventional braced frames, and is capacity-designed to withstand overstrength demands from adjacent beams and columns. BRBFs are particularly effective in moderate- to high-seismicity zones, offering compact designs with reduced member sizes compared to special concentrically braced frames.^[69]^[70] Superframes, utilizing outrigger trusses connected to a central core and perimeter columns, enhance global stability in high-rise buildings by distributing lateral seismic loads and minimizing interstory drift. These systems reduce overturning moments at the base by leveraging the lever arm between the core and exterior columns, with optimal outrigger placement around mid-height (0.5H) achieving up to 50% drift reduction in structures exceeding 40 stories. Belt trusses at outrigger levels further stiffen the perimeter, preventing column buckling and ensuring uniform load transfer during earthquakes. Multiple outriggers (up to four levels) provide incremental benefits, though efficiency diminishes beyond this, making them suitable for supertall buildings in seismic-prone urban areas.^[71]^[72] Earthquake architecture in non-engineered contexts often incorporates rocking systems and sloped bases to accommodate ground motion without catastrophic failure, as exemplified by traditional Japanese pagodas. These timber structures feature flexible, interlocking joints at beam-column connections that allow each story to sway independently—typically in opposing directions—absorbing seismic energy through semi-rigid rotation and damping. A central pillar, or shinbashira, runs vertically through the pagoda, enabling a rocking motion at the base that dissipates vibrations while the surrounding frame collides to limit excessive deformation. In other traditions, such as Inca architecture in Peru, battered (sloped) walls with trapezoidal profiles provide inherent stability by lowering the center of gravity and resisting sliding or toppling during quakes. These passive strategies, developed empirically over centuries, prioritize flexibility and self-centering over rigidity, influencing modern non-engineered designs in developing regions.^[73]^[74]^[75]

Testing and Simulation Methods

Shake-Table Testing

Shake-table testing involves subjecting scaled or full-scale structural models to simulated earthquake motions on a controlled platform to evaluate their dynamic response and validate seismic design principles. This physical experimentation replicates ground accelerations, allowing engineers to observe real-time behaviors such as vibrations, deformations, and potential failure modes under controlled conditions. Facilities worldwide, including Japan's E-Defense and the University of California, San Diego's (UCSD) Large High-Performance Outdoor Shake Table (LHPOST), enable these tests by providing large platforms capable of multi-degree-of-freedom shaking.^[76]^[77] E-Defense, operated by Japan's National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience, features the world's largest three-dimensional shake table, measuring 20 m by 15 m, with a payload capacity of 1,200 tons and maximum accelerations of 1 g horizontally and 1.5 g vertically. This facility has conducted over 127 full-scale experiments since its inception, focusing on civil structures to inform post-earthquake resilience strategies. In contrast, UCSD's LHPOST is the largest outdoor shake table, upgraded to six degrees of freedom for multi-directional shaking, enabling tests on large-scale models up to 40 ft by 25 ft with payloads exceeding 1,000 kN, which is essential for simulating complex torsional and bidirectional seismic inputs.^[78]^[79]^[77] Testing protocols typically involve inputting time-history records from historical earthquakes to the shake table's actuators, which replicate ground motions in one or more directions. A classic example is the 1940 El Centro earthquake record, with its north-south component often scaled to peak ground accelerations between 0.2 g and 1.0 g for progressive intensity tests, allowing assessment of structural performance from elastic to nonlinear regimes. For scaled models, similitude laws ensure dynamic similarity between the prototype and model; the length scale factor \lambda (prototype-to-model ratio) dictates other parameters, such as the time scale \sqrt{\lambda} under 1 g gravity conditions, preserving acceleration similitude while compressing durations to match table capabilities. These protocols adhere to standards like those from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, emphasizing incremental shaking to track damage accumulation without abrupt failure.^[80]^[81]^[82] Key outcomes from shake-table tests include precise measurements of inter-story drifts (typically limited to 2-4% for code-compliant designs), base shear forces (often 20-50% of total weight), and progressive failure mechanisms like yielding or buckling. A notable example is the 2007 E-Defense tests on a full-scale four-story steel moment-resisting frame building, which was tested to collapse under motions equivalent to the 1995 Kobe earthquake, providing insights into failure mechanisms and informing ductility demands for building codes. These results inform building codes by quantifying ductility demands and retrofit needs, with sensors capturing accelerations at hundreds of points for post-test analysis. Recent applications include the 2025 UCSD LHPOST test of a full-scale 10-story resilient mass timber building, which evaluated rocking wall systems and damage-free gravity connections under simulated high-intensity earthquakes.^[83]^[84]^[85] Despite their value, shake-table tests face limitations, including scaling distortions that inadequately capture soil-structure interaction effects, as reduced-scale models under 1 g conditions cannot fully replicate prototype stress-strain behaviors in foundations. Additionally, full-scale testing is prohibitively costly, often exceeding millions of dollars due to specimen fabrication, instrumentation, and facility operations, restricting such experiments to major facilities like E-Defense. These challenges can be partially addressed through hybrid approaches, such as brief extensions to concurrent multi-table methods for simulating complex, distributed systems.^[86]^[87]

Numerical and Concurrent Simulation

Numerical and concurrent simulation methods play a crucial role in predicting and verifying the seismic behavior of structures by integrating computational modeling with experimental validation, enabling engineers to assess performance under dynamic earthquake loads without full-scale physical testing. Finite element analysis (FEA) forms the backbone of these approaches, particularly through open-source frameworks like OpenSees, which facilitates nonlinear time-history simulations to capture complex structural responses. OpenSees employs finite element methods to model hysteretic behaviors, such as material nonlinearity and energy dissipation in beams, columns, and connections, using commands like uniaxialMaterial for force-deformation relationships and transient analysis integrators (e.g., Newmark method) for time-stepped earthquake excitations.^[88]^[89] These simulations allow for the evaluation of structures under recorded or synthetic ground motions, providing insights into peak displacements, inter-story drifts, and residual deformations that inform design iterations.^[90] Concurrent simulation extends FEA by combining numerical models with physical testing in hybrid setups, where substructures are partitioned into experimental and computational components to overcome limitations of purely numerical or physical methods. In pseudo-dynamic hybrid simulation, critical structural elements—such as energy-dissipating braces or connections—are tested physically on shake tables, while the remainder of the system is simulated numerically using FEA software to compute incremental responses based on the equations of motion. This method applies quasi-static displacements to the physical substructure derived from numerical integration of earthquake records, allowing for accurate representation of rate-independent nonlinearities without the need for high-speed dynamic actuators.^[91]^[92] Advantages include cost-effectiveness for large-scale testing and the ability to incorporate real material behaviors, with validation often calibrated against standalone shake-table results for substructure accuracy.^[93] Real-time hybrid simulation advances this paradigm by enabling fully dynamic testing through synchronized feedback loops between physical actuators and numerical models, addressing the rate-dependent effects overlooked in pseudo-dynamic approaches. Actuators impose real-time displacements or forces on experimental substructures based on instantaneous feedback from sensors, while the numerical model updates the global response using explicit integration schemes to simulate the earthquake loading. This setup reduces the delays inherent in quasi-static methods by employing advanced control algorithms, such as adaptive tracking compensators, to maintain stability and accuracy under high-frequency excitations.^[94] Computational methodologies, including model-based feedforward-feedback control, ensure precise synchronization, making real-time hybrid simulation suitable for evaluating viscoelastic dampers or soil-structure interactions in nonlinear systems.^[95] To validate these simulations against seismic design codes, uncertainty quantification is essential, particularly through probabilistic seismic demand models that account for variabilities in ground motions, material properties, and modeling assumptions. Monte Carlo simulation serves as a robust technique for this purpose, generating thousands of realizations of input parameters to estimate the distribution of engineering demand parameters like maximum inter-story drift or base shear. By propagating uncertainties via sampling methods—such as multi-step Monte Carlo or Latin hypercube sampling—engineers can derive fragility curves and reliability indices that align with code provisions, such as those in ASCE 7, ensuring structures meet performance objectives with quantified confidence levels.^[96]^[97] This approach highlights the scale of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties, with incorporating them often leading to higher predicted collapse risks compared to deterministic analyses.^[98]

Historical Evolution

Early Seismic Practices

Early seismic practices emerged from empirical observations in earthquake-prone regions, where builders relied on intuitive designs to enhance structural resilience without formal scientific frameworks. In ancient Peru, Inca architects of the 15th century employed sophisticated stone masonry techniques, cutting massive, irregularly shaped stones to interlock precisely without mortar, creating walls that could flex during seismic events and distribute forces effectively. This polygonal ashlar construction, evident in structures like those at Machu Picchu, allowed buildings to withstand tremors by absorbing and dissipating energy through the tight joints, a method honed through generations of trial and observation in the tectonically active Andes.^[99] Similarly, in Japan, timber pagodas dating back to the 7th century incorporated flexible wooden joints and central pillars to achieve remarkable longevity against earthquakes. These multi-story structures, such as the five-story pagoda at Hōryū-ji Temple built around 711 CE, utilized interlocking beams and brackets that permitted swaying without collapse, a design principle rooted in the natural elasticity of wood to mimic the undulating motion of seismic waves. This empirical approach, refined over centuries in a nation frequently shaken by quakes, emphasized vertical load distribution and horizontal flexibility, enabling many pagodas to survive intact for over a millennium.^[100]^[101] The devastating 1755 Lisbon earthquake, which leveled much of the Portuguese capital and killed tens of thousands, spurred early European proposals for seismic-resistant foundations. In the reconstruction led by the Marquis of Pombal, engineers advocated for flexible timber frameworks caged within masonry walls (known as the "gaiola pombalina") and pile foundations on soft soil to isolate buildings from ground motion, drawing on observations of how rigid stone structures failed while more yielding wooden ones endured. These innovations marked a shift toward deliberate seismic considerations in urban planning, prioritizing adaptability over sheer mass.^[102]^[103] In the United States, the 1906 San Francisco earthquake exposed the vulnerabilities of unreinforced masonry, prompting initial regulatory responses that evolved into early building restrictions by the 1920s. The disaster, which destroyed over 28,000 buildings and ignited fires that razed much of the city, led to empirical lessons on the failure of brittle brick structures under lateral forces, influencing California's first seismic ordinances. By the mid-1920s, cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles began prohibiting unreinforced masonry in new construction, favoring frame systems with shear walls to better resist shaking, based on post-event surveys documenting collapse patterns.^[104]^[105] These pre-1950 practices culminated in foundational theoretical work that bridged empiricism to modern engineering. George Housner, in the 1950s, advanced vibration theory by modeling structures as multi-degree-of-freedom systems responding to ground acceleration, building on earlier intuitive designs to quantify dynamic behaviors observed in historical quakes. His analyses of elastic and inelastic responses provided a scientific basis for evaluating pre-20th century survivals, emphasizing how flexibility and energy dissipation—hallmarks of ancient Inca and Japanese methods—underpinned effective seismic resistance.^[106]^[107]

Modern Codes and Standards

The evolution of modern seismic design codes began in the 1970s, driven by lessons from the 1964 Niigata earthquake in Japan and the 1971 San Fernando earthquake in California, which exposed limitations of static force methods and prompted a shift toward dynamic analysis incorporating earthquake response spectra.^[108] In the United States, the Applied Technology Council (ATC) 3 project, initiated post-1971, led to the 1976 Uniform Building Code (UBC) revisions that increased design force levels and introduced elastic response-based formulas, marking the transition to performance-oriented dynamic procedures.^[108] By the 2010s, the International Building Code (IBC) integrated ASCE/SEI 7-16, which adopts risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) ground motions developed by the U.S. Geological Survey to ensure uniform collapse risk across sites, using probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for spectral accelerations.^[109]^[110] Key provisions in these codes emphasize ductility and risk categorization to balance safety and economy. The response modification factor R, specified in ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1, reduces design forces by accounting for structural ductility and energy dissipation, with values ranging from 1 (non-ductile) to 8 (highly ductile systems like steel special moment frames), allowing inelastic behavior without collapse.^[111] The importance factor I_e, determined by occupancy risk category in ASCE 7 Section 1.5, scales seismic demands—e.g., 1.5 for essential facilities like hospitals—to enhance performance under rare events.^[112] For retrofitting existing structures, ASCE/SEI 41-17 employs performance-based design through tiered procedures (Tier 1 screening to Tier 3 detailed analysis), defining target performance levels like life safety or collapse prevention via nonlinear analysis and acceptance criteria tailored to material types.^[113] Internationally, standards vary but often draw from probabilistic frameworks. Eurocode 8 (EN 1998-1) uses national annexes with probabilistic seismic hazard maps, derived from PSHA to specify peak ground accelerations and response spectra for a 475-year return period, zoning Europe into categories A-D based on ground type and topography.^[114] Japan's Building Standard Law (BSL, revised 1981 and updated) mandates two-level design: moderate earthquakes (return period ~50 years) for serviceability with base shear coefficients around 0.2-0.3G, and severe events (return period ~500 years) for collapse prevention, incorporating ductility reductions (e.g., D_s = 0.3 for reinforced concrete) via allowable stress methods without explicit overstrength factors.^[115] In developing countries, the IBC influences codes through adoption of its zoning and spectral provisions; for instance, Central American nations like Guatemala and El Salvador integrate UBC-97/IBC-2009 elements, using 475-year return periods and zone-based accelerations for life-safety design.^[116] As of 2025, updates to seismic codes increasingly address compound hazards from climate change, such as integrating flood or wind-seismic interactions into design scenarios. Canada's National Building Code (NBCC 2025) incorporates climate-resilient provisions by adjusting load combinations for projected environmental changes, requiring scenario-based analysis in 17 major cities to account for altered hazard probabilities.^[117] Concurrently, AI-aided compliance tools have emerged to automate code verification, parsing ASCE 7 and IBC requirements to flag seismic design conflicts, map jurisdictional variations, and reduce plan revisions by up to two-thirds, thereby accelerating resilient construction in high-risk areas.^[118]

Case Studies and Applications

Infrastructure Upgrades

Retrofitting critical infrastructure such as bridges, dams, power plants, and pipelines is essential for enhancing seismic resilience in earthquake-prone regions, where existing structures may not meet modern standards. These upgrades focus on mitigating vulnerabilities like structural collapse, liquefaction, and joint failure, often employing targeted techniques to extend service life without full replacement. By prioritizing life-safety objectives, retrofits aim to prevent catastrophic failures during moderate to severe events, drawing lessons from past disasters to inform practical implementations. In nuclear power facilities, seismic upgrades have been critical following major events. After the 2007 Niigata-ken Chuetsu-Oki earthquake, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) implemented comprehensive safety enhancements at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant, including structural reinforcements and improved isolation features, which reduced the core damage frequency from 8.7 × 10^{-6} per reactor-year to 3.7 × 10^{-8} per reactor-year, achieving over a 99% improvement in seismic risk profile.^[119] These measures, informed by post-event analyses, incorporated base isolation systems and damping devices in auxiliary buildings to decouple vibrations and absorb energy, aligning with Japan's advanced seismic protection strategies for nuclear sites.^[120] Such retrofits ensure operational continuity and minimize radiological risks during seismic events. Bridge retrofitting addresses common failure modes observed in historical earthquakes, particularly column shear and joint unseating. Following the 1995 Kobe earthquake, which exposed deficiencies in reinforced concrete bridges, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) revised its seismic standards to mandate enhancements like column jacketing with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) wraps, which confine concrete to boost ductility and shear capacity by up to 200% in plastic hinge regions.^[121] Additionally, seat extenders—steel or concrete extensions at expansion joints—prevent span collapse by increasing seating length, a measure now standard in Caltrans guidelines to accommodate transverse displacements exceeding 12 inches during design-basis earthquakes.^[122] These techniques, validated through shake-table testing, have been applied to thousands of U.S. highway bridges, significantly lowering collapse probabilities. For dams and pipelines, adaptations target soil-structure interactions and ground deformation. Grouting techniques, such as jet grouting or permeation grouting, stabilize potentially liquefiable foundation soils beneath embankment dams by injecting cementitious materials to increase shear strength and reduce pore pressure buildup, effectively mitigating liquefaction risk, as demonstrated in retrofits of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. In oil and gas pipelines, flexible joints—often rubber or elastomeric expansion connectors—are installed at fault crossings and bends to absorb differential ground movements without rupture, preventing leaks during differential ground movements as seen in post-earthquake assessments of buried networks.^[123] These interventions maintain fluid integrity and avoid environmental hazards. Cost-benefit analyses guide retrofit decisions by quantifying seismic risks against upgrade expenses. The FEMA P-58 methodology employs performance-based seismic assessment to estimate potential losses, including repair costs, downtime, and casualties, for existing infrastructure, revealing that targeted retrofits often yield favorable benefit-cost ratios (typically exceeding 1:1) when focused on life-safety rather than zero-damage performance.^[124] This approach underscores the economic viability of upgrades, emphasizing probabilistic loss modeling to prioritize high-risk assets like power plants and bridges over new construction equivalents.

Experimental and Iconic Projects

One notable experimental project in earthquake-resistant construction is the NEESWood initiative, a multi-university effort funded by the National Science Foundation from 2005 to 2009, aimed at advancing performance-based seismic design for wood-frame buildings. The project's capstone involved full-scale shake-table testing of a seven-story mixed-use structure—featuring a steel-frame ground floor and light-frame wood condominium above—at Japan's E-Defense facility in 2009. The final test simulated ground motions equivalent to a magnitude 7.5 earthquake, scaled to 180% of the 1994 Northridge event's intensity for a 2,500-year return period, resulting in only minor nonstructural damage and validating the ductility and collapse prevention of mid-rise light-frame wood systems under extreme seismic loads.^[125]^[126] Iconic structures have further demonstrated the efficacy of advanced damping technologies in high-rise seismic design. Taipei 101, completed in 2004 in Taiwan, incorporates a 660-ton spherical tuned mass damper suspended between the 87th and 92nd floors, which counteracts building sway by moving in opposition to seismic or wind-induced vibrations, reducing peak displacements by up to 40%. During the April 2024 Hualien earthquake (magnitude 7.4), the damper effectively reduced sway, with the building experiencing minimal structural impact.^[127]^[128] Similarly, Tokyo Skytree, opened in 2012 as the world's tallest tower at 634 meters, employs a central core column inspired by traditional Japanese pagoda architecture that functions as a damped pendulum, swinging to absorb horizontal seismic forces and dissipate energy throughout the structure.^[129] Emerging trends in earthquake-resistant solutions emphasize rapid-response shelters for disaster-prone areas, including portable dome designs integrated with base isolation systems to decouple the structure from ground motion and facilitate quick assembly in affected zones. These geodesic or modular domes, often constructed from lightweight, durable materials, provide resilient temporary housing capable of withstanding aftershocks while allowing deployment by small teams in remote or urban settings.^[130]^[131] In the 2020s, post-2010 Maule earthquake recovery efforts in Chile have spurred innovative sustainable projects, such as high-rise constructions using cross-laminated timber from local radiata pine, which offers seismic flexibility and reduces carbon emissions compared to traditional concrete. In Chile, as of 2025, pilots using radiata pine cross-laminated timber for mid- to high-rise seismic-resistant structures continue to advance sustainable recovery principles. These "superframe" systems, incorporating recycled and reclaimed wood materials from disaster debris, enhance ductility while promoting circular economy principles in seismic zones.^[132]^[133]

References

[1]
[PDF] Earthquake-Resistant Design Concepts - FEMA
Mar 11, 2021 · This guide provides an overview of earthquake-resistant design concepts and their context within the seismic requirements of U.S. building codes ...
[2]
Seismic Design Principles | WBDG
This resource page provides an introduction to the concepts and principles of seismic design, including strategies for designing earthquake-resistant buildings.
[3]
[PDF] Seismic Conceptual Design of Buildings – Basic principles for ...
This document offers a broad outline of the art of designing earthquake resistant buildings. It describes basic principles guiding the seismic design of.
[4]
The Science of Earthquakes | U.S. Geological Survey - USGS.gov
An earthquake is what happens when two blocks of the earth suddenly slip past one another. The surface where they slip is called the fault or fault plane.Tectonic Plates of the Earth · A Normal (Dip-Slip) Fault
[5]
Introduction to Earthquake - PHIVOLCS
Types of Earthquake. There are two types of earthquakes: tectonic and volcanic earthquakes. Tectonic earthquakes are produced by sudden movement along faults ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[6]
Induced Earthquakes | U.S. Geological Survey - USGS.gov
Read about current research on induced earthquakes due to human activities. Observations, modeling, and hazards.
[7]
Earthquake Magnitude, Energy Release, and Shaking Intensity
The Richter magnitude of an earthquake is determined from the logarithm of the amplitude of waves recorded by seismographs. Adjustments are included for the ...Magnitude Types · View Media Details · How much bigger is a...Missing: PS | Show results with:PS
[8]
Moment magnitude, Richter scale | U.S. Geological Survey
Moment magnitude gives the most reliable estimate of earthquake size. Moment is a physical quantity proportional to the slip on the fault multiplied by the ...Missing: epicenter PS
[9]
What is the difference between earthquake magnitude and ...
From a scientific standpoint, the magnitude scale is based on seismic records while the Mercalli is based on observable data which can be subjective.Missing: PS | Show results with:PS
[10]
The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale | U.S. Geological Survey
This scale, composed of increasing levels of intensity that range from imperceptible shaking to catastrophic destruction, is designated by Roman numerals.Missing: Moment epicenter hypocenter waves PS
[11]
P-wave and S-wave paths through the earth - USGS.gov
Scientists discovered that Earth's outer core is liquid by observing seismic waves. P waves travel through solid and liquid, but S waves do not travel through ...
[12]
Body waves inside the earth - Earthquake Hazards Program
P waves travel fastest and are the first to arrive from the earthquake. In S or shear waves, rock oscillates perpendicular to the direction of wave propagation.
[13]
Seismographs - Keeping Track of Earthquakes - USGS.gov
The P wave is designated the primary preliminary wave because it is the first to arrive at a seismic station after an earthquake. It travels at a speed usually ...
[14]
[PDF] Predictive Model for Important Ground Motion Parameters ...
parameters of general interest that is, maximum accel- eration, root-mean-square (RMS) acceleration, maximum velocity, maximum displacement, and RMS ...
[15]
Earthquake Hazards 201 - Technical Q&A - USGS.gov
Jan 1, 1995 · PGA (peak acceleration) is what is experienced by a particle on the ground, and SA is approximately what is experienced by a building, as ...Missing: characteristics | Show results with:characteristics
[16]
Earthquake Hazards Program | U.S. Geological Survey - USGS.gov
An earthquake is a sudden slip on a fault and the ground shaking from radiated seismic energy. Hazards include surface faulting, ground shaking, landslides, ...
[17]
[PDF] Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motions
spectrum over certain frequency ranges is related by an amplification factor (fig. 46) to the peak values of ground acceleration, velocity, and displacement.
[18]
Attenuation | U.S. Geological Survey - USGS.gov
Dec 31, 2014 · This decrease in size, or amplitude, of the waves is called attenuation. Seismic waves also become attenuated as they move away from the earthquake source.
[19]
SITE AMPLIFICATION OF EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION.
The response of the soil-rock column (called site amplification) is controversial because soil has strain-dependent properties that affect the way the soil ...Missing: effects | Show results with:effects
[20]
Amplification | U.S. Geological Survey - USGS.gov
Dec 31, 2014 · Shaking at a site may be increased, or amplified, by focusing of seismic energy caused by the materials in basins or by surface topography such as mountains.Missing: effects soil
[21]
What is liquefaction? | U.S. Geological Survey - USGS.gov
Jun 13, 2025 · Liquefaction takes place when loosely packed, water-logged sediments at or near the ground surface lose their strength in response to strong ground shaking.
[22]
Liquefaction Hazard Maps | U.S. Geological Survey - USGS.gov
Liquefaction is a phenomenon that is caused by earthquake shaking. Wet sand can become liquid-like when strongly shaken. The liquefied sand may flow and the ...
[23]
[PDF] Designing for Earthquakes
if you have a building with heavy floor and roof weights, unreinforced masonry walls with many openings, it will go down if it is subjected to strong earthquake ...
[24]
[PDF] Buildings and earthquakes—Which stands? Which falls? - IRIS
Jan 12, 2010 · Tall and Short Buildings Stood—. Middle-size Buildings Fell. 1985 Mexico City quake kills 10,000. On September 19, 1985, a magnitude 8.1 ...
[25]
[PDF] implications of site effects in the mexico city earthquake of sept. 19 ...
Mar 3, 1989 · September 19, 1985 was the enormous differences in intensities of shaking and associated building damage in different parts of the city. This ...
[26]
Building Resonance: Structural stability during earthquakes - IRIS
All buildings have a natural period, or resonance, which is the number of seconds it takes for the building to naturally vibrate back and forth.
[27]
[PDF] EARTHQUAKE GROUND SHAKING IN UTAH
Aug 29, 1994 · Short buildings such as one- or two-story houses are most vulnerable to strong, higher frequency seismic waves.
[28]
[PDF] EN 1998-1 (2004) (English): Eurocode 8: Design of structures for ...
EN 1998-1 (2004) is Eurocode 8 Part 1, covering general rules, seismic actions, and rules for buildings for earthquake resistance design.
[29]
Equivalent Lateral Force Method (ELF) per ASCE 7-16 §12.8
Equivalent Lateral Force Method (ELF) per ASCE 7-16 §12.8. Symbols. Cs = The seismic response coefficient. W = The effective seismic weight
[30]
Calculation of design response spectrum (chart & table) - Eurocode 8
Calculation of the design response spectrum in terms of spectral acceleration representing the seismic action in the horizontal or vertical direction.Missing: engineering | Show results with:engineering
[31]
[PDF] Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design - NEHRP
A typical model is shown in Figure 4-2, where the ground motion time history is applied (as an acceleration or velocity history) to the “far end” of the spring- ...
[32]
[PDF] Nonlinear Time History Analysis for Seismic Effects on Reinforced ...
Jan 28, 2023 · Nonlinear time history analysis is the most important technique for evaluating the seismic response of a structure subjected to dynamic loading ...
[33]
[PDF] chapter 9 - seismic design - nysdot
Nov 4, 2015 · Soil (Site Class): Site class is based on the type of soil. Soil ... For specific requirements regarding near fault effects, see the AASHTO.
[34]
[PDF] The Effect of Near-Fault Directivity on Building Seismic Collapse Risk
Near-fault ground motions, with pulse-like ground motions, strongly influence building collapse risk. Longer pulse periods tend to be more damaging.
[35]
Behaviour Factor of Ductile Code‐Designed Reinforced Concrete ...
Feb 28, 2021 · The global ductility reduction factor Rμ·RΩ = q0 is defined as the ... ductility demand ratio μ = δu/δy. Many studies have been ...
[36]
[PDF] Seismic Design of Steel Buckling- Restrained Braced Frames
BRBs function as hysteretic dampers that control the response of the moment-resisting frames, and the combined system possesses significant stiffness, even ...
[37]
[PDF] Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors
... seismic design. These factors include the response modification coefficient (R factor), the system overstrength factor (Ω0), and the deflection ...
[38]
[PDF] General Concepts of Capacity Based Design
Jul 30, 2012 · Capacity design procedure which sets aside the results of analysis and aims at establishing a favorable hierarchy of strength in the structures ...
[39]
(PDF) A new methodology for energy-based seismic design of steel ...
Aug 9, 2025 · A procedure is proposed whereby input and hysteretic energy spectra developed for single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems are applied to ...
[40]
[PDF] Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frames
This transverse reinforcement should extend from the joint face along a length that will envelope the likely yielding region at the ends of beams and columns.Missing: philosophy | Show results with:philosophy
[41]
[PDF] A State-of-the-Art Review of Passive Energy Dissipation Systems in ...
Apr 4, 2023 · By adding these frames, during a seismic event, the energy is dissipated through the steel-braced frames, which plasticize in tension and buckle ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[42]
[PDF] Capacity Design for R/C Structures According to EN 1998-1:2004
Oct 28, 2024 · Capacity Design is a design process in which it is decided which objects within a structural system will be permitted to yield (ductile ...
[43]
[PDF] Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines
In FEMA 356, these damage states are termed the Operational, Immediate Occupancy, Life. Safety, and Collapse Prevention performance levels, with Operational.
[44]
[PDF] an emerging concept in seismic design - FEMA
Performance Level (S-1) plus Immediate Occupancy Non- structural Performance Level (N-B). ❍ Life Safety Level (3-C): Life Safety Structural Performance Level (S ...
[45]
[PDF] NUREG/CR-7253 "Technical Consideration for Seismic Isolation of ...
Three types of seismic isolators are in the scope of this study. These are Low Damping Rubber. (LDR) bearings, Lead Rubber (LR) bearings, and spherical sliding ...
[46]
[PDF] Study of Base Isolation Systems - DSpace@MIT
The common elastometric devices include: natural rubber bearings, lead rubber bearings and high damping natural rubber bearings. The details of the ...Missing: principles | Show results with:principles
[47]
[PDF] Seismic Isolation of Highway Bridges
Aug 21, 2006 · Seismic isolation is a response modification technique that reduces the effects of earthquakes on bridges and other structures.<|control11|><|separator|>
[48]
[PDF] Passive Energy Dissipation Systems for Structural Design and Retrofit
these devices are linear viscous fluid dampers with damping coef- ficient c ... Structures with Added Viscoelastic Dampers,” Earthquake Engineering and.
[49]
[PDF] Supplemental energy dissipation: state-of-the-art and state-of-the
Many of these devices use mild steel plates with triangular or. X shapes so that yielding is spread almost uniformly throughout the material. A typical X-shaped ...
[50]
Optimizing Seismic Performance of Tuned Mass Dampers at Various ...
Specifically, a 50% reduction in both acceleration and displacement, alongside a 65% decrease in maximum drift, underscored the effectiveness of TMD deployment.
[51]
(PDF) Active and semi-active control of structures - ResearchGate
This paper comprehensively reviews structural vibration control systems for earthquake mitigation in civil engineering structures. Structural vibration control ...
[52]
(PDF) Hybrid Control System for Greater Resilience Using Multiple ...
Oct 10, 2016 · Compared with a single seismic isolation system, this hybrid control system combines seismic isolation technique with damper energy dissipation ...
[53]
Seismic behavior of ultra-high performance concrete elements
This study develops a critical state-of-the-art review of the experimental research work on seismic performance of UHPC structural components.
[54]
Ultra-High Performance Concrete, March 2011 - FHWA-HRT-11-038
The mechanical properties of UHPC include compressive strength greater than 21.7 ksi (150 MPa) and sustained postcracking tensile strength greater than 0.72 ksi ...
[55]
A review on ultra high-performance fibre-reinforced concrete with ...
Jan 26, 2024 · Ultra high-performance concrete (UHPC) is an advanced concrete with compressive strength over 150 MPa, superior properties, and at least three ...
[56]
[PDF] Seismic Behavior of Ultra-High-Performance Fiber
UHP-FRC has high strength, ductility, and bond, making it suitable for earthquake-resistant designs. It alleviates the need for excessive transverse ...
[57]
Shape Memory Alloys for Self-Centering Seismic Applications - MDPI
Sep 6, 2024 · Recovery Strain, Strength and Stiffness. SMAs exhibit significant recovery strain, typically ranging from 4% to 8% for common alloys like NiTi.
[58]
Seismic resilience of RC structures with shape memory alloys
Oct 31, 2025 · Ni-Ti and Cu-based SMAs, which exhibit SE and high recovery strain (up to 6 %), are commonly used in internal reinforcement configurations for ...
[59]
Mechanical properties and constitutive models of shape memory ...
Jun 30, 2023 · The recovery strains for Ni-Ti, Cu-Al-Mn, and Cu-Al-Be SMAs are 6%, 10%, and 5%, respectively. The recovery strain has a considerable importance ...<|separator|>
[60]
Seismic Retrofitting of RC Circular Columns Using Carbon Fiber ...
Nov 23, 2021 · Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) wrapping using carbon fiber (CF) and glass fiber (GF) has been widely employed and successfully completed for ...
[61]
Column Confinement with Carbon Fiber: How to Strengthen and ...
Aug 1, 2025 · Surface-applied CFRP (carbon fiber–reinforced polymer) wraps deliver high-strength confinement without demolition, excavation, or added weight.
[62]
Confinement Effectiveness of FRP in Retrofitting Circular Concrete ...
The results of a research program that evaluated the confinement effectiveness of the type and the amount of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) used to retrofit ...Missing: epoxy | Show results with:epoxy
[63]
Eco-innovations in construction: experimental study on bamboo ...
This review explores bamboo-reinforced concrete as a sustainable alternative to steel reinforcement. Research shows bamboo's mechanical properties—compressive, ...Missing: rise | Show results with:rise
[64]
Bamboo as a Sustainable Building Material for Innovative, Low-Cost ...
Mar 12, 2024 · Bamboo can be a sustainable building material for homes, even in cases where houses need to be resistant to earthquakes or storms.<|control11|><|separator|>
[65]
[PDF] Comparative Analysis of Bamboo and Steel Reinforcement in ...
Aug 24, 2025 · Overall, bamboo offers a practical, eco-friendly alternative to steel, promoting sustainable, affordable, and resilient low-rise buildings in ...
[66]
[PDF] Steel Plate Shear Walls—An Overview - Engineering Journal
Steel plate shear walls are an innovative lateral load-resist- ing system capable of effectively bracing a building against both wind and earthquake forces.
[67]
[PDF] Seismic Design of Steel Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames
primarily the design seismic hazard level and the BRBF system parameters, lead to different BRBF member sizes for the same underlying seismicity. Currently ...
[68]
[PDF] BUCKLING-RESTRAINED BRACED FRAMES
Buckling-restrained Braced Frames (BRBF) are a new and effective Seismic Load Resisting System (SLRS) for engineers designing buildings for ductile seismic ...
[69]
Outrigger and Belt‐Truss System Design for High‐Rise Buildings: A ...
Feb 21, 2020 · This article is the second part of the series of the comprehensive review which is related to the outrigger and belt-truss system design for tall buildings.
[70]
Evolution of Outrigger Structural System: A State-of-the-Art Review
Aug 25, 2021 · This paper presents the development of the outrigger structural system from the conventional outrigger to damped outrigger concepts.
[71]
[PDF] analysis of earthquake resistance of five-storied timber pagoda
The scope of the present paper is to describe the analysis methods developed for seismic design of a five-storied pagoda that is a unique traditional.
[72]
[PDF] ANALYTICAL STUDY ON SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF NEWLY BUILT ...
This effect is called column rocking resistance and is one of the important seismic element of traditional timber buildings. [6]. The function is built into ...
[73]
The Ancient Architecture that Defies Earthquakes - Nautilus Magazine
Apr 28, 2023 · The ancient architecture that defies earthquakes. Stone buildings in northern India reveal secrets of old structures that could save lives.
[74]
E-Defense｜Experimental Facilities - 防災科研
Three-Dimensional Full-Scale Earthquake Testing Facility is nicknamed "E-Defense. ... Shake Table (15m X 20m). Two 400tf Overhead Cranes. Operation Building.Missing: engineering | Show results with:engineering
[75]
About | ENGLEKIRK STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CENTER
The NHERI Large High Performance Outdoor Shake Table (LHPOST6) at the University of California, San Diego is the world's largest outdoor earthquake simulator.Missing: shaking | Show results with:shaking
[76]
Largest 3D earthquake shake table | Guinness World Records
It can shake its payloads with an acceleration of 1G horizontally in two dimensions, as well as 1.5G vertically. E-Defense is located in Miki City, Japan. 'E' ...Missing: specifications | Show results with:specifications
[77]
E-Defense shake table: accomplishments and future prospects - EPFL
Apr 29, 2024 · E-Defense, NIED's communal-use testing facility with a 300 square meter (20m x 15m) 6-DOF shake table, has completed 127 experiments, mainly on full-scale ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
[78]
[PDF] Earthquake Simulator Test of a Three Story Steel Frame Structure
The structure was subjected to table motions simulating the El Centro (1940) earthquake record and an artificial earthquake. The intensity of the table motions ...Missing: shake | Show results with:shake
[79]
[PDF] Acceleration Tracking Performance of the UCSD-NEES Shake Table
May 1, 2010 · For OLI, the same 1940 Imperial Valley El Centro record ... ing the El Centro earthquake acceleration record scaled to 1.0 g on the table.
[80]
[PDF] SHAKING TABLE TESTING OF CIVIL ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Table I – Similitude relationships. Quantity. Symbol. Cauchy similitude. Froude similitude. Length. L. LP = λ LM. LP = λ LM. Modulus of elasticity e. EP = e EM.
[81]
E-Defense Tests on Full-Scale Steel Buildings: Part 4 - ASCE Library
The E-Defense shake table facility, the world's largest earthquake simulator, is being utilized for a major research project on steel buildings in Japan.Missing: seven- | Show results with:seven-
[82]
Analytical studies of a full-scale steel building shaken to collapse
In September 2007, the E-Defense shaking table was utilized for experimental tests of a full-scale four-story steel building shaken to collapse. Before the ...Missing: seven- | Show results with:seven-
[83]
[PDF] Shake Table Tests on Geotechnical Structures at Multiple Scales
May 18, 2021 · • Time scaling conflict for dynamic/diffusion problems ... • Geometry scaling factor λ – most important for reduced scale model design.
[84]
[PDF] Shaking table testing of structures
ABSTRACT: This paper presents, in the light of LNEC experience in Earthquake Engineering studies, the limitations and advantages of shaking table testing of ...
[85]
Introduction to OpenSees - OpenSeesWiki
Jan 14, 2010 · What is OpenSees? A software framework for simulation applications in earthquake engineering using finite element methods. OpenSees is not a ...
[86]
OpenSees: A Framework for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
Aug 6, 2025 · The OpenSees software framework seeks to aid in this challenging task by letting earthquake engineers develop finite-element and finite-element-reliability ...
[87]
Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation - Home Page
OpenSees is a software framework for developing applications to simulate the performance of structural and geotechnical systems subjected to earthquakes.Download · OpenSeesWiki · About · UserMissing: nonlinear time- history
[88]
[PDF] Advanced Implementation of Hybrid Simulation
Hybrid simulation, where a test is executed based on a step-by-step numerical solution of the governing equations of motion for a hybrid model formulated.
[89]
The Implementation of a Versatile Pseudodynamic Hybrid ...
Pseudodynamic hybrid simulation technique was developed to evaluate structural seismic performance by physically testing the critical portion with the ...
[90]
Challenges and Lessons Learned From Pseudo‐Dynamic Hybrid ...
Jan 14, 2025 · This paper presents challenges and lessons learned from 21 large-scale pseudo-dynamic hybrid simulations on different ductile steel braced frame systems.
[91]
Recent Advances in Computational Methodologies for Real-Time ...
Nov 15, 2022 · 2.2 Hybrid Simulation. Previously known as pseudo-dynamic testing (PsD), HS was introduced in structural engineering in the 1960s by Hakuno et ...
[92]
Real‐time hybrid simulation of structural systems with soil ...
Sep 25, 2024 · Real-time hybrid simulation (RTHS) involves dividing a structural system into numerical and experimental substructures.Abstract · INTRODUCTION · RTHS CONFIGURATION · REAL-TIME INTERATED...
[93]
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/eqe.4301
[94]
(PDF) Uncertainty Quantification for Seismic Risk Assessment using ...
Because the dimensionality is high, this is typically performed with a Monte Carlo simulation of a large number of scenario realizations. In this study, we ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[95]
Model Selection and Uncertainty Quantification of Seismic Fragility ...
This study presents a methodology for statistical model selection and uncertainty quantification of seismic fragility functions. The statistical models are ...Models Of Fragility... · Bayesian Inference Of Model... · Numerical ResultsMissing: demand | Show results with:demand
[96]
On the reddish, glittery mud the Inca used for perfecting their stone ...
... stones, enhancing earthquake resistance. The interlocking stone design allowed for flexibility during seismic events, improving structural stability. What ...
[97]
Five-story Pagodas: Why Can't Earthquakes Knock ... - NIPPONIA
Jun 15, 2005 · Earthquakes occur frequently in Japan, but five-story pagodas keep standing, as beautiful today as they were centuries ago. What secrets does ...Missing: sloped bases systems
[98]
[PDF] EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE OF ANCIENT FIVE-STORY PAGODA ...
Many scientific researches have been conducted on the earthquake resistance of five-story pagodas since the end of the Meiji era (around A.D. 1900). Dr. Muto[3] ...
[99]
A Study of the Rebuilding of Lisbon and London
Apr 23, 2015 · By 1755, the elasticity of beams was reasonably well understood and some of the first seismically engineered structures were built in Lisbon.
[100]
A history of British seismology | Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering
This paper will present a chronological survey of the development of seismology in the British Isles, from the first written observations of local earthquakes ...<|separator|>
[101]
10: Evolution of Codes | Stanford University and the 1906 Earthquake
At the time of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, many California municipalities had building codes, but none considered seismic effects. Not surprisingly ...
[102]
U.S. earthquake history: The 1906 San Francisco earthquake
Apr 18, 2020 · At the time of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, many California municipalities had building codes, but none considered seismic effects…
[103]
[PDF] George W Housner - Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
The Earthquake. Engineering Research Institute initiated this series to preserve the recollections of some of those who have pioneered in earthquake engineering ...
[104]
George Housner: A Personal Remembrance (1910–2008)
Feb 18, 2009 · He was the first vice president and second president of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) in 1950–1951, following Lydik ...
[105]
[PDF] THE evolution of seismic design provisions of us building code
1971 San Fernando earthquake damage suggests changes are needed in codes resulting in ATC 3 project. 1976 UBC has significant increases in basic design ...
[106]
Design Ground Motions | U.S. Geological Survey - USGS.gov
This web tool calculates risk-targeted ground motion values from probabilistic seismic hazard curves in accordance with the site-specific ground motion ...Missing: characteristics velocity displacement frequency
[107]
[PDF] EXPLORING RISK-TARGETED GROUND MOTIONS FOR THE ...
The International Building Code (IBC) developed in the United States (US) has specified so-called Risk-. Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) ground ...<|separator|>
[108]
Design Coefficients and Factors for Seismic Force-Resisting Systems
Design coefficients for seismic systems include Response Modification Coefficient (R), Overstrength Factor (Ω0), Deflection Amplification Factor (Cd), and ...
[109]
Response Modification Coefficient for Modal Analysis per ASCE 7 ...
Multiplying the spectral coordinates by the Importance Factor, Ie, provides the additional power needed to improve the performance of important structures.
[110]
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings | Books
Standard ASCE/SEI 41-17 describes deficiency-based and systematic procedures that use performance-based principles to evaluate and retrofit existing buildings.
[111]
[PDF] Seismic risk maps for Eurocode-8 designed buildings - Hal-BRGM
Jan 10, 2014 · The development of such maps relies on three independent inputs: a) seismic hazard curves derived using probabilistic seismic hazard ...
[112]
[PDF] Outline and Features of Japanese Seismic Design Code
The features of the structural design method based on the Japanese Building Standard Law 1981 could be listed as below. The Japanese code does not have factors ...
[113]
[PDF] OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT SEISMIC CODES IN CENTRAL ...
The codes also follow aspects of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC-97) and the 2009. International Building Code (IBC-2009). The traditional design philosophy ...
[114]
Updates to the Design of Buildings for NBCC 2025 for Climate ...
May 8, 2025 · This study summarized these proposed changes to NBCC and derived the corresponding design scenarios for buildings in 17 cities across Canada.
[115]
AI and Open Access to Building Codes Are Key to Climate-Resilient ...
Oct 12, 2025 · Artificial intelligence won't stop the next flood or fire, but it can make compliance faster and clearer. AI-driven code intelligence tools help ...
[116]
[PDF] Economic Issues and Optimization Initiatives of Nuclear Power ...
Safety Upgrade at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa. 11. ⑥Tsunami Wall. ⑦Reservoir ... Core Damage Frequency (Internal at power, KK7). Page 15. ©Tokyo Electric Power ...
[117]
[PDF] JNES Seismic Isolation Guidelines (RC-2013-1002).
quantitative evaluation of how the base-isolated components important to safety might contribute to the lowering of the core damage frequency (CDF). Using ...
[118]
[PDF] Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures: Part 1 – Bridges
This manual is the first part of a two-part publication on seismic retrofitting, focusing on bridges, and is a revision of a 1995 manual.
[119]
[PDF] lrfd - 20-4 seismic retrofit guidelines for bridges in california - Caltrans
MTD 20-4 provides policies for seismic retrofit of California bridges, aiming to prevent collapse during the Design Earthquake, with no serviceability ...Missing: jacketing Kobe
[120]
[PDF] Seismic Design and Retrofit of Piping Systems
Jul 4, 2002 · Threaded joints can be evaluated by applying the ASME B31 stress intensification factor i = 2.3 for threaded joints to the longitudinal stress.
[121]
[PDF] Can Wood Buildings Safely Grow Taller in Seismic Regions? The ...
Ultimate Verification in Japan. NEESWood researchers used this new PBSD procedure to design a seven-story, mixed-use building for the project's capstone tests.Missing: Cornell 2005-2007
[122]
Earthquake Test Indicates Wood-Frame Buildings Can be Designed ...
Jul 22, 2009 · The 40-second test was the equivalent of a 7.5 magnitude earthquake. “Early results of the testing this summer show that the building ...
[123]
Taipei 101: How Taiwan's tallest skyscraper withstands earthquakes
Apr 4, 2024 · A 660-ton spherical device called a tuned mass damper swings like a giant pendulum in the skyscraper's upper floors.
[124]
How A Steel Ball Shielded Taiwan's Tallest Skyscraper During ...
Apr 5, 2024 · The "tuned mass damper" can reduce the building's movements by up to 40%. Taiwan's tallest skyscraper, Taipei 101, survived a recent 7.4- ...
[125]
Tokyo Skytree: A Traditional and Modern Structure | Nippon.com
Jul 5, 2012 · ... structure's center and swings like a pendulum to dampen the horizontal impulse an earthquake delivers to the tower. Tokyo Skytree is perhaps ...
[126]
Domes: The Ultimate Earthquake-Proof Structures - Domespaces
Mar 29, 2023 · This article explores the use of domes as an earthquake-proof structure. Learn about the engineering and construction techniques used to ...
[127]
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/04/style/taipei-101-earthquake-design-intl-hnk
[128]
Chile pioneers sustainable earthquake-resistant high-rise ...
Sep 9, 2025 · Chile tests radiata pine cross-laminated timber for earthquake-resistant high-rise buildings, focusing on sustainability and seismic safety ...Missing: superframes recycled
[129]
Chile Earthquake 2010: Key Environmental Issues - WWF
May 24, 2016 · The access to reclaimed wood resources created both a fire hazard in the Aldeas, housing communities, and an increased reliance on timber ...Missing: superframes post-