Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Earthquake engineering

Earthquake engineering is an interdisciplinary field of civil engineering dedicated to the analysis, design, and retrofitting of structures to withstand seismic forces generated by earthquakes, thereby minimizing structural damage, economic loss, and human casualties.^[1] The discipline integrates principles from seismology, structural dynamics, geotechnical engineering, and materials science to model ground motions, assess vulnerabilities, and implement mitigation strategies such as ductile detailing and energy dissipation systems.^[2] Emerging prominently in the early 20th century after events like the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, it has evolved through empirical observations of failures and advancements in computational modeling, leading to seismic building codes that enforce minimum performance standards based on probabilistic hazard assessments.^[3]^[4] Key methodologies in earthquake engineering emphasize dynamic analysis over static equivalents, recognizing that seismic loading induces vibrations at multiple frequencies, necessitating response spectrum approaches and time-history simulations for accurate prediction of structural behavior.^[5] Innovations such as base isolation, which decouples superstructures from foundation motions using rubber bearings or sliding pads, and tuned mass dampers, which counteract sway in tall buildings, represent defining achievements that have demonstrably enhanced resilience, as evidenced by the survival of structures like Taipei 101 during typhoons and simulated seismic events.^[6]^[7] Performance-based design paradigms, shifting from uniform hazard to site-specific risk tolerance, allow for tailored solutions that balance safety with functionality, though debates persist over the conservatism of prescriptive codes versus the uncertainties in nonlinear modeling.^[8] Despite progress, challenges remain in addressing soil-structure interaction effects like liquefaction and in scaling laboratory shake-table tests to real-world scenarios, underscoring the field's reliance on iterative validation against post-event reconnaissance data.^[9]^[10]

History

Origins and Early Developments

![Cyrus tomb.jpg][float-right] The earliest known application of earthquake-resistant principles dates to the 6th century BC in ancient Persia, where the Tomb of Cyrus the Great in Pasargadae employed a form of base isolation. This structure features six layers of precisely cut stone blocks separated by sheets of metal, likely lead or copper, which allowed the upper chamber to slide independently of the foundation during seismic events, dissipating energy and preventing collapse.^[11]^[12] Similar empirical techniques emerged in other seismically active regions, such as Japan's multi-story pagodas with flexible wooden joints and a central core pillar that absorbed shocks, and China's dougong bracket systems that provided elasticity to timber frames.^[13]^[14] Scientific foundations for earthquake engineering developed in the 19th century, pioneered by Irish civil engineer Robert Mallet (1810–1881), who conducted pioneering studies on seismic wave propagation and structural response. Mallet performed controlled explosions to simulate earthquakes, measured ground motions, and produced the first detailed seismic maps of the Mediterranean region following the 1857 Basilicata earthquake in Italy, establishing key concepts in seismology that informed later engineering practices.^[15]^[16] Early modern advancements accelerated after major 20th-century earthquakes, particularly in Japan, where frequent seismicity prompted systematic regulation. The 1891 Nobi earthquake (magnitude 8.0) highlighted vulnerabilities in rigid masonry, leading to initial design guidelines emphasizing ductility; this culminated in Japan's first national seismic building code in 1924, following the 1923 Great Kantō earthquake (magnitude 7.9), which incorporated lateral force coefficients based on empirical observations of structural failures.^[17]^[18] In the United States, the 1906 San Francisco earthquake (magnitude 7.9) exposed the dangers of unreinforced masonry and soft-story failures, prompting restrictions on such construction but delaying formal seismic provisions until the 1927 Uniform Building Code appendix introduced voluntary lateral load requirements.^[19] The 1933 Long Beach earthquake (magnitude 6.4) then spurred California's Field Act, mandating seismic design for public schools and marking the first enforced U.S. regulations tying building forces to acceleration estimates derived from observed damages.^[20]^[21]

Key Milestones Post-Major Earthquakes

The 1906 San Francisco earthquake, with a magnitude of 7.9, prompted the first integrated scientific investigation of a major seismic event, culminating in Harry Fielding Reid's formulation of the elastic rebound theory in 1910, which explained earthquake generation through fault slip and became foundational for seismic hazard analysis.^[22] This disaster highlighted the vulnerability of unreinforced masonry structures, influencing the evolution of early building codes; although San Francisco initially prioritized rapid reconstruction without stringent seismic requirements, it spurred regional advancements, including the 1925 Santa Barbara ordinance, recognized as the first comprehensive seismic building code in the United States.^[19] The 1933 Long Beach earthquake, magnitude 6.4, exposed severe deficiencies in school buildings constructed of unreinforced masonry, resulting in the immediate passage of California's Field Act on April 29, 1933, which mandated seismic-resistant design standards for public school construction and retrofitting, setting a precedent for separating design from construction to ensure compliance.^[23] This legislation significantly reduced collapse risks in educational facilities during subsequent events and influenced broader adoption of ductility and lateral force resistance principles in public infrastructure.^[24] The 1971 San Fernando earthquake, magnitude 6.6, demonstrated failures in nonductile reinforced concrete frames and overestimation of structural capacities under dynamic loading, leading to the Applied Technology Council (ATC) 3 project in 1973 and major revisions in the 1976 Uniform Building Code, which increased seismic design forces by factors of up to 2.5 times and emphasized capacity design to protect brittle elements.^[25] These changes addressed observed pancake collapses and shifted focus toward ensuring ductile behavior in high-seismic zones.^[26] Subsequent earthquakes accelerated the transition to performance-based seismic design (PBSD). The 1994 Northridge earthquake, magnitude 6.7, revealed widespread issues with welded steel moment-resisting frames and nonductile concrete, formalizing national efforts for PBSD frameworks that define multiple performance objectives, such as immediate occupancy or collapse prevention, beyond prescriptive life-safety minima.^[27] Similarly, the 1995 Kobe earthquake, magnitude 6.9, caused extensive damage despite prior codes, prompting Japanese standards to incorporate enhanced ductility verification, near-fault effects, and widespread adoption of base isolation and damping systems, while emphasizing reparable damage over collapse prevention.^[28] These events underscored the limitations of uniform hazard spectra, driving probabilistic risk-targeted approaches in modern codes.^[29]

Fundamentals

Seismic Loading and Ground Motions

Seismic loading comprises the dynamic forces imposed on structures by earthquake-induced accelerations of the ground, primarily arising from inertial resistance to this motion as per F = m × a, where m is mass and a is acceleration. Ground motions manifest as transient, multi-frequency oscillations of the earth's surface, propagated via body waves (P and S waves) and surface waves (Love and Rayleigh waves), with horizontal components typically dominating structural demands due to their alignment with lateral stiffness. Vertical motions, though generally smaller (about 50-70% of horizontal), can influence axial loads and uplift in certain configurations.^[30] Characteristics of ground motions include amplitude measures such as peak ground acceleration (PGA), the maximum recorded acceleration expressed as a fraction of g (Earth's gravity, approximately 9.81 m/s²), which indicates shaking intensity for rigid structures or ground particles. For example, PGA values exceeding 0.50g, as observed in events like the 1994 Northridge earthquake (up to 1.78g at Pacoima Dam), correlate with severe damage potential, though survivable with damping. Peak ground velocity (PGV) and displacement (PGD) capture velocity-sensitive and displacement-demanding aspects, respectively, with PGV often better predicting damage in moderate-to-long period structures. Duration, quantified via significant duration or Arias intensity (cumulative energy), influences cyclic loading and fatigue, extending beyond 30 seconds in some subduction zone events. Frequency content, reflected in Fourier or response spectra, varies with source (e.g., high-frequency from crustal faults, low-frequency from distant events) and site conditions.^[31]^[30]^[32] Site effects amplify motions: soft soils extend predominant periods (0.4-2.0 s) and boost amplitudes by 2-6 times relative to rock sites, as evidenced in the 1985 Mexico City earthquake where lakebed amplification at 2 s period caused resonant collapse of mid-rise buildings. Near-source phenomena, including forward directivity (high-velocity pulses) and hanging-wall effects, can elevate long-period spectral ordinates by up to 2 times, per ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs). Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) derives design values like PGA or 5% damped spectral accelerations (Sa) for return periods such as 475 years (10% exceedance in 50 years), using deaggregation to identify controlling magnitude-distance scenarios.^[33]^[30]^[32] In engineering practice, response spectra condense time histories into envelope curves of maximum SDOF oscillator responses versus period, enabling modal superposition for multi-degree-of-freedom systems under the assumption of linearity. Design spectra, code-specified (e.g., ASCE 7), incorporate factors for soil class, importance, and response modification to scale hazard-consistent motions. Loading computation employs equivalent static methods for regular, low-rise structures (V = Cs × W, where Cs derives from Sa/T and limits), response spectrum analysis for dynamic distribution, or time-history integration for nonlinear or irregular cases, ensuring demands do not exceed capacity with specified safety margins. Empirical databases like PEER NGA-West2 validate these through recorded motions from over 20,000 events.^[33]^[34]^[32]

Structural Dynamics and Response Spectra

Structural dynamics examines the response of structures to time-varying forces, particularly those from earthquakes, which introduce transient ground motions as base excitations.^[35] The governing equations derive from Newton's second law applied to structural systems, typically formulated for single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) oscillators as m \ddot{u} + c \dot{u} + k u = -m \ddot{u}_g, where m, c, and k represent mass, viscous damping, and stiffness, respectively, u is relative displacement, and \ddot{u}_g is ground acceleration.^[36] Solutions involve free vibration characteristics (natural frequency \omega_n = \sqrt{k/m}, damping ratio \zeta = c/(2\sqrt{km})) and forced vibration responses computed via convolution integrals or modal superposition for multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) systems.^[1] In earthquake engineering, structural dynamics underpins the prediction of inelastic deformations and failure risks, distinguishing dynamic amplification from static effects; for instance, resonance occurs when structural periods align with dominant ground motion periods, amplifying responses by factors up to 2-3 times static equivalents in flexible structures.^[35] Modal analysis decomposes MDOF responses into contributions from individual modes, each treated as an SDOF system, enabling efficient computation of peak displacements, velocities, and accelerations.^[5] Response spectra provide a frequency-domain representation of earthquake demands, plotting the maximum absolute response (displacement S_d, velocity S_v, or pseudo-acceleration S_a = \omega_n^2 S_d) of SDOF oscillators across a range of natural periods T_n = 2\pi / \omega_n or frequencies, for a given damping ratio and specific ground motion record.^[37] Originating from Maurice A. Biot's 1932 formulation, the method computes spectra by solving the SDOF equation for each period and extracting envelope maxima, offering a compact summary superior to time histories for design as it envelopes worst-case responses without phase dependency.^[38] Elastic response spectra derive directly from accelerograms, while design spectra, standardized in codes like ASCE 7, smooth and scale empirical data to represent probabilistic exceedance risks (e.g., 2% in 50 years), incorporating site soil effects via amplification factors up to 2.5 for soft soils.^[5] In practice, the response spectrum analysis method applies these spectra to MDOF structures by combining modal maxima via methods like the complete quadratic combination (CQC), which accounts for modal cross-correlations via \rho_{ij} = \frac{8\zeta^2 (1 + r)(r + r^3)}{(1 + r^2)^2 (1 - r^2 + 8\zeta^2 (1 + r)^2)} where r = \omega_i / \omega_j, ensuring accurate estimation of base shear and overturning moments. This approach, validated against nonlinear time-history simulations, underpins modern seismic evaluation, revealing that higher modes contribute significantly in stiff structures (e.g., shear walls with T_1 < 0.5 s).^[1]

Analysis and Performance Evaluation

Experimental Assessment Techniques

Experimental assessment techniques in earthquake engineering employ physical models, either scaled or full-scale, subjected to simulated seismic excitations to measure dynamic responses, validate theoretical models, and identify failure mechanisms. These methods complement analytical approaches by capturing nonlinear behaviors, material degradation, and soil-structure interactions that numerical simulations may overlook. Key techniques include shake table testing, pseudo-dynamic testing, quasi-static cyclic loading, and centrifuge modeling, each addressing specific aspects of seismic performance while contending with practical constraints like scaling laws and facility capacities.^[39]^[40] Shake table testing dynamically excites structures by replicating recorded or synthetic ground motions on a translating platform, providing the most direct simulation of inertial forces. Facilities such as Japan's E-Defense feature the world's largest table, measuring 15 m by 20 m with a 1,200-ton payload capacity and accelerations up to 2g, enabling tests on multi-story buildings and soil-foundation systems.^[41] Despite its fidelity to real earthquake dynamics, shake table testing is limited by scale effects, where reduced-size models distort mass, stiffness, and damping ratios, and by high energy demands for large specimens.^[42]^[43] Pseudo-dynamic testing mitigates some shake table drawbacks by hybridizing computational and experimental elements: numerical models predict displacements from applied forces or measured accelerations, which actuators impose quasi-statically on the physical specimen, incorporating real-time feedback for accuracy. Developed in the late 1960s by Japanese researchers like Hakuno et al., this method reduces inertial loading needs and allows full-scale testing without dynamic scaling issues, though it assumes linear time-invariant properties and requires precise control systems.^[44]^[45] Applications include evaluating base-isolated structures, where tests have correlated well with shake table results for displacement responses.^[46] Quasi-static testing applies slow, reversed cyclic displacements or forces to isolated components or subassemblies, isolating hysteretic energy dissipation without dynamic effects, ideal for characterizing damping devices and connections under repeated loading. This approach reveals cumulative damage accumulation but neglects rate-dependent phenomena like strain-rate hardening in concrete or steel.^[39] Centrifuge testing scales gravitational acceleration to maintain realistic stress states in geotechnical models, simulating soil liquefaction, retaining walls, and embedded foundations under earthquake shaking via integrated mini shake tables. Typical accelerations reach 50-100g on small rotors, enabling 1:50 to 1:100 scale factors while preserving prototype densities and pressures, though boundary effects and model fabrication precision pose challenges.^[47] These tests have validated soil-structure interaction models by quantifying excess pore pressures and lateral spreading.^[48]

Analytical and Numerical Modeling

Analytical modeling in earthquake engineering utilizes simplified mathematical frameworks to predict structural responses under seismic loading, often assuming linearity and regularity in geometry and mass distribution. These approaches derive closed-form or semi-analytical solutions from the equations of motion for single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) or multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) systems, facilitating rapid assessment for preliminary design. The equivalent static method approximates dynamic effects by applying a lateral force V = C_s W, where C_s is the seismic coefficient based on site-specific acceleration and structure period, and W is the seismic weight; this is prescribed in codes like ASCE 7 for buildings with periods under 3.5 seconds and low irregularity, as it conservatively envelopes peak responses without requiring dynamic properties.^[49]^[50] Response spectrum analysis extends this by superposing modal contributions, where the maximum response for each mode is obtained from an elastic response spectrum—a plot of peak SDOF displacements, velocities, or accelerations versus natural period for a given damping ratio and ground motion suite. Formulated by Maurice Biot in 1932, it employs combination rules like Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC) to account for modal cross-correlations, yielding base shear and story forces accurate within 10-20% of time-history results for linear systems with up to 20 modes capturing 90% mass participation.^[51]^[52] Limitations arise in highly nonlinear or torsionally irregular structures, where underestimation of higher-mode effects can occur without vertical spectrum components.^[53] Numerical modeling addresses complexities beyond analytical tractability, such as material nonlinearity, geometric irregularities, and soil-structure interaction (SSI), through discretization and iterative solution of partial differential equations. The finite element method (FEM) partitions structures into elements connected at nodes, assembling global stiffness \mathbf{K}, damping \mathbf{C}, and mass \mathbf{M} matrices to solve \mathbf{M} \ddot{\mathbf{u}} + \mathbf{C} \dot{\mathbf{u}} + \mathbf{K} \mathbf{u} = -\mathbf{M} \mathbf{r} \ddot{u}_g(t), where \mathbf{r} is the influence vector for ground acceleration \ddot{u}_g(t); implicit schemes like Newmark-β ensure stability for time-history integration.^[48] Nonlinear pushover analysis applies monotonically increasing lateral loads to trace capacity curves, estimating ductility demand via invariant load patterns, validated against cyclic tests for performance-based design in codes like FEMA P-695, though it neglects higher-mode cyclic degradation.^[49] Advanced numerical techniques incorporate rate-dependent plasticity and contact algorithms for simulating uplift or pounding, with validation against centrifuge or shake-table data showing errors below 15% for SSI-inclusive models of mid-rise frames under moderate earthquakes (PGA 0.3-0.5g).^[54] Open-source frameworks like OpenSees enable hybrid simulations coupling physical substructures with numerical models, reducing computational demands while capturing real hysteretic behavior, as demonstrated in 2023 benchmarks for reinforced concrete shear walls.^[55] Despite efficiency gains from parallel computing, challenges persist in uncertainty quantification, with Monte Carlo sampling of ground motion ensembles required for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment to achieve reliability indices exceeding 2.5.^[56]

Design Principles

Seismic Design Codes and Requirements

Seismic design codes establish minimum criteria for structures to withstand expected earthquake ground motions, emphasizing collapse prevention and life safety while allowing controlled damage. These codes integrate probabilistic seismic hazard assessments, site-specific soil effects, and structural system ductility to derive design forces.^[57] In prescriptive approaches, equivalent lateral forces or response spectra are applied, scaled by response modification factors (R) that account for energy dissipation capacity, typically ranging from 1 for brittle systems to 8 for ductile steel frames.^[30] In the United States, the International Building Code (IBC), with the 2021 edition as the current reference, adopts seismic provisions from ASCE/SEI 7-16, which defines Seismic Design Categories (SDCs) A through F based on short-period (S_DS) and 1-second (S_D1) design spectral accelerations, occupancy importance, and site class.^[58]^[59] Hazard values derive from USGS maps targeting a uniform collapse risk, with maximum considered earthquake (MCE_R) ground motions at approximately a 1% probability of exceedance in 50 years (2475-year return period), adjusted via site coefficients (F_a and F_v) for soil amplification.^[33] Design basis earthquake (DBE) levels, often around a 10% probability in 50 years (475-year return period), inform force demands, with structures required to remain operational or habitable post-event depending on SDC and importance factor (I_e from 1.0 to 1.5).^[60] Analysis methods include equivalent lateral force procedures for regular structures and modal response spectrum or time-history analysis for irregular or tall buildings.^[61] Eurocode 8 (EN 1998-1:2004), the European standard, specifies design for a reference earthquake with a 475-year return period (10% exceedance in 50 years), using peak ground acceleration (PGA) on rock and elastic response spectra shaped by soil category (A-E) and topographic effects.^[62] Behavior factors (q, analogous to R) up to 6.75 for ductile systems reduce elastic demands, with national annexes calibrating ground motion parameters to local seismicity; for instance, high-hazard zones like parts of Italy require PGA up to 0.4g.^[62] Other national codes, such as Canada's NBCC 2020, employ similar spectral acceleration values at periods of 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 seconds, derived from probabilistic models with uniform hazard spectra.^[63] Performance-based seismic design (PBSD), permitted as an alternative in codes like IBC Section 104, shifts from uniform life-safety objectives to owner-defined targets, such as immediate occupancy for frequent events (43% exceedance in 50 years) or collapse prevention for rare MCEs, verified via nonlinear static or dynamic analyses per ASCE 41-17.^[64]^[65] This approach quantifies losses using fragility functions and incremental dynamic analysis, enabling optimized designs for critical facilities, though it requires peer-reviewed validation and higher modeling fidelity to mitigate uncertainties in ground motion selection.^[66] Codes evolve post-disasters; for example, 1994 Northridge and 1995 Kobe earthquakes prompted ductility enhancements and near-fault effects in ASCE 7 updates.^[57] Global harmonization efforts, via organizations like the International Code Council, aim to align parameters while respecting regional tectonics and construction practices.^[67]

Common Failure Modes

Soft-story collapse occurs when the stiffness and strength of the first story are significantly less than those of upper stories, often due to open ground floors for parking or commercial use, leading to excessive lateral deformation and potential pancaking of upper floors during seismic shaking. This failure mode was prominently observed in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, where wood-frame soft-story buildings experienced partial collapses from inadequate shear resistance at the ground level. Similar mechanisms contributed to collapses in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, highlighting vulnerabilities in urban multi-story structures with tuck-under parking.^[68] Pounding between adjacent buildings arises when insufficient separation gaps allow structures with differing dynamic characteristics to collide during earthquakes, causing local damage such as column shear failures or slab-edge crushing. In the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, pounding exacerbated structural failures in closely spaced mid-rise buildings, with impacts leading to brittle column fractures.^[69] Evidence from the 1989 Loma Prieta event also documented pounding-induced corner damage and beam fractures in reinforced concrete frames.^[70] Brittle connection failures in welded steel moment-resisting frames, particularly at beam-to-column welds, result from inadequate ductility and fracture initiation at heat-affected zones under cyclic loading. The 1994 Northridge earthquake revealed widespread fractures in pre-Northridge welded connections, affecting over 200 steel buildings with cracks propagating through weld metal and base metal, though no complete collapses occurred due to redundancy.^[71] These failures stemmed from design assumptions underestimating strain demands and material toughness.^[72] Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings commonly fail in out-of-plane wall collapse or in-plane shear cracking due to lack of tensile reinforcement, resulting in sudden brittle failure under lateral forces. During earthquakes, URM walls separate from floors, leading to pancaking; this was a primary cause of casualties in events like the 2011 Christchurch earthquake, where many historic URM structures partially or fully collapsed.^[73] Out-of-plane mechanisms dominate in low-rise URM, as seen in gable wall failures from insufficient anchorage.^[74] Liquefaction-induced ground failures cause differential settlements, tilting, or bearing capacity loss, undermining building foundations on saturated cohesionless soils during intense shaking. The 1964 Niigata earthquake demonstrated this with apartment buildings tilting up to 60 degrees due to soil liquefaction beneath shallow foundations, resulting in permanent deformations without structural overload.^[75] In the 2011 Christchurch earthquake, liquefaction contributed to the collapse of two multi-story reinforced concrete buildings through foundation settlements and lateral spreading.^[76] Torsional failure in asymmetric buildings occurs when the center of mass does not align with the center of rigidity, inducing uneven drift and higher demands on perimeter elements, often leading to localized collapses. Observations from the 2008 Sichuan earthquake showed torsional effects amplifying damage in irregular reinforced concrete frames, with corner columns failing in shear.^[77] This mode underscores the importance of symmetry in seismic design to distribute inertial forces evenly.^[57]

Mitigation Techniques

Base Isolation Systems

Base isolation systems decouple a structure's superstructure from its foundation during seismic events, minimizing the transmission of ground accelerations to the building. This approach relies on inserting low-stiffness, energy-dissipating elements, such as bearings or pads, between the base and the ground, which permits relative horizontal displacement while increasing the system's natural period typically to 2-3 seconds. By shifting the response to a portion of the seismic response spectrum with lower accelerations, these systems can reduce base shear forces by 50-80%, depending on the design and ground motion characteristics.^[78]^[79] The concept of base isolation dates back over 100 years, with modern implementations emerging in the mid-20th century, particularly in Japan and New Zealand during the 1960s and 1970s. Early systems evolved from rudimentary friction or rubber-based isolators to engineered solutions incorporating damping mechanisms, achieving maturity as a viable alternative to conventional seismic design by the 1990s. Worldwide applications expanded to include structures in the United States, China, Italy, and other seismically active regions, with performance validated in events like the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes where isolated buildings exhibited minimal damage compared to fixed-base counterparts.^[80]^[78] Common types include elastomeric bearings, such as lead-rubber bearings (LRBs) composed of alternating rubber and steel layers with a central lead core for hysteretic damping, and sliding systems like friction pendulum bearings that utilize articulated surfaces to provide restoring forces via geometry. Other variants encompass pure friction sliders, high-damping rubber bearings, and spring-based isolators, often augmented by viscous dampers to control displacements and enhance energy dissipation. Selection depends on factors like soil conditions, structure height, and expected seismic demands, with LRBs widely used for their balance of stiffness, damping, and durability.^[79]^[78] Design requires accommodating isolator displacements, often up to 300-500 mm, necessitating a perimeter moat or gap around the foundation and flexible utility connections. While effective for mid-rise buildings on firm soils, limitations include higher initial costs, sensitivity to long-period velocity pulses in near-fault motions, and reduced efficacy on soft soils where excessive settlements may occur. Empirical studies confirm that hybrid systems combining isolation with supplemental dampers further optimize performance, reducing residual drifts and repair times post-earthquake. Applications span hospitals, data centers, and nuclear facilities, as seen in the Loma Linda University Medical Campus, where isolation minimized operational disruptions during seismic tests.^[78]^[79]

Energy Dissipation Devices

Energy dissipation devices are passive structural components engineered to absorb seismic energy through mechanisms such as friction, viscous shearing, or material yielding, thereby mitigating the transmission of ground motion forces to the primary load-bearing elements of buildings and bridges. These devices supplement inherent structural damping, which typically ranges from 2-5% of critical damping in reinforced concrete and steel frames, by introducing controlled energy loss that reduces peak inter-story drifts by up to 50% and accelerations by 30-40% in simulated earthquake tests.^[81]^[82] Their deployment primarily targets displacement reduction, with secondary benefits in limiting base shear forces, as validated through shake table experiments and nonlinear time-history analyses.^[83] Viscous dampers, often fluid-filled cylinders with piston-orifice systems, generate damping forces proportional to relative velocity raised to an exponent (typically 0.2-1.0), enabling velocity-dependent energy dissipation densities exceeding 10^6 J/m³ per cycle under seismic frequencies of 0.5-2 Hz. Introduced for civil applications in the late 1980s following aerospace precedents, these devices have been retrofitted in structures like the Park Plaza Building in Los Angeles, where they reduced drift demands during the 1994 Northridge earthquake simulations.^[84]^[85] Experimental cyclic loading tests confirm their stability over thousands of cycles, with minimal degradation, though performance depends on fluid viscosity and temperature variations affecting orifice flow.^[86] Metallic yielding dampers dissipate energy via hysteretic loops formed by low-cycle fatigue in ductile metals like mild steel or shape-memory alloys, achieving energy absorption capacities of 50-200 kJ per unit through shear, bending, or axial yielding mechanisms. Variants such as added damping and stiffness (ADAS) devices, featuring X-shaped steel slits, exhibit stable flag-shaped hysteresis and have been applied in Japanese high-rise buildings since the 1980s, with post-yield stiffness ratios around 5-10% enabling recentering.^[87] Numerical studies on grooved metallic dampers demonstrate up to 60% reductions in story drifts for multi-story frames under El Centro ground motion records, though replaceability post-event is critical due to permanent deformation.^[88] Friction dampers, utilizing high-strength sliding interfaces often with brass or composite pads preloaded to slip loads of 50-500 kN, produce near-ideal rectangular hysteresis loops independent of velocity, offering dissipation efficiencies comparable to viscous types without fluid maintenance. Deployed in retrofits since the 1990s, such as in New Zealand's Christchurch buildings, they limit residual drifts to under 0.5% by engaging only during moderate-to-severe shaking, preserving serviceability under wind or minor events.^[89]^[90] Full-scale tests under protocols like CUREE loading show friction coefficients stable at 0.2-0.4 over displacement amplitudes of 50-300 mm, with optimal placement in braced frames yielding 40-70% peak response reductions in probabilistic seismic analyses.^[91] Hybrid configurations combining these mechanisms, such as friction-viscous or yielding-friction dampers, further optimize performance by balancing stiffness, damping, and re-centering, as evidenced in bridge applications where they extend fatigue life under repeated seismic cycles.^[92] Overall, these devices enhance seismic resilience when integrated per codes like ASCE 7-16, with design verified through capacity spectrum methods ensuring factor-of-safety margins against collapse.^[93]

Advanced Control Methods

Advanced control methods in earthquake engineering encompass active, semi-active, and hybrid systems that dynamically adjust structural response using feedback from sensors and control algorithms, extending beyond passive techniques like base isolation or fixed dampers. These methods aim to minimize accelerations, drifts, and forces during seismic events by actively or adaptively counteracting vibrations, often achieving greater reductions in structural demands than passive systems alone. Active systems, in particular, introduce external energy via actuators to apply opposing forces, while semi-active systems modulate inherent properties such as damping without net energy input. Hybrid approaches combine elements of both for enhanced robustness.^[94]^[95] Active control relies on real-time measurement of structural motion through accelerometers and displacement sensors, processed by algorithms like linear quadratic regulators (LQR) or sliding mode control to command hydraulic or piezoelectric actuators that generate counter-forces. Theoretical and experimental studies demonstrate that active systems can reduce peak interstory drifts by 40-60% and base shears by up to 50% in multi-degree-of-freedom structures under various earthquake inputs, outperforming passive controls in variable hazard scenarios. However, implementation faces challenges including dependency on uninterrupted power—failure of which could amplify responses—and sensitivity to modeling inaccuracies or control-structure interactions that may destabilize the system if not robustly designed. Full-scale applications remain limited due to high costs and reliability concerns, though laboratory shake-table tests on scaled buildings confirm feasibility for high-rise structures.^[96]^[97]^[98] Semi-active control systems, such as those employing magnetorheological (MR) fluid dampers or variable-orifice viscous dampers, adjust damping coefficients in response to command signals derived from structural feedback, using minimal electrical power only for property modulation rather than force generation. These devices alter fluid viscosity or orifice size via electromagnetic fields or valves, enabling real-time adaptation to earthquake intensity without the risks of active energy injection. Research on MR dampers in base-isolated or braced frames shows reductions in displacement responses by 20-40% compared to passive counterparts, with clipped-optimal or fuzzy logic algorithms enhancing performance under broadband excitations like the 1995 Kobe earthquake record. Advantages include fail-safe operation—reverting to passive mode upon power loss—and lower energy needs, making them suitable for retrofitting existing buildings; field tests on structures like cable-stayed bridges validate their efficacy in mitigating higher-mode vibrations.^[99]^[100]^[101] Hybrid control integrates active actuators with semi-active or passive elements, such as combining hydraulic braces with MR dampers, to leverage complementary strengths like active precision and semi-active reliability. Studies indicate hybrid setups can suppress roof accelerations by over 70% in tall buildings subjected to near-fault ground motions, with adaptive algorithms mitigating spillover effects into uncontrolled modes. Despite promising simulations, practical deployment requires addressing sensor noise, time delays in control loops (typically under 10 ms for stability), and regulatory validation, as evidenced by ongoing research into robust H-infinity controllers. These methods represent an evolution toward "smart" structures, though empirical data from real events remains sparse, emphasizing the need for further validation against diverse seismic datasets.^[102]^[103]

Construction Practices

Reinforced Concrete and Steel Structures

In reinforced concrete construction for seismic zones, ductile detailing is essential to achieve energy dissipation through controlled yielding rather than brittle shear or compression failures. This involves providing closely spaced transverse reinforcement, such as hoops and crossties, in potential plastic hinge regions of columns and beam-column joints to confine concrete and prevent buckling of longitudinal bars.^[104] Beams are detailed to be under-reinforced, ensuring tensile yielding precedes concrete crushing, with minimum shear reinforcement ratios increased to twice those in non-seismic designs.^[105] Standards like ACI 318 Chapter 18 mandate special provisions for special moment frames, including development lengths at least 1.25 times those for non-seismic cases and lap splice restrictions in high-strain zones.^[106] Shear walls, often integrated as coupled or uncoupled systems, are constructed with boundary elements reinforced for ductility, using aspect ratios limited to 2.5 or less to promote flexural behavior over shear.^[30] Steel structures in earthquake-prone areas prioritize systems like special moment frames (SMFs), where rigid beam-to-column connections are designed to yield in beams while columns remain elastic, achieving rotation capacities of at least 3% radians through qualifying cyclic tests.^[107] Construction practices include prequalification of welded connections, such as reduced beam sections (RBS) that narrow the beam flange to localize yielding, or bolted extended end-plate connections for field assembly reliability.^[108] Concentrically braced frames incorporate ductile braces with core gusset plates allowing 2-4% axial strain before fracture, supplemented by buckling-restrained braces in advanced designs to equalize tension and compression capacities.^[109] AISC 341 specifies protected zones free of attachments and demands continuity plates in panel zones to prevent distortion under double-curvature bending.^[110] Quality assurance emphasizes ultrasonic testing of welds and material properties with minimum yield strengths of 50 ksi for beams in SMFs.^[111] Both materials require foundation practices like deep piles or mat foundations in soft soils to mitigate liquefaction-induced settlement, with RC footings reinforced for dowel action and steel base plates grouted for fixity.^[112] Empirical data from events like the 1994 Northridge earthquake revealed vulnerabilities in pre-1990s welded steel moment connections, prompting post-1997 AISC updates for fracture toughness, while RC failures underscored the need for continuous bottom reinforcement in beams to avoid splice-induced weaknesses.^[113] In high-seismic zones (e.g., USGS Zone D or higher), hybrid systems combining RC cores with steel perimeter frames leverage concrete's mass damping and steel's repairability.^[114] Construction sequencing prioritizes symmetric load paths to avoid torsional irregularities, with tolerances for member straightness limited to L/1000 in steel erection.

Masonry, Timber, and Light-Frame Structures

Unreinforced masonry (URM) structures, typically constructed from brick, stone, or concrete blocks without embedded steel reinforcement, exhibit brittle behavior under seismic loading due to their low tensile strength and lack of ductility.^[115] These buildings are susceptible to out-of-plane wall failures, diagonal shear cracking, and complete collapse when subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking, as observed in historical events where URM accounted for significant casualties and damage.^[116] In the 2010 Canterbury earthquake sequence, URM buildings experienced severe damage leading to collapses, highlighting their vulnerability to in-plane and out-of-plane demands.^[115] Seismic design for new masonry incorporates reinforced elements, such as vertical and horizontal reinforcement bars grouted into cells, to enhance tensile capacity and confinement, per standards like those in ASCE 7.^[30] Retrofitting URM buildings focuses on improving shear strength, ductility, and anchorage to prevent partial or total failure. Common techniques include concrete jacketing of piers and spandrels, which encases masonry in reinforced concrete to increase confinement and energy dissipation, and the addition of steel or fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) overlays for targeted strengthening.^[117] Shotcrete overlays provide a cost-effective alternative, applying pneumatically projected concrete reinforced with mesh to walls, though effectiveness depends on proper bonding and thickness, typically 3-6 inches.^[117] Post-tensioning vertical rods anchored to roof and foundation slabs induces compressive forces to mitigate tensile cracking.^[118] In regions like California, mandatory retrofit ordinances for URM have reduced collapse risk, with studies showing up to 70% improvement in seismic capacity after implementation.^[73] Timber structures, including heavy-timber frames and post-and-beam systems, benefit from wood's inherent ductility and lightweight nature, which reduce seismic inertial forces compared to masonry or concrete.^[119] However, vulnerability arises at connections, where nailed or bolted joints can fail under cyclic loading, leading to excessive deformation or disassembly.^[120] Design principles emphasize ductile moment-resisting frames or shear walls sheathed with plywood or oriented strand board (OSB) to provide lateral resistance, with hold-down anchors at wall ends to counteract uplift.^[30] In multi-story applications, cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels serve as diaphragms and walls, dissipating energy through panel rocking and friction, as demonstrated in shake-table tests simulating magnitudes up to 7.5 with minimal residual damage.^[119] Light-frame wood structures, prevalent in single- and low-rise residential construction, rely on repetitive stud framing with sheathing for shear resistance.^[121] These systems perform well in earthquakes when properly braced, as their redundancy and flexibility allow deformation without collapse, evidenced by low structural failure rates in events like the 1994 Northridge earthquake, where most damage was non-structural.^[122] Seismic codes, such as International Building Code (IBC) Section 2308, impose height and bracing restrictions in high-seismic zones (Categories D and E), limiting conventional light-frame to one story without special systems and requiring continuous ties from foundation to roof.^[123] Soft-story configurations, common in retrofitted homes with garages below, amplify demands; mitigation involves steel moment frames or braced frames at the base to equalize drift.^[124] Historical timber-laced masonry hybrids, as in the 2001 Gujarat earthquake, showed superior performance over pure URM due to timber's confining effect, informing hybrid retrofit strategies.^[125]

Innovative and Traditional Adaptations

Traditional adaptations in earthquake engineering construction emphasize empirical techniques derived from local materials and observed seismic resilience, predating modern codes. Ancient structures like the Tomb of Cyrus the Great, constructed around 550 BC in Pasargadae, Iran, employed a stepped pyramidal form with a gabled stone roof supported by slender columns, enabling load distribution and flexibility that allowed it to withstand regional earthquakes for over 2,500 years.^[126] Similarly, Inca architecture in Peru utilized ashlar masonry—precisely cut andesite stones fitted without mortar—creating interlocking blocks that permit minor relative movement during shaking while maintaining integrity; the Intihuatana stone at Machu Picchu, built circa 1450, exemplifies trapezoidal shaping and inward-leaning walls that counter overturning forces.^[127] These methods relied on dry stone construction and geometric stability rather than rigid bonding, reducing brittle failure risks in areas lacking iron tools or cement.^[13] In East Asia, traditional Japanese pagoda construction featured multi-tiered wooden frames with interlocking dougong brackets and central masts, allowing lateral sway and energy dissipation without nails; the five-story pagoda of Hōryū-ji Temple, erected in 711 AD, has survived multiple major earthquakes due to this flexible assembly that avoids stress concentrations.^[128] Vernacular practices in regions like the Himalayas incorporated bamboo or timber lacing in masonry walls for ductility, with low aspect ratios and lightweight roofs to minimize inertial forces, as documented in post-event analyses of structures enduring quakes up to magnitude 8.^[129] These adaptations highlight first-hand causal understanding of ground motion, prioritizing dissipation over resistance through material flexibility and form. Innovative adaptations build on these principles using advanced materials and computational design for enhanced performance in contemporary construction. Cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels, developed since the 1990s and increasingly adopted post-2010, provide prefabricated, lightweight structural elements with high strength-to-weight ratios and inherent ductility, enabling taller sustainable buildings in seismic zones; for example, a 2024 analysis notes CLT's capacity to absorb energy via panel shear without excessive deformation in simulated M7 events.^[130] Shape memory alloys (SMAs), integrated into braces or reinforcements since the early 2000s, exhibit superelasticity to recenter structures after yielding, minimizing residual drifts; laboratory tests as of 2023 demonstrate SMAs reducing inter-story drifts by up to 50% compared to steel equivalents in shake-table simulations.^[131] Controlled rocking systems represent another recent evolution, where foundations or cores are engineered to uplift intentionally during strong motion, followed by self-centering via post-tensioned tendons, limiting damage to replaceable fuses; pioneered in the 1970s but refined in the 2010s, this approach has been validated in full-scale tests showing drift capacities exceeding 5% without collapse.^[132] These innovations, informed by finite element modeling and real-time sensor data, extend traditional flexibility concepts to high-rise and retrofit applications, achieving verifiable reductions in seismic demands through hybrid material behaviors.^[133]

Risk Assessment and Prediction

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is a methodology for estimating the likelihood and severity of earthquake-induced ground shaking at a specific site over a defined time period by integrating uncertainties from all potential seismic sources.^[134] It provides engineers with probabilistic measures, such as the spectral acceleration expected to be exceeded with a 2% probability in 50 years (equivalent to a 2,475-year return period), which inform building code requirements for seismic design.^[135] Unlike deterministic approaches that focus on maximum credible earthquakes from specific faults, PSHA aggregates contributions from distributed seismicity, faults, and subduction zones using the total probability theorem to produce hazard curves plotting annual exceedance rates against ground motion intensities.^[136] The framework originated with C. Allin Cornell's 1968 paper, which formalized PSHA as a tool to rationally combine geological, seismological, and geophysical data amid inherent uncertainties, moving beyond earlier empirical correlations toward a formalized probabilistic integration.^[137] Early applications emerged in the 1970s for nuclear facilities and were adopted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for national hazard maps starting in 1987, evolving through iterative updates incorporating refined fault models and ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs).^[138] The 2023 USGS National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), for instance, updated source characterizations using finite fault ruptures and multi-fault systems, reflecting post-2010s empirical data from events like the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence.^[139] Core steps in PSHA begin with delineating seismic sources, such as characterized faults with recurrence intervals derived from paleoseismic trenching (e.g., slip rates of 1-10 mm/year on San Andreas segments) or areal zones following Gutenberg-Richter b-value distributions (typically b ≈ 1.0 for magnitude-frequency relations, λ(M) = 10^{a - bM}).^[136] Earthquake magnitudes are sampled from truncated exponential or characteristic models, distances from site-to-source geometries, and ground motions via GMPEs like NGA-West2 suite, which empirically relate intensity measures (e.g., peak ground acceleration >0.2g in high-hazard zones) to magnitude, distance, and site conditions (Vs30 >760 m/s for firm rock).^[138] Uncertainties are propagated via Monte Carlo simulations or logic trees, weighting epistemic branches (e.g., 20-40% aleatory variability in GMPE sigma) to compute the mean hazard: λ(IM > im) = ∑ ∫∫ λ(M,r) ⋅ f(IM|M,r) ⋅ f(M) ⋅ f(r|M) dM dr, where λ is the rate, f are densities, and integration spans sources.^[140] In earthquake engineering, PSHA outputs underpin response spectra for structural analysis, as in ASCE 7-22 standards adopting USGS maps to set site-specific risk-targeted ground motions, ensuring uniform collapse risk across regions (e.g., 1% annual probability targets adjusted for nonlinearity).^[33] Deaggregation identifies dominant scenario contributions (e.g., 70% from M6.5-7.0 events at 10-50 km in California basins), guiding targeted retrofits like base isolation for hospitals.^[141] Globally, PSHA informs Eurocode 8 and similar codes, with site amplification factors (e.g., +50% for soft soils) layered atop rock hazard via proxies like shear-wave velocity.^[142] Despite its dominance, PSHA faces critiques for assuming ergodicity—equating long-term site averages to ensemble probabilities across rare events—which overlooks temporal clustering and fault interactions observed in physics-based models, potentially inflating hazards by averaging improbable distant large events with local small ones.^[137] Empirical validations show overprediction in stable intraplate regions (e.g., central U.S. maps exceeding observed peaks by factors of 2-3 post-2008), attributed to unmodeled correlations or optimistic GMPE extrapolations beyond N=10-100 datasets.^[143] Proponents counter that logic-tree branching captures epistemic uncertainty conservatively, as validated against global catalogs, though alternatives like neo-deterministic methods emphasize physics-driven scenario testing for critical infrastructure.^[144] Ongoing refinements, such as hybrid PSHA incorporating finite-source simulations, aim to mitigate these by prioritizing causal rupture physics over pure statistical aggregation.^[142]

Earthquake Loss Estimation Models

Earthquake loss estimation models are computational frameworks designed to quantify potential damages, casualties, and economic impacts from seismic events, aiding in risk mitigation, emergency planning, and policy decisions. These models integrate seismic hazard data, such as ground shaking intensity, with exposure inventories like building stocks and population distributions, applying vulnerability functions to predict outcomes.^[145] They typically employ empirical or analytical approaches, including fragility curves that relate shaking levels to damage probabilities for structural classes, and capacity spectrum methods to assess nonlinear response.^[146] Such models have evolved since the 1990s to incorporate geographic information systems (GIS) for spatial analysis, enabling scenario-based simulations for specific regions.^[147] A prominent example is the HAZUS-MH Earthquake Model, developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), which provides standardized estimates of direct physical damage to buildings and infrastructure, indirect economic losses, and social impacts like shelter needs.^[145] Released in versions up to 6.1 as of July 2024, HAZUS uses default national inventories aggregated at census block levels but allows user-defined refinements for accuracy.^[145] Its methodology sequences ground motion propagation, structural response analysis via equivalent static or dynamic procedures, and loss aggregation, with outputs including repair costs calibrated against historical events like the 1994 Northridge earthquake.^[148] Limitations include reliance on generalized vulnerability data, which may overestimate or underestimate losses in non-U.S. contexts without localization.^[149] For rapid post-event assessment, the USGS Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) system automates fatality and economic loss estimates within 30 minutes of an earthquake's occurrence, drawing on global seismic networks and country-specific exposure models.^[150] PAGER maps modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) grids against population densities, applying empirical loss ratios derived from over 200 historical earthquakes, such as scaling capital stock losses by shaking exposure.^[151] It issues color-coded alerts—green (low impact) to red (high)—to guide international response, with economic estimates reflecting GDP proxies and fatality models incorporating vulnerability factors like time of day.^[152] Validation against events like the 2011 Tohoku earthquake shows reasonable accuracy for magnitudes above 5.5, though uncertainties arise from aftershock inclusion or unmodeled hazards like tsunamis.^[153] Advanced methodologies extend beyond aggregate models to building-specific assessments, using nonlinear time-history analyses or probabilistic frameworks to prioritize retrofits via expected annual losses.^[154] For instance, empirical approaches regress observed damages from events like the 2008 Sichuan earthquake against intensity measures, informing hybrid models that blend simulation with post-event data for iterative refinement.^[153] These tools underscore causal linkages between shaking amplitude, material ductility, and failure modes, but require high-quality inventories to mitigate biases from outdated census data or idealized fragility assumptions.^[155] Overall, while effective for scenario planning, models' predictive fidelity depends on empirical calibration and computational scalability, with ongoing updates addressing epistemic uncertainties through ensemble simulations.^[156]

Economic Considerations

Benefit-Cost Analysis Frameworks

Benefit-cost analysis (BCA) frameworks in earthquake engineering evaluate the economic efficiency of seismic mitigation measures by quantifying the present value of avoided losses against implementation costs, often yielding benefit-cost ratios (BCRs) exceeding 1 to justify investments.^[157] These frameworks typically incorporate probabilistic seismic hazard assessments, fragility curves for structural damage, and loss estimation models to project future earthquake impacts over a structure's lifecycle, discounting future benefits at rates such as 3-7% annually to reflect time value of money.^[158] In performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE), BCA extends to multi-hazard scenarios, comparing retrofit options like base isolation or damping systems against baseline vulnerabilities, with decisions informed by exceedance probabilities rather than deterministic events.^[159] FEMA's BCA methodology, mandated for hazard mitigation grants, applies to seismic retrofits by modeling expected damages from historical or probabilistic events, subtracting post-mitigation losses to derive benefits, and requiring BCRs greater than 1 for funding eligibility.^[160] For instance, the agency's toolkit uses software to integrate site-specific ground motion data with building fragility functions, estimating retrofit costs alongside benefits from reduced repair, downtime, and casualty costs, though it has been critiqued for underemphasizing long-tail risks in low-probability, high-impact quakes.^[161] Probabilistic extensions, as in Colombia's vulnerability reduction program, employ Monte Carlo simulations to generate loss exceedance curves, revealing that hospital retrofits yielded BCRs of 2.5-4 over 50 years by averting operational disruptions valued at millions per event.^[162] City-scale applications adapt these frameworks to portfolios, factoring in retrofit sequencing and indirect benefits like preserved infrastructure functionality; a 2023 study of urban seismic retrofitting proposed optimizing interventions where BCRs surpassed 3 for unreinforced masonry in high-hazard zones, prioritizing based on annualized loss reductions.^[158] Challenges persist in valuing intangible benefits, such as lives saved—often monetized via value-of-statistical-life estimates around $7-10 million per averted fatality—and addressing epistemic uncertainties in hazard models, which can inflate or deflate BCRs by 20-50% depending on input conservatism.^[157] Empirical validations, like NIST reviews, confirm that while deterministic BCAs suffice for frequent events, probabilistic variants better capture rare disasters, with aggregated U.S. analyses showing seismic mitigations returning $13 in benefits per $1 spent across building types.^[163]

Retrofit and Policy Implementation Challenges

Retrofitting existing structures for seismic resilience presents significant technical hurdles, particularly for older buildings constructed before modern codes, which often lack adequate ductility or lateral load resistance. These structures may require invasive interventions such as adding shear walls, base isolators, or dampers, but integrating these with existing foundations can be constrained by site-specific soil conditions and architectural features, leading to unforeseen structural incompatibilities.^[164]^[165] For instance, unreinforced masonry or soft-story configurations common in pre-1970s urban buildings demand customized solutions, as standardized approaches fail to account for variability in material degradation or hidden defects exposed only during invasive assessments.^[166] Economic barriers exacerbate these issues, with retrofit costs frequently ranging from 10-30% of a building's replacement value, deterring owners due to long payback periods exceeding 50 years in low-seismic zones despite potential life-safety benefits.^[167] Benefit-cost analyses indicate that while retrofits can yield returns through reduced downtime and repair expenses—evidenced by post-event data showing unretrofitted structures incurring losses up to 34% of value versus 7-25% for retrofitted ones—upfront financing remains elusive without subsidies, as private owners prioritize immediate cash flows over probabilistic hazard mitigation.^[168]^[169] This reluctance is compounded by disruption during implementation, such as tenant relocation or operational halts, which can amplify indirect costs in densely populated areas.^[170] Policy implementation faces institutional and behavioral obstacles, including fragmented governance where local, state, and federal jurisdictions clash over funding and enforcement, resulting in uneven adoption rates.^[171] Inadequate incentives, such as tax credits or grants covering less than 20% of costs in many programs, fail to overcome owner inertia, while mandatory retrofit ordinances often encounter legal pushback or evasion through grandfathering clauses.^[167] For example, policies setting minimum retrofit standards, as in New Zealand, can inadvertently discourage comprehensive upgrades by imposing compliance burdens without scaling incentives to performance levels, leading to suboptimal risk reduction.^[172] Enforcement gaps persist due to limited inspection resources and political resistance to stringent mandates, as seen in regions where post-disaster audits reveal implementation lags behind engineering advancements, with retrofit uptake below 10% for vulnerable private inventories despite known vulnerabilities.^[173]^[164] Addressing these requires evidence-based policy redesign prioritizing verifiable seismic performance metrics over vague resilience goals, though systemic underinvestment in monitoring continues to hinder progress.^[174]

Controversies and Debates

Myths, Fallacies, and Design Misconceptions

A persistent misconception in earthquake engineering holds that buildings constructed to modern seismic codes are essentially earthquake-proof, preventing significant damage beyond collapse avoidance. In reality, such codes primarily ensure life safety by limiting collapse risk, but they permit repairable damage or even functional impairment during design-level events; for instance, during the 1994 Northridge earthquake (magnitude 6.7), numerous structures compliant with contemporary California codes at the time suffered substantial structural damage, including the Kaiser Permanente Building, highlighting that code compliance does not equate to minimal disruption or rapid recovery.^[175]^[176] Another fallacy involves the overemphasis on maximizing energy absorption in structural elements to optimize seismic performance, assuming ideal hysteretic behavior dissipates input energy effectively without residual issues. Priestley critiques this as a myth, noting that real earthquake response involves cumulative damage, P-delta effects, and residual displacements, where alternative hysteresis shapes may yield better outcomes than idealized elastic-perfectly-plastic loops promoted in some design practices.^[177] Relatedly, the reliance on elastic spectral analysis as the foundational method for seismic design ignores the nonlinear inelastic behavior dominant in strong ground motions, leading to discrepancies between predicted and actual displacements, as equal displacement or energy rules vary inconsistently across ground motion durations and intensities.^[177] Design misconceptions also extend to common errors in applying seismic provisions, such as neglecting continuous load paths that ensure force transfer through the structure, which can result in unintended weak links during shaking. Engineers sometimes misapply response modification factors (R), underestimating the need for enhanced detailing in ductile systems, or overlook overstrength amplification (Ω₀) for elements like anchor bolts, potentially creating brittle failure modes despite overall ductility intentions.^[176] Additionally, the belief that advanced three-dimensional modal analysis inherently provides superior accuracy is fallacious, as it still depends on flawed assumptions like the equal-displacement rule and may overestimate stiffness or drift demands in irregular structures.^[177] The notion that seismic enhancements impose prohibitively high costs is unfounded; studies indicate that achieving enhanced performance ratings adds only 1-10% to initial construction expenses, often offset by reduced retrofit needs or downtime losses, comparable to standard contingency allowances.^[175] In value engineering, trimming seismic features to cut upfront costs can compromise long-term resilience, as seen in cases where post-earthquake demolition becomes economical due to irreparable damage.^[175] These fallacies underscore the gap between theoretical design ideals and empirical performance, emphasizing displacement-based approaches over force-based ones for aligning with observed failure mechanisms.^[177]

Ethical Dilemmas in Risk Management

In earthquake engineering, ethical dilemmas in risk management arise primarily from the inherent uncertainties in seismic hazards and the need to allocate limited resources amid competing societal priorities. Engineers and policymakers must weigh the probabilistic nature of earthquakes—where events follow power-law distributions with fat tails, making rare large quakes disproportionately impactful—against practical constraints like construction costs and economic development.^[178] This often involves accepting non-zero failure probabilities, as designing for the maximum conceivable event (e.g., an M9+ quake in regions with historical M8 limits) would render most structures uneconomical, potentially exacerbating poverty by stifling housing supply in seismically active developing areas. The Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), in its 1996–2001 ethics project, highlighted these tensions through anonymized case studies, emphasizing that ethical practice requires explicit consideration of trade-offs rather than implicit assumptions of zero risk.^[179] A core dilemma concerns benefit-cost analyses for mitigation measures, where higher safety standards yield diminishing returns. For instance, seismic retrofitting or exceeding base code requirements can achieve societal savings of approximately $4 for every additional $1 invested, but this varies by occupancy class—hospitals and schools justify greater expenditures due to concentrated human occupancy and irreplaceable functions, while residential buildings in low-density areas may not, as marginal cost increases outpace risk reductions.^[157] Empirical data from events like the 1994 Northridge earthquake (M6.7, $20–40 billion in damages) underscore that current codes prioritize life safety over collapse prevention for rare events (e.g., 2% probability in 50 years), accepting some economic losses to avoid over-design that could bankrupt owners or delay critical infrastructure.^[168] Critics argue this embeds a utilitarian calculus valuing statistical lives, raising equity issues: affluent regions retrofit more readily, leaving vulnerable populations in substandard housing exposed to disproportionate risks.^[180] Communication of seismic risks presents another ethical challenge, as probabilistic assessments (e.g., via probabilistic seismic hazard analysis) are often misinterpreted by non-experts, leading to either complacency or undue alarm. The 2009 L'Aquila earthquake (M6.3, 309 fatalities) exemplifies this: on March 31, 2009, Italy's Major Risks Committee downplayed a swarm of foreshocks as not indicative of a major event, based on scientific consensus against reliable short-term prediction; yet a 2012 court convicted six scientists and an official of manslaughter for failing to convey residual risks clearly, imposing six-year sentences (later reduced and overturned on appeal in November 2014).^[181] This case illustrates the dilemma of transparency versus public panic—overstating uncertainties can erode trust in expertise, while understating them risks liability, as causal realism demands acknowledging that no model perfectly captures aleatory variability in fault ruptures. EERI case studies stress evaluating alternatives through stakeholder perspectives, including long-term societal costs of false alarms, which could desensitize populations to genuine threats.^[179] Professional liability further complicates decisions, pitting individual engineers' duty to public safety against client pressures or regulatory ambiguities. In jurisdictions with lax enforcement, certifying marginally compliant structures may enable affordable housing but foreseeably endanger occupants during events exceeding design levels (e.g., the 475-year return period in many codes).^[182] Ethical frameworks from bodies like EERI advocate recognizing moral issues early, consulting peers, and documenting rationales, yet systemic incentives—such as liability caps or insurance models that externalize risks—often favor minimal compliance.^[178] Ultimately, these dilemmas demand first-principles scrutiny of causal chains, from ground motion attenuation to structural response, ensuring decisions prioritize verifiable reductions in expected fatalities over politically motivated overreach.^[179]

Recent Advances

Machine Learning and Simulation Tools

Machine learning techniques have increasingly supplemented traditional simulation methods in earthquake engineering by enabling faster approximations of complex seismic responses, particularly through surrogate modeling that reduces computational demands of finite element analyses. Neural networks, such as artificial neural networks (ANNs) and convolutional neural networks (CNNs), have demonstrated superior performance in predicting seismic capacity of structural components by learning from historical simulation data and experimental results. For instance, gradient boosting methods like XGBoost have outperformed other algorithms in fragility curve generation for buildings under seismic loading, allowing engineers to simulate rare events without exhaustive probabilistic runs.^[183] In structural response prediction, deep learning models trained on shake table data and nonlinear time-history analyses provide real-time seismic demand estimates, bypassing the high fidelity but time-intensive nature of physics-based simulations. A 2025 study highlighted physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) that embed governing equations of motion into ML architectures, achieving up to 1000-fold speedups in simulating multi-degree-of-freedom systems while maintaining accuracy within 5% of traditional solvers for moderate earthquakes. These approaches are particularly valuable for high-rise or irregular structures where nonlinear soil-structure interaction complicates conventional tools like OpenSees or ETABS. Reinforcement learning variants have also emerged for optimizing damper placements in simulations, iteratively refining designs based on simulated damage metrics from events like the 1995 Kobe earthquake dataset.^[184]^[185] Simulation platforms integrating ML, such as the NHERI SimCenter, facilitate hybrid workflows where ML accelerates regional ground motion modeling by interpolating between sparse sensor data and full-waveform simulations. ML-enhanced ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) incorporate site-specific features via random forests or support vector machines, improving intensity measure forecasts for performance-based design by 20-30% over empirical models in regions with limited recordings. However, these tools require large, validated datasets to mitigate overfitting, with peer-reviewed benchmarks emphasizing hybrid ML-physics models to ensure causal fidelity in extrapolating beyond training earthquakes. Ongoing challenges include interpretability, as black-box ML predictions demand validation against first-principles mechanics to avoid unphysical artifacts in safety-critical applications.^[186]^[187]^[188]

Lessons from 2023 Turkey-Syria Earthquake

The 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence, initiated by a magnitude 7.8 rupture on February 6, 2023, along the East Anatolian Fault, exposed systemic vulnerabilities in reinforced concrete (RC) building stock across southeastern Turkey and northern Syria, where over 50,000 fatalities occurred, predominantly from structural collapses.^[189] ^[190] Post-event analyses revealed that while Turkey had adopted and updated seismic design codes following the 1999 İzmit earthquake—incorporating ductile detailing and capacity design principles—enforcement remained inconsistent, particularly in provinces like Hatay and Kahramanmaraş, where informal construction and amnesty programs for illegal additions proliferated.^[191] ^[192] These lapses amplified damage, as evidenced by the disproportionate failure of mid-rise RC frames built in the 1990s–2010s, which often deviated from code-mandated lateral force resistance through soft first stories or unreinforced infill interactions.^[193] ^[194] A primary lesson underscores the causal link between non-ductile detailing and catastrophic failure modes: numerous collapses stemmed from shear failures in columns and coupling beams due to inadequate transverse reinforcement spacing exceeding code limits (e.g., stirrups spaced beyond 100–150 mm in critical zones), leading to brittle axial-shear interactions under cyclic loading.^[195] ^[193] Short-column effects, induced by infill walls or architectural setbacks, triggered premature yielding and torsional irregularities, as observed in Hatay province buildings where ground motions amplified demands by factors of 1.5–2.0 times peak ground acceleration (PGA) values up to 0.8g.^[194] ^[196] Empirical data from over 400 collapsed RC structures indicate that strong-beam–weak-column hierarchies violated capacity design, resulting in story mechanisms rather than distributed ductility, a pattern mitigated in compliant buildings that sustained only moderate cracking.^[197] ^[198] Material and construction quality deficits further exacerbated outcomes, with reconnaissance revealing low-strength concrete (compressive strengths below 20 MPa in failed elements) and corroded or undersized rebar, often attributable to poor on-site practices rather than inherent code flaws.^[199] ^[191] In Syria's affected regions, pre-existing conflict eroded oversight, compounding issues like foundation failures on soft soils prone to liquefaction, though ground motions rarely exceeded design levels for modern codes (e.g., PGA < 0.4g in many urban centers).^[189] ^[200] Lessons emphasize proactive retrofitting of identified high-risk inventories via techniques like steel jacketing or fiber-reinforced polymer wrapping, prioritizing vulnerability rankings over blanket demolitions, as not all non-compliant structures collapsed uniformly.^[198] ^[192] Policy implications highlight the necessity of rigorous permitting, independent inspections, and disincentives for substandard practices, as post-1999 code updates proved effective in low-damage zones with strict adherence, yet amnesty laws post-2010 enabled unvetted expansions that increased vulnerability.^[191] ^[201] Rapid recovery efforts risk perpetuating cycles if reconstruction bypasses seismic audits, underscoring causal realism in linking lax governance to amplified losses over geophysical inevitability alone.^[192] ^[202] International reconnaissance, including EERI-GEER teams, advocates integrating real-time ground motion data into risk models to refine hazard maps, revealing that the event's supershear rupture propagated unusually far (over 300 km), informing future probabilistic assessments.^[189] ^[202]

References

[1]
Earthquake Engineering for Structures - ASCE
This course introduces the fundamental concepts of earthquake engineering and provides the foundation for understanding the analysis and design requirements in ...
[2]
Structural Earthquake Engineering for Buildings Certificate Program
Learn the fundamental concepts of earthquake engineering, seismic analysis of buildings, and design and detailing of steel and concrete structures. Information ...
[3]
The History of Earthquake Engineering at Stanford University and ...
In 1934 Professor Lydik Jacobsen and his student, John Blume, developed the first field instrument for strong shaking of structures and investigated the ...
[4]
A very brief history of earthquake engineering with emphasis on ...
The origins of modern earthquake engineering may be traced to four geographical nuclei of development, California, Japan, Italy and, surprisingly, the British ...
[5]
Seismic Analysis of Building Structures - ASCE
This course will familiarize practitioners with the four seismic analysis methods in ASCE 7: Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF), Modal Response Spectrum (MRS), ...
[6]
Structural engineers are adapting earthquake technology - ASCE
May 14, 2024 · Earthquake engineers use a variety of methods to help them understand the dynamic behavior of structures under seismic forces. Powerful seismic ...
[7]
Collapse-proof seismic design - ASCE
Sep 30, 2024 · A collapse-resistant structure can withstand most earthquakes, but a collapse-proof structure can withstand practically any earthquake and its aftershocks.
[8]
Fundamental Principles for the Design of Earthquake-Resistant ...
Aug 4, 2025 · The Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) aims to develop a robust methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering.
[9]
Who We Are - Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
The Earthquake Engineering Research Institute is the leading non-profit membership organization dedicated to understanding earthquake risk and increasing ...
[10]
Earthquake Engineering - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
This chapter summarizes the fundamental concepts of earthquake engineering. Causes of earthquakes, earthquake measuring scales, seismicity and characteristics ...
[11]
https://www.praiseworthyprize.org/jsm/index.php?journal=irehm&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=18377
[12]
Tomb of Cyrus: The World's Oldest Earthquake Resistant Structure
Aug 13, 2019 · This is known as base isolation, and it is one of the most powerful means of protecting a structure against earthquakes today. In modern ...
[13]
The Ancient Architecture that Defies Earthquakes - Nautilus Magazine
Apr 28, 2023 · “Staggered joints allow the external forces like tremors of earthquakes to be dispersed through the masonry thus preventing cracks in walls.” He ...
[14]
Ancient Construction Serves As A Model For Today's Earthquake ...
Oct 2, 2017 · Dougong is series of interlocking wooden brackets used to support overhanging roofs, a signature of Chinese architecture.
[15]
Robert Mallet | Biography, Seismology, & Facts - Britannica
Irish geophysicist, civil engineer, and scientific investigator who is sometimes called the “father of seismology” for his work on earthquakes.
[16]
Robert Mallet Founds the Science of Seismology
Between 1850 and 1858 Irish geophysicist and civil engineer Robert Mallet Offsite Link of Dublin founded the science of seismology.
[17]
[PDF] KNOWLEDGE NOTE 1-2 Building Performance - GFDRR
Based on the lessons learned from the disaster, a seismic design code was introduced in the building code of 1924, the first national seismic design code ...
[18]
[PDF] THE DAWN OF STRUCTURAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEEIRNG IN ...
The first Japanese building code, Urban Building Law, was promulgated in April 1919, to regulate buildings in six major cities (Tokyo, Yokohama, Nagoya ...<|separator|>
[19]
10: Evolution of Codes | Stanford University and the 1906 Earthquake
Building codes have existed in varying forms for many centuries. As early as 1750 B.C., the Babylonian Empire's code of Hammurabi read, “If a builder has ...
[20]
Seismic Code Development: A Critical Component Of Preventing ...
In 1933, the first mandatory seismic codes in the United States were published, following the Long Beach earthquake that same year, after extensive damage to ...
[21]
https://www.schoolofpe.com/blogs/news/a-chronology-of-improvements-in-building-code-for-seismic-design-html
[22]
1906 Marked the Dawn of the Scientific Revolution
The 1906 earthquake marked the start of modern study of the San Andreas fault, led to the first integrated investigation, and the theory of elastic rebound.
[23]
Earthquake in Southern California 90 Years Ago Changed the Way ...
Feb 27, 2023 · Detailed investigations from 1933 onward showed the earthquake broke the Newport-Inglewood fault, continuing some 25 km (15 miles) towards the ...
[24]
90 Years Later — How the Long Beach Earthquake Changed ...
How the Long Beach Earthquake Changed California's Approach to School Construction. On March 10, 1933, around dinnertime, a magnitude 6.4 (Mw) ...
[25]
San Fernando earthquake changed how we prepare for quakes - ICC
Feb 9, 2021 · Each earthquake results in new findings and the state's building standards code has been updated about 15 times since the quake of 1971.
[26]
[PDF] Why Properly Code Designed and Constructed Buildings Have ...
During the past 5 years, major changes have been made to the earthquake provisions of building codes in the United States. It is the opinion of some that ...
[27]
Performance-Based Earthquake Design - Structure Magazine
Te need for a new approach was formally recognized after the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake and became a nationally funded eﬀort after the 1994 Northridge ...
[28]
[PDF] Earthquake Disaster Risk Mitigation Before and After the 1995 Kobe ...
After the Kobe earthquake, many new policies have been introduced and a number of innovations and developments have been made in science and technology in the ...
[29]
The 1995 Kobe earthquake: From past lessons towards resilience
Jan 31, 2025 · Japan also accelerated the development of its Earthquake Early Warning (EEW) system, operational by 2007, providing vital seconds of warning ...
[30]
Seismic Design Principles | WBDG
A performance-based approach to establishing seismic design objectives is recommended. This determines a level of predictable building behavior by responding to ...
[31]
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 ...
[32]
PEER Ground Motion Database - PEER Center
The web-based Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) ground motion database provides tools for searching, selecting and downloading ground motion ...Sign_in · Sign_up · Documentation · Help<|separator|>
[33]
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 ...
[34]
ASCE 7-16 Seismic Load Calculation Example Using Equivalent ...
Apr 22, 2024 · Seismic load calculation uses the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure (Eq. 12.8-1) with USGS data, and SkyCiv Load Generator integrates this ...
[35]
Structural Dynamics of Earthquake Engineering - ScienceDirect.com
This book covers structural dynamics for earthquake engineering, including dynamic response, analysis techniques, and the use of Mathematica and Matlab. It ...
[36]
CEE 5464 Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
This class covers the fundamentals of structural dynamics starting with single degree of freedom systems subjected to free vibration, harmonic loading, impulse ...<|separator|>
[37]
Response Spectrum Analysis Definition - COMSOL
Jan 28, 2019 · Response spectrum analysis is a method for estimating structural responses to short, nondeterministic, transient dynamic events.
[38]
Early history of the response spectrum method - ScienceDirect.com
The year 2007 marks the 75th anniversary of the formulation of the concept of the response spectrum method (RSM) in 1932. Since then, the RSM has evolved into ...
[39]
Quasi-static Testing, Pseudo-dynamic Testing and Shake Tables
Apr 30, 2023 · Shake tables represent a more faithful testing technique, as the structure is not artificially restrained, the input is true ground motion, and ...
[40]
Analysis of Earthquake Testing Trends - Engineering For Change
Shake table testing, is a physical dynamic test on which the structure is placed on a platform that moves on one or more axis. The shaking is meant to simulate ...
[41]
Dynamic Response of Underground Structures in Sand ...
To date, the E-Defense shake table is the largest shake table in the world with dimensions of 15 m in width and 20 m in length. The table's payload is 12 MN and ...
[42]
[PDF] Correlation between Pseudo-Dynamic and Shake Table Test on ...
Shake table test is the most realistic experimental method for determining the dynamic response of structures as per the equation of motion.
[43]
[PDF] Pseudo-Dynamic Testing for Seismic Performance Assessment of ...
The pseudo-dynamic testing approach can be used to avoid the limitations of the shake table test along with the scale effects for evaluating the performance of ...
[44]
Experimental Assessment of the Seismic Response of a Base ...
Such a technique finds its roots in the pseudo-dynamic testing technique introduced in the late 1960s by Japanese researchers (Hakuno et al., 1969), with the ...
[45]
Pseudodynamic Method for Seismic Testing | Vol 111, No 7
The pseudodynamic method is a relatively new experimental technique for evaluating the seismic performance of structural models in a laboratory by means of on‐ ...Missing: assessment | Show results with:assessment
[46]
Shaking table and pseudodynamic tests for the evaluation of the ...
This paper describes a series of shaking table and pseudodynamic tests for the evaluation of seismic performance of base-isolated structuresMissing: assessment | Show results with:assessment
[47]
[PDF] Experimental and Analytical Study of the Seismic Performance of ...
Two sets of dynamic centrifuge model experiments were performed to evaluate the magnitude and distribution of seismically induced lateral earth pressures on ...
[48]
Numerical modeling and validation of earthquake soil structure ...
Nov 8, 2023 · For example, shake table and centrifuge testing is used to validate numerical analysis of soil-structure. ... tests conducted at the E-Defense ...
[49]
Seismic Analysis Explained – Four Key Methods for Engineers
Feb 2, 2024 · The equivalent static load method can be overly conservative. · Finite Element method can be used to calculate the maximum response of each mode ...
[50]
https://www.dlubal.com/en/support-and-learning/support/knowledge-base/001933
[51]
[PDF] Early history of the response spectrum method
The Response Spectrum Method (RSM) was formulated in 1932 by Maurice Biot, and it became essential for Earthquake Engineering, though it didn't gain widespread ...
[52]
Response Spectrum Analysis: A Building Example - SkyCiv
Jan 13, 2023 · Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) is a dynamic procedure using a structure’s natural vibrations to obtain the maximum force in a seismic event.
[53]
State of the art of simplified analytical methods for seismic ...
Jul 15, 2021 · Analytical methods can be divided into two sub-groups: detailed analytical methods (DAMs) and simplified analytical methods (SAMs). DAMs for the ...
[54]
Numerical modeling of seismic performance of shallow steel tunnel
This study conducts comprehensive finite element modeling to simulate large-scale shaking table tests conducted by Kim et al. (2023)Numerical Modeling Of... · 3. Finite Element Model · 4. Parametric Study
[55]
Numerical Modeling of Earthquake Cycles Based On Navier‐Stokes ...
Sep 19, 2023 · In this study, we develop a numerical framework that embeds earthquake rupture dynamics into a long-term tectonic deformation model by adding ...2 Methods · 3 Benchmarks · 4.2. 1 2d Models
[56]
Emerging Modeling Techniques in Geotechnical Earthquake ... - ASCE
This session offers three presentations on the use of an emerging numerical simulation technique and the application of Artificial Intelligence and machine ...
[57]
[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 ...
[58]
CHAPTER 16 STRUCTURAL DESIGN - ICC Digital Codes
Chapter 16 establishes minimum design requirements for structural components to resist loads and governs the structural design of buildings and structures.
[59]
Seismic Design Categories | IBC Code Resources | ISATts.com
A Seismic Design Category is a classification assigned to a structure based on its occupancy category, and the severity of the design earthquake ground motion.
[60]
[PDF] Seismic design parameters - USGS Publications Warehouse
The user can obtain the spectral acceleration values that would be obtained by use of the maps accompanying the design documents, include site factors ...
[61]
Seismic Building Codes | FEMA.gov
Sep 25, 2025 · ... first editions were issued in 2000. In 2000, the three regionally-based model code organizations (BOCA National Code, SBCCI Standard Code ...
[62]
[PDF] Eurocode 8 and other seismic design codes
– International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO): Uniform Building Code. (UBC, last one 1997), used mainly in the Western USA. – Building Officials and ...
[63]
Seismic Hazard Calculations
The seismic hazard is described by spectral-acceleration values at periods of 0.2, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 seconds. Spectral acceleration is a measure of ground ...
[64]
[PDF] Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines
The same data organization can be used as the basis for archiving data on the performance of nonstructural components collected following future earthquakes.
[65]
Performance Based Seismic Design - IRMI
Oct 1, 2003 · Performance Based Seismic Design allows design teams to choose ground motion and performance objectives, and allows for different performance ...Current Building Code Design · Performance Based Design
[66]
[PDF] Guidelines for Performance- Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings
May 3, 2017 · These guidelines, developed by PEER, offer an alternative to ASCE 7 and IBC for seismic design of tall buildings, for structural engineers and ...
[67]
Seismic Codes Overview for Structural Engineering - SDC Verifier
Mar 14, 2023 · Seismic codes and standards serve as the bedrock of structural resilience in earthquake-prone regions, underpinning the safety and durability of buildings and ...
[68]
Soft Stories - Earthquake Country Alliance
When the “soft” first story fails in a building with “tuck-under” parking, crushed cars often result. Buildings with parking at the ground floor, or large ...
[69]
[PDF] a code comparative study on seismic pounding of adjacent buildings ...
There are many cases reported where pounding has been identified as a primary cause for the failure. The earthquake of the 1985 in Mexico City is a premiere ...
[70]
Analysis of Seismic Separation Gap between Two Adjacent ...
pounding have occurred all over the world. Some of the examples of earthquakes where pieces of evidence of seismic pounding failure can be observed are Loma ...
[71]
[PDF] NISTIR5944 Failure Analysis of Welded Steel Moment Frames ...
Surveys of building damage after the Northridge earthquake categorized connection damage by fracture type based upon visual and ultrasonic examination ...
[72]
Lessons from damage to steel buildings during the Northridge ...
No casualties or complete collapses occurred during the Northridge earthquake as a result of these connection failures, and WSMF buildings in areas of moderate ...
[73]
[PDF] Unreinforced Masonry Buildings and Earthquakes - Mitigation
It includes an explanation of the hazard of earthquake shaking and fault rupture in Utah and information on unreinforced masonry. Historic Buildings and Seismic ...
[74]
[PDF] Earthquake-Resistant Design Concepts | FEMA
Figure 20 Failure of an unreinforced masonry wall in a building in Santa Cruz, California, ... EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANT DESIGN CONCEPTS. 1.1 Model Building Codes.
[75]
The Causes and Effects of Liquefaction, Settlements, and Soil Failures
The failures were shallow and resulted from downslope movement of nearly 30 centimeters, consistent with shaking-induced mechanisms of ground failure. Ground ...Missing: modes soft
[76]
[PDF] Impacts of Liquefaction on the Potable Water System of Christchurch ...
It caused 185 fatalities, collapse of two multi-storey reinforced concrete buildings, and collapse or partial collapse of many unreinforced masonry.
[77]
Seismic Performance and Failure Mechanisms of Reinforced ... - MDPI
Jul 29, 2024 · The RC building damage and failure mechanisms resulting from field observations were evaluated in detail from a broad performance-based ...
[78]
Base isolation and seismic dampers - Science Learning Hub
Oct 28, 2019 · Base isolation is a technique developed to prevent or minimise damage to buildings during an earthquake. It has been used in New Zealand, as well as in India, ...
[79]
Base Isolation Systems | Seismic Isolation | Taylor Devices, Inc.
A base isolation system is a method of seismic protection where the structure (superstructure) is separated from the base (foundation or substructure).
[80]
Seismic Isolation: History, Application, and Performance—A World ...
Jun 1, 2020 · The concept of seismic or base isolation as a means of earthquake protection seems to be more than 100 years old.
[81]
[PDF] Passive Energy Dissipation Devices for Seismic Applications
proposed and developed for reducing the seismic response of structures. Most of the devices are effective in providing structures with additional damping ...
[82]
[PDF] 9. Seismic Isolation and Energy Dissipation
The primary use of energy dissipation devices is to reduce earthquake displacement of the structure. Energy dissipation devices will also reduce force in the.
[83]
[PDF] Passive Energy Dissipation Devices for Seismic Applications
Passive energy dissipation devices reduce seismic response by providing damping and strength. They include passive dampers (friction, metallic, viscoelastic, ...
[84]
Seismic energy dissipation study of linear fluid viscous dampers in ...
Fluid viscous dampers were initially used in the military and aerospace industry. They were designed for use in structural engineering in the late of 1980s and ...
[85]
[PDF] Passive Fluid Viscous Damping Systems for Seismic Energy ...
In particular, fluid viscous dampers that operate on the principle of fluid orificing exhibit extraordinarily high levels of energy dissipation density. Such.
[86]
Fluid Viscous Damping for Seismic Energy Protection
FVDs are often used as an energy dissipation device on structures built in seismic hotspots. A structure that utilizes fluid viscous dampers will increase its ...
[87]
Development and application of metallic dampers in bridge ...
This paper reviews the development and application of metallic-yielding dampers for the vibration control of bridges.
[88]
Numerical study of seismic performance of grooved metallic-yielding ...
Mar 6, 2025 · A complete review of the conducted studies shows that usage of grooved metallic-yielding dampers made of SMA in order to provide a passive ...
[89]
Seismic retrofit of structures using friction dampers - ScienceDirect
By installing such friction dampers in existing structures, earthquake-induced lateral displacement can be effectively reduced, and resistance to seismic loads ...
[90]
DESCRIPTION — Damptech | Earthquake Protection
DESCRIPTION of friction DAMPERs · Superior energy dissipation compared to all dampers on the market · Peace of mind with no maintenance required · Quick and ...
[91]
Seismic Design with Friction Dampers | Earthquake protection
How to design with and model friction dampers for seismic control in structural analysis software such as ETABS, SAP etc.
[92]
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219455422300063
[93]
[PDF] Passive Energy Dissipation Systems for Structural Design and Retrofit
Over the past 12 years, we have investigated how buildings and their nonstructural components, lifelines, and highway structures behave and are affected by ...
[94]
[PDF] Structural Control Strategies for Earthquake Response Reduction of ...
Structural control strategies can be divided into four classes: passive, active, semi- active, and hybrid control. Because passive control systems are well ...
[95]
Advanced Investigation into Active Control Force Requirements for ...
Structural control to reduce seismic response can be implemented using four types of systems, namely, passive, active, semi-active, and hybrid control systems.
[96]
An Overview of Active Structural Control under Seismic Loads
Jun 1, 2020 · The concept of active structural control as a means of structural protection against seismic loads, developed over the last 20 years, ...
[97]
A simple strategy for active structural control against control ...
Nov 12, 2022 · Active control is among the most effective control techniques for mitigating structural vibrations. Control–structure interaction (CSI) ...
[98]
A review of active structural control: challenges for engineering ...
Active control of civil structures presents unique challenges due to factors such as multiple design criteria, high capital cost, large size and the long return ...
[99]
A Semi-Active Control Technique through MR Fluid Dampers ... - NIH
Jan 19, 2022 · The work proposes an innovative solution for the reduction of seismic effects on precast reinforced concrete (RC) structures.
[100]
Semi-active control systems for seismic protection of structures
The review clearly demonstrates that semi-active control devices have the potential for improving the seismic behavior of full-scale civil structures.
[101]
[PDF] SEMI-ACTIVE MR DAMPERS FOR SEISMIC CONTROL OF ...
The semi-active control devices are classified as semi-active variable-stiffness systems, semi-active friction control devices, variable orifice dampers and ...
[102]
[PDF] ACTIVE, SEMI-ACTIVE AND HYBRID CONTROL OF STRUCTURES
Active, semi-active and hybrid structural control systems are a natural evolution of passive control technologies such as base isolation and passive energy ...
[103]
State-of-the-Art Review of Structural Vibration Control - MDPI
This paper comprehensively reviews structural vibration control systems for earthquake mitigation in civil engineering structures.
[104]
[PDF] Ductile Detailing for Earthquake Resistant R C Structures
Requirements of detailing R C structures to give adequate toughness and ductility to resist earthquake shocks better without collapse. • Particularly ...
[105]
[PDF] IS 13920 (1993): Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures ...
designing and detailing of monolithic reinfor- ced concrete buildings so as to give them ade- quate toughness and ductility to resist severe earthquake shocks ...
[106]
[PDF] Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frames
Seismic design of reinforced concrete special moment frames: A guide for practicing engineers, Second Edition, GCR 16-. 917-40, NEHRP Seismic Design Technical ...
[107]
[PDF] Seismic Design of Steel Special Moment Frames: A Guide for ...
Structural steel special moment frames are commonly used as part of the seismic force-resisting systems in buildings designed to resist severe ground shaking ...
[108]
[PDF] What Makes a Special Moment Frame
Apr 1, 2017 · Special moment frames (SMFs) are expected to withstand significant inelastic deformation during a design earthquake, so special proportioning ...
[109]
Toward Earthquake-Resistant Design of Concentrically Braced Steel ...
Nov 2, 2008 · A series of investigations have been conducted, aimed at understanding and improving the seismic performance of concentrically braced steel-frame structures.Missing: techniques | Show results with:techniques
[110]
[PDF] Seismic Design of Steel Special Moment Frames - NEHRP
This document is a guide for practicing engineers on the seismic design of steel special moment frames, but it has been superseded by GCR 16-917-41.
[111]
[PDF] Earthquakes and Seismic Design
The information presented in this publication has been prepared in accordance with recognized engineering principles and is for general information only.
[112]
[PDF] Earthquake Design and Evaluation of Concrete Hydraulic Structures
May 1, 2007 · This manual covers requirements for the seismic design and evaluation of plain and reinforced concrete hydraulic structures. The types of ...
[113]
[PDF] A Policy Guide to Steel Moment-Frame Construction - NEHRP
In steel moment-frame buildings, the ends of the beams are rigidly joined to the columns so that the buildings can resist lateral wind and earthquake forces ...
[114]
Seismic resilient steel structures: A review of research, practice ...
This paper summarizes some of the recent technological advances in the field of seismic resilient steel structures, covering diverse aspects.Missing: techniques | Show results with:techniques
[115]
[PDF] 1 seismic performance of an unreinforced masonry building: an ...
URM buildings have suffered severe damage, in many occasions leading to collapse, during medium to large earthquake shaking; thereby resulting in significant ...
[116]
[PDF] SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF MASONRY BUILDINGS DURING ...
Observed heavy damages and collapses of the buildings in the earthquake regions are generally associated with hollow clay tiles used instead of solid brick.
[117]
Review of Methods for Seismic Strengthening of Masonry Piers and ...
Jun 13, 2023 · Concrete jacketing or shotcrete is one of the most commonly used methods for seismic strengthening of existing masonry structures. The idea is ...Missing: peer | Show results with:peer
[118]
Seismic retrofitting of unreinforced masonry buildings - K-REx
These methods have been proven to improve the stability and strength of unreinforced masonry buildings during a seismic event. This report seeks to ...Missing: peer | Show results with:peer
[119]
Wood's Resilience | Building & Construction - Naturally Wood
Wood's resilience comes from its elasticity, strength, and ductility, allowing it to flex and return to shape, and its light weight, which helps dissipate load.
[120]
[PDF] Seismic protection technologies for timber structures: a review
Seismic protection technologies (SPTs) reduce seismic demands on timber structures, using supplemental damping, seismic isolation, and rocking systems, and ...
[121]
[PDF] Seismic Design of Wood Light-Frame Structural Diaphragm Systems
Dolan has been involved in development of several of the building codes and design standards used in the United States, as well as France and. Canada. He holds ...
[122]
[PDF] Earthquake Hazards and Wood Frame Houses - Building Ecology
From research on past earthquake damage, engineers have learned that wood frame dwellings, and particularly single story houses, suffer less structural ...
[123]
2308.12 Additional Requirements for Conventional Light-Frame ...
Structures of conventional light-frame construction shall not exceed one story in height in Seismic Design Category D.
[124]
"Seismic Analysis of Light-Frame Wood Building with a Soft-Story ...
... earthquake events, for example, the 1989 Loma Prieta and the 1994 Northridge earthquakes. The main reason is that most of these buildings were constructed ...
[125]
[PDF] Traditional timber-laced masonry buildings that survived the great ...
Jan 26, 2001 · Thus, the fact that the traditional buildings suffered a level of damage that was similar in both the larger and the smaller earthquakes serves ...
[126]
Top 10 Vernacular Earthquake-Proof Buildings Around The World
Jul 20, 2023 · The Tomb of Cyrus the Great is the oldest earthquake-proof building in the world. Although the structure is small (11 metres), it stood unshaken for two and a ...
[127]
How the Incas Built for Eternity: Revolutionary Earthquake-Resistant ...
Jun 29, 2025 · The Incas used underground foundations, "dancing stones" that move during earthquakes, trapezoidal architecture, inward-leaning walls, and ...
[128]
[PDF] The Architecture of Earthquake Resistance
Astudy was undertaken to determine how the architecture of a building affects its ability to withstand earthquakes and to provide information that will lead ...
[129]
Traditional Earthquake Resistant Houses
Traditional earthquake-resistant houses use wooden tie-bands, vertical timber columns, long flat stones, and low floors. They also use flexible materials like ...
[130]
Innovative Ways to Incorporate Mass Timber in Earthquake ...
May 16, 2024 · In earthquake-resistant designs, the focus is on capacity design for structural resilience, especially important for timber systems. ...<|separator|>
[131]
The Ultimate Earthquake Engineering Evolution That Is Reshaping ...
Feb 27, 2025 · Recent advancements in earthquake engineering include the adoption of smart materials like shape memory alloys and systems such as base ...
[132]
5 Civil Engineering Innovations That Help Buildings Withstand ...
5 Civil Engineering Innovations That Help Buildings Withstand Earthquakes · Lead-Rubber Bearings · Steel Plate Shear Walls · Controlled Rocking · Tuned Mass Dampers.Missing: key milestones<|separator|>
[133]
Innovations in earthquake risk reduction for resilience
Jun 15, 2021 · The workshop highlighted emerging trends and lessons from recent earthquake events and pinpointed critical issues for future research and policy interventions.Missing: achievements | Show results with:achievements
[134]
[PDF] Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) A Primer - OpenSHA
The goal of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is to quantify the rate (or probability) of exceeding various ground-motion levels at a site (or a ...
[135]
National Seismic Hazard Model | U.S. Geological Survey - USGS.gov
The National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) integrates earthquake science to define potential ground shaking for various probability levels, used in building ...
[136]
[PDF] Introduction to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
Seismic Hazard Analysis, or PSHA. The purpose of this document is to discuss the calculations in- volved in PSHA, and the motivation for using this approach.
[137]
Why is Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) still used?
Cornell's (1968) method allows all of the information provided by geologists and seismologists to be aggregated and used as the input to a “black box” procedure ...
[138]
[PDF] Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment Including Site Effects for ...
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) is a method used to estimate the level of ground motion with a specified probability of exceedance (Cornell, 1968; ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition<|separator|>
[139]
2023 50-State Long-term National Seismic Hazard Model - USGS.gov
The 2023 50-State NSHM defines earthquake ground shaking potential for the US, Alaska, and Hawaii, using new data and methods, and is a time-independent model.
[140]
[PDF] INTRODUCTION TO PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS
Seismic Hazard Analysis, or PSHA. The purpose of this document is to discuss the calculations in- volved in PSHA, and the motivation for using this approach.
[141]
Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes
Mar 3, 2017 · This study describes a method wherein a design earthquake can be obtained that accurately represents the uniform hazard spectrum from a PSHA.
[142]
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis at Regional and National ...
Mar 1, 2020 · Seismic hazard analysis (SHA), or assessment, forecasts future earthquake-caused ground shaking for a single location or across a number of ...
[143]
Why do seismic hazard models worldwide appear to overpredict ...
May 3, 2024 · Probabilistic seismic hazard assessments (PSHAs) provide the scientific basis for building codes to reduce damage from earthquakes.
[144]
Myth of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis - Structure Magazine
The PSHA should be considered as a tool for incorporating uncertainty; it should not be considered as an excuse for using models with high uncertainty. Models ...
[145]
[PDF] Hazus 6.1 Earthquake Model User Guidance - FEMA
Jul 1, 2024 · Introduction to the Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology ... Each model in the earthquake loss estimation methodology requires a specific ...
[146]
[PDF] EARTHQUAKE LOSS ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
The HAZUS-MH Earthquake Model is designed to produce loss estimates for use by federal, state, regional and local governments in planning for earthquake risk ...
[147]
Development of a National Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology
Henry J. Lagorio, M.EERI, R. Scott Lawson, M.EERI, and Philip Schneider, M.EERI. This paper summarizes the development of a geographic information system.
[148]
HAZUS Earthquake Loss Estimation Methods | Vol 7, No 2
This paper provides background and historical perspective on the development of the earthquake loss estimation methods of the HAZUS technology.
[149]
Estimation of Earthquake Losses to Buildings - ResearchGate
Aug 10, 2025 · This paper describes methods for estimating building losses that were developed for the FEMA/NIBS earthquake loss estimation methodology ...<|separator|>
[150]
PAGER - Earthquake Hazards Program
The PAGER system provides fatality and economic loss impact estimates following significant earthquakes worldwide.Scientific Background · FAQ · onePAGER Information · Data, Products & References
[151]
[PDF] PAGER—Rapid Assessment of an Earthquake's Impact
PAGER is an automated system that rapidly assesses earthquake impacts by comparing population exposure to shaking with models of economic and fatality losses.
[152]
PAGER Scientific Background - Earthquake Hazards Program
PAGER is an automated system that rapidly assesses earthquake impacts, informing emergency responders by estimating shaking, fatalities, and economic losses.
[153]
Estimating economic losses from earthquakes using an empirical ...
Feb 1, 2013 · The proposed methodology is both indirect and approximate and is thus best suited as a rapid loss estimation model for applications like the ...
[154]
Building-Specific Loss Estimation Methods & Tools for Simplified ...
The overall loss methodology was modified to incorporate the losses due to demolishing a building that has not collapsed but cannot be repaired due to excessive ...Missing: models | Show results with:models
[155]
[PDF] Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology For Prioritizing Seismic ...
This paper addresses the application of HAZUS 99 methodology to develop earthquake loss estimates for buildings, and details how it can be used for prioritizing ...
[156]
[PDF] Hazus –MH 2.1 - FEMA
Hazus Earthquake Model, a national, standardized GIS-based tool for estimating potential losses from earthquake. Earthquake loss estimates calculated with ...
[157]
[PDF] Benefit–Cost Analysis for Earthquake-Resilient Building Design and ...
May 3, 2024 · Abstract: This paper reviews the state of the art in using benefit–cost analysis (BCA) to inform earthquake risk reduction decisions by.
[158]
A Cost–Benefit Analysis Framework for City-Scale Seismic ... - MDPI
Feb 10, 2023 · This paper proposes a cost–benefit assessment framework that takes into account seismic risk, seismic damage, retrofit costs, economic losses, and cost–benefit ...
[159]
The Use of Benefit-Cost Analysis for Evaluation of Performance ...
Apr 6, 2002 · This report provides an overview of benefit-cost analysis (BCA); an application of benefit-cost analysis to the performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) ...
[160]
Benefit-Cost Analysis | FEMA.gov
Jun 18, 2025 · Benefit-Cost Analysis is a decision-making tool that FEMA uses to compare the risk reduction benefits of a hazard mitigation project to its costs.
[161]
[PDF] FEMA'S BENEFIT COST-ANALYSIS TOOL FOR SEISMIC ...
FEMA's BCA tool is used to analyze the benefit-cost of seismic retrofits, which protect buildings from earthquake damage. The tool uses modeled, expected, or ...
[162]
Publication: Earthquake Vulnerability Reduction Program in Colombia
This paper presents a probabilistic cost-benefit analysis relying on a catastrophe risk model. It produces risk metrics such as the exceedance probability curve ...
[163]
[PDF] Mitigation Saves: Seismic Retrofit of Buildings Saves $13 for every $1
The benefits and costs associated with these mitigation measures have been identified through the most exhaustive benefit-cost analysis of natural hazard.
[164]
Challenges to successful seismic retrofit implementation: a socio ...
Apr 11, 2011 · This paper examines why building owners are reluctant to adopt measures to reduce earthquake losses despite advancement in seismic design ...
[165]
Challenges in Retrofitting Older Buildings for Seismic Safety
Retrofitting older buildings for seismic safety involves navigating a range of challenges from structural limitations and compliance with modern codes to cost ...
[166]
Overcoming risk and unforeseen circumstances when constructing ...
Mar 20, 2023 · The Challenges Behind Seismic Retrofitting · Avoiding Occupant Shake-Ups · One Size Doesn't Fit All: Complex Seismic Techniques · Involving the ...
[167]
Motivators and impediments to seismic retrofit implementation for ...
This article identifies primary factors that may affect the adoption of seismic retrofit by owners of commercial and residential buildings.
[168]
Benefit–Cost Analysis for Earthquake-Resilient Building Design and ...
This paper reviews the state of the art in using benefit–cost analysis (BCA) to inform earthquake risk reduction decisions by building owners and policymakers.
[169]
Benefit–Cost Analysis for Earthquake-Resilient Building Design and ...
2024年5月3日 · This paper reviews the state of the art in using benefit–cost analysis (BCA) to inform earthquake risk reduction decisions by building owners and policymakers.
[170]
The Challenge of Integrating Seismic and Energy Retrofitting ... - MDPI
Many existing buildings suffer from deficiencies related to substandard structural and thermal performance. Such inadequacies, coupled with the environmental ...
[171]
Residential seismic retrofitting: Contextualizing policy packages to ...
Oct 15, 2022 · Many factors complicate seismic retrofitting including the need for coordination between different branches and levels of government; the ...
[172]
Challenges to successful seismic retrofit implementation: A socio ...
Additional barriers to seismic retrofitting pertains to policy design, including counterproductive regulation, such as in New Zealand where minimum retrofit ...
[173]
[PDF] Overcoming Obstacles to Implementing Earthquake Hazard ...
Dec 17, 2024 · Evidence continues to mount indicating that implementation lags sorely behind advances in scientific and engineer- ing understanding. Frequently ...
[174]
Agent-based simulation of the effectiveness of policies for the ...
Oct 8, 2025 · Thus, identifying barriers for seismic retrofit adoption and strategies to increase take-up rates can help mitigate losses from future events.
[175]
[PDF] U.S. Resiliency Council Ten Misconceptions About Buildings and ...
Designing for better seismic performance will significantly increase construction costs. UNTRUE! Seismic engineering relies on equations that can be calculated.
[176]
The Most Common Errors in Seismic Design - Structure Magazine
This article identifies common errors that structural engineers make when performing seismic design and calculations.
[177]
[PDF] MYTHS AND FALLACIES IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
THE ENERGY MYTH. One of the more pervasive myths in earthquake engineering is that energy absorption should be maximized to obtain optimum seismic response.
[178]
Ethical Problems in Seismology - GeoScienceWorld
Mar 9, 2017 · EERI has engaged formally since 1996 in a project to address many of the ethical issues which occur in the field of earthquake risk reduction.
[179]
Ethical Dilemmas - Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
This program presents case studies that involve some ethical issue or issues related to the practice of earthquake engineering or earthquake risk reduction.
[180]
Approaching Ethical Dilemmas
Approaching Ethical Dilemmas in Earthquake Risk Reduction · Recognize a Moral Issue · Begin Your Decision Making · Evaluate the Alternative Actions from Various ...
[181]
L'Aquila earthquake scientists win appeal | Italy | The Guardian
Nov 10, 2014 · A court has upheld the appeals of six scientists and an official against their convictions for having given criminally negligent reassurances to the population.<|separator|>
[182]
Ethical Issues in the Decision-making for Earthquake Preparedness ...
Ethical dilemmas associated with the assessment of the cost-effectiveness of decision making in scenarios which involve human lives at risk have been discussed ...
[183]
Machine learning in earthquake engineering: A review on recent ...
This literature review focuses on the recent advancements of ML in structural seismic performance evaluation and design optimization.
[184]
[PDF] Towards Deep Learning-Based Structural Response Prediction and ...
Jan 1, 2025 · Deep Learning (DL) has become a powerful tool for predicting structural response to dynamic loading, such as earthquakes. By leveraging its ...
[185]
[PDF] Applications of Machine Learning in Seismic Performance Assessment
Aug 26, 2025 · Several review studies have summarized ML applications in structural and earthquake engineering, highlighting progress across different tasks.
[186]
NHERI SimCenter - DesignSafe-CI
The SimCenter provides cutting-edge software to execute high-performance computational workflows, user support, and educational materials.
[187]
Application of machine learning in ground motion modeling
This paper presents a detailed review of the application of machine learning (ML) techniques in Ground Motion Models (GMMs), which are vital tools for ...
[188]
Recent advances in earthquake seismology using machine learning
Feb 28, 2024 · Here, we review the recent advances, focusing on catalog development, seismicity analysis, ground-motion prediction, and crustal deformation analysis.
[189]
GEER and EERI Release Joint Report on 2023 Kahramanmaraş ...
May 6, 2023 · The report details the earthquakes' tectonic setting and surface rupture, ground motions, and observed liquefaction and landslide effects.
[190]
Lessons from the Turkish Earthquakes? - EST
Aug 3, 2023 · The twin earthquakes of February 6th in Turkey have been catastrophic. The official death toll is over 50,000. (Al Jazeera 2023) Ancient cities ...<|separator|>
[191]
Lessons From the February 2023 Turkish Earthquake - PMC
Oct 7, 2024 · Turkey and Syria are seismic-prone regions and unfortunately, this disaster will not be the last. Therefore, building codes are key to ensuring ...
[192]
Lessons From the 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake | Baker Institute
Oct 10, 2024 · The challenge lies in balancing the need for rapid reconstruction with the need to avoid repeating past mistakes related to substandard building ...
[193]
Damage observations of RC buildings from 2023 Kahramanmaraş ...
Jan 10, 2024 · ... failure of a coupling beam from a partially collapsed building in Hatay (f), cantilever beam failures (g, h). Full size image. 3 Summary of ...
[194]
06 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes (Mw = 7.8 and 7.6 ...
In this article, many structural deficiencies and errors, such as the quality of building materials, soft and weak storeys, short column effect, strong beams- ...
[195]
Failures in Reinforced-Concrete Columns and Proposals for ... - MDPI
The main objective of this study is to investigate the structural failures in reinforced concrete columns observed during the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes, ...Missing: enforcement | Show results with:enforcement
[196]
Insights from Ground Motion Data and RC Building Failures
Jun 18, 2025 · anchorage failure tends to occur suddenly, providing minimal warning and signi cantly increasing life safety risks. The observed failures ...
[197]
Insights from a dataset of 400 collapsed RC buildings post ...
Aug 1, 2025 · The effect of errors in structural system design on the structure damaged in 2023 Turkey earthquakes: a case study,. Eng. Fail. Anal. (2024).
[198]
[PDF] Structural Engineering Lessons from the 2023 Kahramanmaras EQs
Not all code-failed buildings will fail in case of an earthquake. Very High Risk. High Risk. Medium Risk. Low Risk. • Ranking of the buildings with respect ...
[199]
[PDF] Materials and Structural Failures Observed after the February 6 ...
Such failures usually result in huge amounts of building waste. Using these ... 2023. 20. 4.9. Masonry Infill Walls Failure and Crumbling. Masonry walls ...
[200]
Key Building Design and Construction Lessons from the 2023 ...
Mar 2, 2023 · In Turkey and Syria, Outdated Building Methods All but Assured Disaster from a Quake. Available online: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/07 ...
[201]
Evaluating Seismic Fragility and Code Compliance of Turkish ...
Mar 25, 2025 · The study also pointed out design errors such as torsional response, pounding effect, short column failure, rigidity differences, and weak ...
[202]
Researchers: Turkey/Syria earthquake holds lessons for the future
Dec 18, 2023 · “It is critical to understand the mechanics of this damaging earthquake, how it started, why it grew that big, and what implications we can ...