You are on page 1of 82

Seismic Conceptual Design of Buildings Basic principles

for engineers, architects, building owners,


and authorities
H ugo Bachm ann
Federal D epartm ent of Foreign A ffairs (D FA )
Federal D epartm ent of the Environm ent, Transport, Energy and C om m unications (D ETEC )
Seismic Conceptual Design of Buildings Basic principles
for engineers, architects, building owners,
and authorities
H ugo Bachm ann
Im pressum
Editor: Sw iss Federal O ffice for W ater and G eology
Sw iss A gency for D evelopm ent and C ooperation
Q uoting: H ugo Bachm ann: Seism ic C onceptual D esign of
Buildings Basic principles for engineers, architects,
building ow ners, and authorities (Biel 2002, 81p.)
Available in french and germ an.
This publication is dow nloadable on the internet as
a pdf file at w w w .bw g.adm in.ch
D esign: Brotbeck C orporate D esign, Biel
Im pression: 3000e
O rder N um ber: 804.802 e
A dress: BBL, Vertrieb Publikationen, C H -3003 Bern,
Internet: w w w .bbl.adm in.ch/bundespublikationen
C opyright: BW G , Biel, 2003
The chosen m ethod explains basic principles by m atch-
ing them w ith illustrations, exam ples, and an explana-
tory text. The principles, photographs (from the author
or third parties), and the texts are the result of a long
research and design activity in the challenging and
strongly evolving field of earthquake engineering.
The author w ould like to thank, above all, the num er-
ous photographs contributors m entioned at the end of
the booklet, w ho have m ade available the results of
extensive and often dangerous efforts. Thanks are also
extended to the Federal O ffice for W ater and G eology
and the Sw iss A gency for D evelopm ent and C oopera-
tion for editing and carefully printing this docum ent.
Zurich, D ecem ber 2002 Prof. H ugo Bachm ann
Authors Preface
For a long tim e earthquake risk w as considered
unavoidable. It w as accepted that buildings w ould be
dam aged as a result of an earthquakes ground shak-
ing. Preventive m easures for earthquakes w ere there-
fore m ostly lim ited to disaster m anagem ent prepared-
ness. A lthough m easures related to construction
m ethods had already been proposed at the beginning
of the 20th century, it is only during the last decades
that im proved and intensified research has revealed
how to effectively reduce the vulnerability of structures
to earthquakes.
The objective of this docum ent is to present recent
know ledge on earthquake protection m easures for
buildings in a sim ple and easy to understand m anner.
3
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
Editors Preface
W orldw ide earthquakes cause regularly large econom ic
losses - Kobe in 1995 w ith m ore than 6000 causalities,
counted for 100 Billion U S$ of econom ic loss. Earth-
quakes are unavoidable. Reducing disaster risk is a top
priority not only for engineers and disaster m anagers,
but also for developm ent planners and policy-m akers
around the w orld. D isaster and risk reduction are an
essential part of sustainable developm ent.
O n D ecem ber 11 2000, the Sw iss Federal C ouncil
approved for federal buildings a seven-point program
running from 2001 to 2004 for earthquake dam age
prevention. The earthquake resistance of new
structures is a high priority in the C onfederations
seven-point program . The author of this publication,
Professor H ugo Bachm ann, has devoted m any years to
the study of seism ic risk and behavior of buildings
subjected to earthquakes. A t the request of the
FO W G , w hich expresses its gratitude to him , he agreed
to m ake available his extensive scientific know ledge on
earthquake resistance of buildings. These guidelines
are designed to contribute to the transfer of research
results into building practice. These results m ust be
taken into account by the design professionals, thus
ensuring a reasonable earthquake resistance for new
structures at little or no additional cost.
SD C w ould like to contribute to the dissem ination of
know ledge on seism ic design of buildings by translat-
ing this FW O G publication in English and thus extend-
ing its readership am ong construction professionals.
SD C intends to gather available experience in the
dom ains of construction and prevention of natural
hazards and technical risks and to m ake it accessible to
the practitioners in developing and transition countries
in an easy to understand form .
Biel, D ecem ber 2002
D r C hristian Furrer
D irector of the Federal O ffice
for W ater and G eology (FO W G )
Bern, D ecem ber 2002
A m bassador W alter Fuest
D irector of the Sw iss A gency
for D evelopm ent and C ooperation (SD C )
4
Table of Contents
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
O bjectives 6
W hat happens during an earthquake? 7
The m ost im portant natural risk 8
The seism ic risk keeps increasing 9
Insufficient m easures 9
U rgent action is needed 9
BP 1 The architect and the engineer collaborate from the outset! 10
BP 2 Follow the seism ic provisions of the building codes! 11
BP 3 N o significant additional cost thanks to m odern m ethods! 13
BP 4 Avoid soft-storey ground floors! 15
BP 5 Avoid soft-storey upper floors! 19
BP 6 Avoid asym m etric bracing! 21
BP 7 Avoid bracing offsets! 24
BP 8 D iscontinuities in stiffness and resistance cause problem s! 25
BP 9 Tw o slender reinforced concrete structural w alls in each 26
principal direction!
BP 10 Avoid m ixed system s w ith colum ns and structural m asonry w alls! 28
BP 11 Avoid bracing of fram es w ith m asonry infills! 29
BP 12 Brace m asonry buildings w ith reinforced concrete structural w alls! 32
BP 13 Reinforce structural m asonry w alls to resist horizontal actions! 34
BP 14 M atch structural and non-structural elem ents! 38
BP 15 In skeleton structures, separate non-structural m asonry w alls by joints! 40
BP 16 Avoid short colum ns! 42
BP 17 Avoid partially infilled fram es! 44
5
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
BP 18 D esign diagonal steel bracing carefully! 46
BP 19 D esign steel structures to be ductile! 48
BP 20 Separate adjacent buildings by joints! 50
BP 21 Favour com pact plan configurations! 52
BP 22 U se the slabs to tie in the elem ents and distribute the forces! 53
BP 23 D uctile structures through capacity design! 55
BP 24 U se ductile reinforcing steel w ith: R
m
/R
e
1.15 and A
gt
6 % ! 56
BP 25 U se transverse reinforcem ent w ith 135 hooks and spaced
at s 5d in structural w alls and colum ns! 58
BP 26 N o openings or recesses in plastic zones! 60
BP 27 Secure connections in prefabricated buildings! 62
BP 28 Protect foundations through capacity design! 64
BP 29 D evelop a site specific response spectrum ! 65
BP 30 A ssess the potential for soil liquefaction! 66
BP 31 Softening m ay be m ore beneficial than strengthening! 68
BP 32 A nchor facade elem ents against horizontal forces! 70
BP 33 A nchor free standing parapets and w alls! 72
BP 34 Fasten suspended ceilings and light fittings! 74
BP 35 Fasten installations and equipm ent! 75
Illustration credits 78
Bibliography 79
C ontacts / Links 80
A ppendix: G lobal Seism ic H azard M A P 81
6
The basic principles (BP) are grouped according to the
follow ing subjects:
collaboration, building codes and costs (BP 1 to BP 3)
lateral bracing and deform ations (BP 4 to BP 20)
conceptual design in plan (BP 21 to BP 22)
detailing of structural elem ents (BP 23 to BP 27)
foundations and soil (BP 28 to BP 31)
non-structural elem ents and installations
(BP 32 to BP 35)
It is obvious that not all the basic principles are of the
sam e im portance, neither in a general context nor in
relation to a particular object. C om prom ises, based on
engineering judgem ent, m ay be adm issible depending
on the hazard level (regional hazard and site effect) and
the characteristics of the structure. O f prim ary im por-
tance is the strict adherence to the principles relevant to
life safety, particularly those concerning lateral bracing.
O nly principles prim arily intended to reduce m aterial
dam age m ay possibly be the subject of concessions.
This docum ent is predom inantly addressed to construc-
tion professionals such as civil engineers and architects,
but also to building ow ners and authorities. It is suitable
both for self-study and as a basis for university courses
and continued education. The illustrations m ay be
obtained from the editor in electronic form at. A ll other
rights, in particular related to the reproduction of
illustrations and text, are reserved.
This docum ent offers a broad outline of the art of
designing earthquake resistant buildings. It describes
basic principles guiding the seism ic design of
structures. These principles govern prim arily the:
Conceptual design, and the
Detailing
of
Structural elements and
Non-structural elements
The conceptual design and the detailing of the structural
elem ents (w alls, colum ns, slabs) and the non-structural
elem ents (partition w alls, faades) plays a central role in
determ ining the structural behaviour (before failure) and
the earthquake vulnerability (sensitivity to dam age) of
buildings. Errors and defects in the conceptual design
cannot be com pensated for in the follow ing calculations
and detailed design of the engineer. A seism ically
correct conceptual design is furtherm ore necessary in
order to achieve a good earthquake resistance w ithout
incurring significant additional costs.
The outlined principles are thus prim arily applicable
to new buildings. H ow ever, it is quite clear
that they m ay also be used for the evaluation and
possible upgrading of existing buildings. Therefore,
certain principles are illustrated w ith applications to
existing buildings.
The basic principles are intentionally sim ple. C alculations
and detailed design are only m arginally introduced.
A dditional inform ation m ay be found in specialised
literature (eg. [Ba02]).
The ideas and concepts of the basic principles w ere
developed w ithin a fram ew ork consisting of num erous
presentations given by the author betw een 1997 and
2000, the contents of w hich w ere constantly elaborated
and developed. Each principle is introduced by a
schem atic figure (synthesis of the principle), follow ed by
a general description. Further illustration is usually
provided by photographs of dam age, giving either
positive or negative exam ples, and accom panied by a
specific legend.
Objectives
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
The effects of an earthquake on a building are prim ari-
ly determ ined by the tim e histories of the three ground
m otion param eters; ground acceleration (a
g
), velocity
(v
g
), and displacem ent (d
g
), w ith their specific
frequency contents. Looking at the exam ple of the
linear horizontal ground m otion chart of an artificially
generated Valais Q uake, it is clear that the dom inant
frequencies of acceleration are substantially higher
than those for velocity and m uch higher than those for
displacem ent.
The ground m otion param eters and other characteris-
tic values at a location due to an earthquake of a given
m agnitude m ay vary strongly. They depend on
num erous factors, such as the distance, direction,
depth, and m echanism of the fault zone in the earth's
crust (epicentre), as w ell as, in particular, the local soil
characteristics (layer thickness, shear w ave velocity).
In com parison w ith rock, softer soils are particularly
prone to substantial local am plification of the seism ic
w aves. A s for the response of a building to the ground
m otion, it depends on im portant structural charac-
teristics (eigenfrequency, type of structure, ductility,
etc).
Buildings m ust therefore be designed to cover
considerable uncertainties and variations.
In an earthquake, seism ic w aves arise from sudden
m ovem ents in a rupture zone (active fault) in the
earth's crust. W aves of different types and velocities
travel different paths before reaching a buildings site
and subjecting the local ground to various m otions.
The ground m oves rapidly back and forth in all
directions, usually m ainly horizontally, but also vertical-
ly. W hat is the duration of the ground m otions?
For exam ple, an earthquake of average intensity lasts
approxim ately 1020 seconds, a relatively short dura-
tion. W hat is the m axim um am plitude of the m otions?
For exam ple, for a typical Valais Q uake of an
approxim ate m agnitude of 6 (sim ilar to the earthquake
that caused dam age in the Visp region in 1855), the
am plitudes in the various directions of the horizontal
plane can reach about 8, 10, or even 12 cm . D uring an
earthquake of m agnitude 6.5 or m ore (sim ilar to the
Basel Q uake that destroyed m ost of the city of Basel
and its surroundings in 1356), ground displacem ents
can reach 15-20 cm , and perhaps som ew hat m ore.
W hat happens to the buildings? If the ground m oves
rapidly back and forth, then the foundations of the
building are forced to follow these m ovem ents. The
upper part of the building how ever w ould prefer to
rem ain w here it is because of its m ass of inertia. This
causes strong vibrations of the structure w ith
resonance phenom ena betw een the structure and the
ground, and thus large internal forces. This frequently
results in plastic deform ation of the structure and
substantial dam age w ith local failures and, in extrem e
cases, collapse.
7
What happens during an earthquake?
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
Rapid ground-motion:
Structural (Building) response:
How long?
How much?
Strong vibrations
Large stresses and strains
Local failure
Total failure = Collapse
What happens during an earthquake?
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
E/1
Time (s)

Time history of ground motion parameters
E/2
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
8
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities


1%
7%
47%
Earthquakes Windstorms Floods Others
28%
7%
Great natural catastrophes 1950-1999
45%
Munich Re Group, 2000
E/3
Fatalities: 1.4 mio Economic losses: US$ 960 bn
30%
35%
The most important natural risk
Earthquakes of large m agnitudes can often be classi-
fied as great natural catastrophes. That is to say that
the ability of a region to help itself after such an event
is distinctly overtaxed, m aking interregional or
international assistance necessary. This is usually the
case w hen thousands of people are killed, hundreds of
thousands are m ade hom eless, or w hen a country
suffers substantial econom ic losses, depending on the
econom ic circum stances generally prevailing in that
country.
The 2001 G ujarat earthquake is a recent exam ple of
such a catastrophe. It w as the first m ajor earthquake
to hit an urban area of India in the last 50 years. It
killed 13'800 people and injured som e 167'000. O ver
230'000 one- and tw o-story m asonry houses collapsed
and 980'000 m ore w ere dam aged. Further, m any
lifelines w ere destroyed or severely dam aged and de
facto non-functional over a long period of tim e. The
net direct and indirect econom ic loss due to the dam -
age and destruction is estim ated to be about U S$ 5
billion. The hum an deaths, destruction of houses and
direct and indirect econom ic losses caused a m ajor
setback in the developm ental process of the State of
G ujarat.
From 1950 to 1999, 234 natural catastrophes w ere
categorized as great natural catastrophes [M R 00].
From these 234, 68 (29% ) w ere earthquakes. The
m ost im portant ones in term s of loss of lives w ere the
1976 Tangshan earthquake (C hina), w ith 290'000
fatalities and the 1970 C him bote earthquake (Peru),
w ith 67'000 fatalities. In term s of econom ic losses, the
9
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
m ost im portant ones w ere the 1995 Kobe earthquake
(Japan), w ith U S$ 100 billion, and the 1994 N orthridge
earthquake (U SA ) w ith U S$ 44 billion.
In term s of loss of lives and econom ic losses, it can be
seen on the figure of page 8 that earthquakes
represent the m ost im portant risk from natural hazards
w orldw ide. It is tem pting to think that this risk is
concentrated only in areas of high seism icity, but this
reasoning does not hold. In regions of low to m oder-
ate seism icity earthquakes can be a predom inant risk
as w ell. There, hazard can be seen as relatively low , but
vulnerability is very high because of the lack of pre-
ventive m easures. This com bined leads to a high risk.
Devastating induced hazards
A part from structural hazards due to ground shaking,
extensive loss can be caused by the so-called induced
hazards such as landslides, liquefaction, fire, retaining
structure failures, critical lifeline failures, tsunam is and
seiches.
For exam ple, the 2001 San Salvador earthquake
induced 16'000 landslides causing dam age to 200'000
houses. In the 1970 C him bote earthquake (Peru), a
gigantic landslide triggered by the earthquake caused
25000 fatalities, m ore than a third of the total
fatalitites. In the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, m ost
of the dam age w as caused by uncontrolled fire. In the
1995 Kobe earthquake fire w as responsible for 8% of
the destroyed houses.
The seismic risk keeps increasing
The seism ic risk is equal to the product of the hazard
(intensity/probability of occurrence of the event, local
soil characteristics), the exposed value and the vulnera-
bility of the building stock. The current building stock
is constantly enlarged by the addition of new
buildings, m any w ith significant, or even excessive,
earthquake vulnerability. This is above all due to the
fact that for new buildings, the basic principles of
earthquake resistant design and also the earthquake
specifications of the building codes, are often not
follow ed. The reason is either unaw areness, conven-
ience or intentional ignorance. A s a result, the
earthquake risk continues to increase unnecessarily.
Urgent action is needed
The preceding rem arks clearly illustrate that there is a
large deficit in the structural m easures for seism ic
protection in m any parts of the w orld. There is an
enorm ous pent up dem and and accordingly a need for
urgent action. N ew buildings m ust be designed to be
reasonably earthquake resistant to prevent the
constant addition of new vulnerable structures to a
building stock that is already seriously threatened. To
this end, the present publication aim s at contributing
by spreading the appropriate basic know ledge.
10
the engineer produces a safe, efficient and econom ical
structure. This is w hy collaboration betw een the architect
and the engineer m ust start at the first design draft!
Serial-design is particularly bad and inefficient. It is
not at all efficient that the architect perform s the
conceptual design and selects the types and m aterials of
the non-structural partition w alls and faade elem ents
before entrusting the engineer w ith the calculations and
detailed design of the structure. It is also w rong to
consider seism ic loading only after com pleting the
gravity load design and selecting the non-structural
elem ents. By then the structure can only be fixed for
earthquakes. This w ill often result in an expensive and
unsatisfactory patchw ork.
A parallell-design is m uch better and usually substan-
tially m ore econom ical. The architect and the engineer
design together and, taking into account the relevant
aesthetic and functional requirem ents, develop a safe,
efficient, and econom ical general-purpose structure
for gravity loads and seism ic action. They then together
select non-structural partition w alls and facade elem ents
w ith deform ation capacities com patible w ith the
designed structure. A n optim um result can be obtained
through this approach. A close and thoughtful
collaboration betw een the architect and the engineer
is therefore also of interest to the building ow ner.
This collaboration cannot w ait for the calculation and
detailed design stage, but m ust start at the earliest
conceptual design stage w hen choices are m ade that
are crucial for the seism ic resistance and vulnerability of
the building.
M any building ow ners and architects are still of the
m istaken opinion that it is sufficient to include the civil
engineer only at the end of the design stage to calcu-
late the structure. This is a bad approach that m ay
have serious consequences and cause significant addi-
tional costs. Even the cleverest calculations and detailed
design cannot com pensate for errors and defects in
the conceptual seism ic design of the structure or in the
selection of non-structural elem ents, in particular
partition w alls and facade elem ents.
It is im portant that there is a close collaboration betw een
the architect and the engineer from the earliest planning
stage of any building project in order to ensure a good
outcom e, guarantee structural safety, reduce vulnerability,
and lim it costs. By doing so, both partners contribute w ith
different, yet indispensable, expertise. The architect deals
prim arily w ith the aesthetic and functional design, w hile
BP 1 The architect and the engineer collaborate
from the outset!
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities


Even the cleverest calculations and detailed design cannot
compensate for errors and defects in the conceptual
seismic design of the structural and non-structural elements!
Close collaboration between architect and
civil engineer from the earliest planning stage!
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
1/1
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
Wrong:
1. Architect: Conceptual design
of structure and non-structural
elements
2. Engineer: Calculations
1. Structure for gravity loads
2. Non-structural elements
3. Structure for seismic action
Much better and more economical:
The architect and engineer
collaborate
General purpose structure
and non-structural elements
Serial-design
Parallell-design
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
1/2
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
The architect and engineer collaborate
from the outset!
Architect
Building owner
Civil Engineer
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
1
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
The ignorance or disregard of the seism ic provisions of
the building codes, even if only partial, can result in an
inferior building [Sc 00]. The reduction in value m ay
include, am ong other things, the costs of retrofitting
m inus the additional costs that w ould have been
incurred to ensure the seism ic resistance of the build-
ing at its design and construction stage. The designers
can be responsible for retrofitting costs, as w ell as
jointly liable w ith the building ow ners for loss of life ,
injury or for any resulting m aterial dam age in the case
of an earthquake. A retrofit generally costs several
tim es m ore than w hat it w ould have cost to ensure
adequate seism ic resistance of the new building.
C onsiderable costs m ay also be incurred by disruptions
of the buildings use, such as tem porary evacuation
and business interruption. Furtherm ore, determ ining
the responsibility of the architect and engineer can
necessitate lengthy and com plex legal procedures.
The building ow ner, the architect, the engineer, and
the authorities therefore have a vested interest in
ensuring that the seism ic provisions of the building
codes are strictly enforced, and that appropriate
structural calculations and verifications are kept w ith
the construction docum ents.
In the early 20th century, the first seism ic provisions
in building codes w ere introduced in a few countries
w ith high seism icity. These early seism ic codes have
been periodically updated w ith increasing know ledge
in earthquake engineering. In the 1960's and 1970's,
countries w ith m oderate seism icity began to adopt
seism ic requirem ents in their building codes.
In the sam e period, the better understanding of
dynam ic soil behavior as w ell as inelastic structural
behavior led to the developm ent of m ore advanced
seism ic codes.
Today, the principles of capacity design together w ith
the concepts of ductile behavior allow a safe and
cost effective earthquake resistant design. The latest
efforts of seism ic code developm ent w ere m ainly
focused on internationally harm onized standards like
ISO 3010, Eurocode 8, and U BC .
U nfortunately, even today, the seism ic provisions of the
building codes are not alw ays respected; this is due to
either ignorance, indifference, convenience, or
negligence. M oreover, appropriate official controls and
checks are lacking. Buildings that are very vulnerable
and at risk from even a relatively w eak earthquake
continue to be built today. Investigations of existing
buildings (e.g. [La 02]) show ed how ever, that enforcing
the building code requirem ents m akes it possible to
significantly reduce the seism ic vulnerability of
buildings w ith no significant additional costs w hile
im proving their resistance against collapse.
11
BP 2 Follow the seismic provisions of the codes!
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
Internationally harmonized standards:
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
2
T. Wenk
ISO 3010
International Building Code (IBC)
Uniform Building Code (UBC)
Eurocode 8
National standards:
SIA 261 (Switzerland)
IS 1893 (India)
DIN 4149 (Germany)
PS 92 (France)
.
Follow the seismic provisions of the codes!
12
2/2 Buildings in w hich the lateral bracing is m issing or highly eccentric,
or buildings w ith discontinuities, generally do not satisfy the
requirem ents of the current building codes and are therefore likely to
be dam aged or collapse under the effect of even a relatively w eak
earthquake (Sw itzerland 2000).
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
2/1 Buildings are still built for w hich no verification of adequate
seism ic resistance is conducted in accordance w ith the current build-
ing codes. In the case of this m asonry building, it appears that no
adequate m easures (e.g. reinforced structural concrete w alls) w ere
taken. A n insufficient earthquake resistance m ay cause a significant
reduction in the value of the building, and m ay be the cause of a civil
liability law suit (Sw itzerland, 2001).
design m ethod nam ed capacity design m ethod.
Thus, structural elem ents such as reinforced
concrete w alls, w hich are used for w ind bracing,
can perform other functions w ithout notable addi-
tional cost (e.g. by m odifying the reinforcem ent).
Few er additional structural elem ents are therefore
required in com parison to older m ethods.
Inform ation on the application and advantages of
m odern m ethods can be found in the publication
[D 0171]. This docum ent describes the seism ic design
of a seven storey residential and com m ercial building.
It enables a com parison betw een the deform ation-
oriented capacity design and conventional design
(earlier m ethod). The advantages of the m odern
m ethod for this exam ple can be sum m arised as follow s
(see also page 14):
drastic reduction in the seism ic design forces at
ultim ate lim it state;
better resistance against collapse;
good deform ation control;
prevention of dam age for earthquakes up to a
chosen intensity (dam age lim it state earthquake);
larger flexibility in case of changes in building use;
practically equal costs.
The last three advantages are particularly im portant to
the building ow ner. The larger flexibility w ith respect
to the changes in building use results prim arily from
the fact that the m ajority of the w alls can be m odified
or even rem oved w ithout any problem .
Page 14
3/1 Results of the seism ic design of a seven storey residential and
com m ercial building by different m ethods [D 0171].
The opinion that designing new buildings to be earth-
quake resistant w ill cause substantial additionnal costs
is still com m on am ong the construction professionnals.
In a sw iss survey, estim ates betw een 3 and 17% of the
total building costs w ere given. This opinion is
unfounded. In a country of m oderate seism icity,
adequate seism ic resistance of new buildings m ay be
achieved at no, or no significant, additional cost.
H ow ever, the expenditure needed to ensure adequate
seism ic resistance m ay depend strongly on the
approach selected during the conceptual design phase
and on the relevant design m ethod:
Regarding the conceptual design phase, early col-
laboration betw een the architect and civil engineer
is crucial (see BP 1). Seism ic protection m ust be
taken into consideration in the architectural design
of the building as w ell as in the conceptual design
of the structure. A bove all, substantial extra costs
m ay be incurred if m odifications and additions to
the structure need to be m ade at an advanced
stage, since they often require m odifications of the
architectural design also. These m ay be very costly.
C oncerning the design m ethod, it should be stated
that significant progress has been m ade recently.
Intensive research has im proved the understanding
of the behaviour of a building or structure during
an earthquake and resulted in the developm ent
of m ore efficient and m odern design m ethods.
C om pared to older m ethods, the cost of seism ic
resistance of a building is reduced and / or
the perform ance during an earthquake is notably
im proved, thus also reducing vulnerability. O f special
im portance are ductile structures and the associated
13
BP 3 No significant additional costs thanks
to modern methods!
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities


No significant additional costs thanks
to modern methods!
The costs of earthquake resistance depends on:
planning approach
applied method
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
3
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
14
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
Seismic conventional design
W est faade Section C Section H
Seismic conceptual design and
capacity design
W est faade Section C Section K
W alls, slabs, m ain beam s and colum ns in reinforced concrete to resist gravity loads
Reinforced concrete w alls and fram es to resist earthquake actions
Structural m asonry
4. floor
3. floor
2. floor
1. floor
m ezzaninne
ground floor
1. basem ent
2. basem ent
4. floor
3. floor
2. floor
1. floor
m ezzaninne
ground floor
1. basem ent
2. basem ent
C H
C H
C K
C K
15
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
4/2 Sw ay m echanism s are often inevitable w ith soft storey ground
floors (Izm it, Turkey 1999).
4/3 H ere the front colum ns are inclined in their w eaker direction, the
rear colum ns have failed com pletely (Izm it, Turkey 1999).
Page 16
4/4 This residential building is tilted as a result of colum n failure
(Taiw an 1999).
BP 4 Avoid soft-storey ground floors!
Avoid soft-storey ground floors!
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
4
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
M any building collapses during earthquakes m ay be
attributed to the fact that the bracing elem ents, e.g.
w alls, w hich are available in the upper floors, are
om itted in the ground floor and substituted by
colum ns. Thus a ground floor that is soft in the
horizontal direction is developed (soft storey). O ften
the colum ns are dam aged by the cyclic displacem ents
betw een the m oving soil and the upper part of the
building. The plastic deform ations (plastic hinges) at
the top and bottom end of the colum ns lead to a
dangerous sw ay m echanism (storey m echanism ) w ith a
large concentration of the plastic deform ations at the
colum n ends.
A collapse is often inevitable.
4/1 This sw ay m echanism in the ground floor of a building under
construction alm ost provoked a collapse (Friaul, Italy 1976).
17
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
4/5 The w ell-braced upper part of the building collapsed onto the
ground floor
4/7 This m ulti-storey building escaped collapse by a hairs-breadth
4/8 thanks to resistant colum ns w ith w ell detailed stabilising and
confining reinforcem ent (Taiw an 1999).
4/6 and these are the rem ains of the left edge ground flour
colum n (Kobe, Japan 1995).
18
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
4/10 Likew ise, it is probable that the slender colum ns under the
cladding of this existing building are too w eak. A few horizontally
short reinforced concrete structural w alls could help significantly
(Sw itzerland 1998).
4/9 It is feared that existing buildings such as this one could collapse
under even a relatively w eak earthquake (Sw itzerland 2000).
19
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
5/2 In this office building also, an upper storey failed. The top of the
building has collapsed onto the floor below , the w hole building
rotated and leaned forw ards.
A n upper storey can also be soft in com parison to the
others if the lateral bracing is w eakened or om itted, or if
the horizontal resistance is strongly reduced above a
certain floor. The consequence m ay again be a danger-
ous sw ay m echanism .
5/1 In this com m ercial building the third floor has disappeared and
the floors above have collapsed onto it (Kobe, Japan 1995).
BP 5 Avoid soft-storey upper floors!
Avoid soft-storey upper floors!
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
5
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
5/3 This close-up view show s the crushed upper floor of the office
building (Kobe, Japan 1995).
20
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
5/4 A ll the upper floors w ere too soft (Izm it, Turkey 1999).
21
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
6/1 In this new skeleton building w ith flat slabs and sm all structural
colum ns designed to carry gravity loads, the only bracing against
horizontal forces and displacem ents is a reinforced concrete elevator
and stairw ay shaft, placed very asym m etrically at the corner of the
building. There is a large eccentricity betw een the centres of m ass
and resistance or stiffness. Tw isting in the plan w ill lead to large
relative displacem ents in the colum ns furthest aw ay from the shaft
and the danger of punching shear failure that this im plies. Placing a
slender reinforced concrete w all, extending the entire height of the
building at each facade in the opposite corner from the shaft w ould
be a definite im provem ent. It w ould then be enough to construct
tw o of the core w alls in reinforced concrete and the rest could be for
exam ple in m asonry (Sw itzerland 1994).
A sym m etric bracing is a frequent cause of building
collapses during earthquakes. In the tw o above sketch-
es only the lateral bracing elem ents are represented
(w alls and trusses). The colum ns are not draw n
because their fram e action to resist horizontal forces
and displacem ents is sm all. The colum ns, w hich only
have to carry the gravity loads, should how ever be able
to follow the horizontal displacem ents of the structure
w ithout loosing their load bearing capacity.
Each building in the sketch has a centre of m ass M
(centre of gravity of all the m asses) through w hich
the inertia forces are assum ed to act, a centre of resist-
ance W for horizontal forces and a centre of stiffness
S (shear centre). The point W is the centre of gravity
of the flexural and fram e resistance of structural
elem ents along the tw o m ajor axes. If the centre of
resistance and the centre of m ass do not coincide,
eccentricity and tw isting occur. The building tw ists in
the horizontal plane about the centre of stiffness.
In particular, this torsion generates significant relative
displacem ents betw een the bottom and top of the
colum ns furthest aw ay from the centre of stiffness and
these often fail rapidly. Therefore the centre of resistance
should coincide w ith, or be close to, the centre of m ass,
and sufficient torsional resistance should be available.
This can be achieved w ith a sym m etric arrangem ent of
the lateral bracing elem ents. These should be placed,
if possible, along the edges of building, or in any case
sufficiently far aw ay from the centre of m ass.
BP 6 Avoid asymmetric bracing!
M
S W
Avoid asymmetrical horizontal bracing!
W, S
M
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
6
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
Page 22
6/2 This office building had a continuous fire w all to the right rear
as w ell as m ore eccentric bracing at the back. The building tw isted
significantly, and the front colum ns failed (Kobe, Japan 1995).
6/5 O riginally, the only horizontal bracing in this 70's auditorium
building at the H nggerberg C am pus of ETH Zurich w ere reinforced
concrete w alls w ith little torsional resistance situated at the rear of
building. Because of the considerable distance betw een the bracing
and the centre of m ass of this large building, it w ould have tw isted
significantly in the plan for even a relatively w eak earthquake
(seism ic zone 1 according to SIA 160). The few highly loaded
reinforced concrete colum ns in the ground floor w ould have experi-
enced substantial displacem ents, particularly in the front of the
building. H ow ever, the colum n detailing w as inadequate for the
required ductility. A dditional steel colum ns w ere therefore built in on
three sides of the building exterior. They form a truss that can
transfer the horizontal seism ic forces to the existing foundations.
This upgrading also fulfilled the need for a strengthening of the
cantilevered structure for gravity loads.
6/6 The incorporation of the new tubular steel truss colum ns is
aesthetically satisfying.
6/3 6/4 In the back, this house share a strong and stiff fire w all w ith
another house. In the front, the facade is substantially softer, so that
the centres of resistance and stiffness w ere situated to the back of
the building. The house tw isted strongly in the horizontal plane, but
did not collapse (U m bria, Italy 1997).
23
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
24
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
BP 7 Avoid bracing offsets!
7/1 The horizontal offset of the reinforced concrete w all in the
vertical plane causes large additional stresses and deform ations in
the structure during an earthquake. They include large local vertical
forces (from the overturning m om ent), large additional shear forces
in the slabs at offsets, redistribution of the foundation forces, etc.
(Sw itzerland 2001).
H orizontal bracing offsets, in plane (at the bottom of
the plan figure) or out of plane (at the top of the
plan figure), result w hen the position of the bracing
changes from one storey to another. The bending
m om ents and the shear forces induced by the offset
cannot be fully com pensated, despite substantial
additional costs.
The offsets disturb the direct flow of forces, w eaken
the resistance and reduce the ductility (plastic defor-
m ation capacity) of the bracing. M oreover, they cause
large additional forces and deform ations in other
structural elem ents (e.g. slabs and colum ns).
C om pared to bracings that are continuous over the
height of the building, bracings w ith offsets increase
the vulnerability of the construction and usually
noticeably reduce its seism ic resistance. Bracing offsets
m ust therefore be absolutely avoided!


Avoid bracing
offset!
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
7
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
25
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
8/2 D uring an earthquake, the reinforced concrete cantilever w all
(behind the curtain), w ill induce significant additional stresses in the
already highly loaded colum n on the ground floor (Sw itzerland
2001).
M odifications in the cross section of bracing system s
over the height of a building cause discontinuities and
lead to sudden variations in the stiffness and resistance
of the building. This can cause irregularities in the
dynam ic behaviour and disturb the local flow of forces.
A n increase in the stiffness and resistance from the
bottom up (left in the elevation figure) is generally less
favourable than the opposite (right in the elevation
figure). In any case, the calculation of the sectional
forces and the design of the structure as w ell as the
detailing of the discontinuities m ust be conducted very
carefully.
8/1 The transition from a reinforced concrete structural w all to a
fram e structure causes large discontinuities in stiffness and resistance
(Sw itzerland 2001).
BP 8 Discontinuities in stiffness and
resistance cause problems!
Discontinuities in
stiffness and resistance
cause problems!
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
8
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
26
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
9/1 Such reinforced concrete structural w alls take up only little
space in plan and elevation (Sw itzerland 1994).
9/2 The reinforcem ent of reinforced concrete structural w alls is
relatively sim ple, but it m ust be detailed and laid w ith great care.
The figure show s a capacity designed ductile w all, of rectangular
cross-section, w hich w as added to an existing building (Sw itzerland
1999).
Reinforced concrete structural w alls of rectangular
cross-section constitute the m ost suitable bracing
system against seism ic actions for skeleton structures.
The w alls m ay be relatively short in the horizontal
direction e.g. 3 to 6 m or about 1/3 to 1/5 of the
building height they m ust, how ever, extend over the
entire height of the building. In a zone of m oderate
seism icity, in m ost cases tw o slender and capacity
designed ductile w alls in each m ajor direction are
sufficient. The type of non-structural elem ents can also
influence the selection of the dim ensions (stiffness) of
the bracing system (cf. BP 14). To m inim ise the effects
of torsion, the w alls should be placed sym m etrically
w ith respect to the centre of m ass and as close as
possible to the edges of the building (cf. BP 6).
C onsidering seism ic forces transfer to the ground
(foundation), corner w alls should preferably be avoid-
ed. W hen the w alls have L cross-section (angle w alls)
or U crosssections, the lack of sym m etry can m ake
detailing for ductility difficult. Reinforced concrete
w alls w ith rectangular cross-section (standard thickness
30 cm ) can be m ade ductile w ith little effort, thus
ensuring a high seism ic safety [D 0171].
BP 9 Two slender reinforced concrete structural
walls in each principal direction !
Two slender reinforced concrete structural
walls in each principal direction!
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
9
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
27
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
9/3 This skeleton structure has reinforced concrete structural w alls in
the transverse directions at tw o building corners.
9/4 The structural w alls w ere included as prom inent elem ents in the
architectural concept (Sw itzerland 1994).
28
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
can im pair the building functionally [D 0171]. A consis-
tent design of the structure as a skeleton structure, i.e.
colum ns only (no m asonry w alls) w ith som e slender
reinforced concrete structural w alls extending the
entire height of the building, is thus also in the long-
term interest of the ow ner. A s the interior partitions
are non-structural elem ents, they are easy to refit in
case of changes in the buildings use. Extensive
structural m odifications are therefore not necessary.
10/1 This structural stairw ay w all w ill be destroyed by a relatively
w eak earthquake. A total collapse of the building m ay result
(Sw itzerland 2001).
M ixed structural system s w ith concrete or steel
colum ns and structural m asonry w alls behave very
unfavourably during earthquakes. The colum ns in
com bination w ith the slabs or beam s form fram es,
w hich have a substantially sm aller horizontal stiffness
than the m asonry w alls. The earthquake actions are
therefore carried to a large extent by the m asonry
w alls. In addition to the inertia forces from their ow n
influence zone, the w alls m ust resist those from the
parts of the building w ith the colum ns (to the left in
the figure). This results in a seism ic resistance consider-
ably less than that of a pure m asonry construction.
W hen m asonry w alls fail due to the seism ic actions or
deflections, they can no longer carry the gravity loads,
w hich usually leads to a total collapse of the building.
M ixed system s of colum ns and structural m asonry
w alls m ust therefore be absolutely avoided.
Furtherm ore, such m ixed system s prove to be
unfavourable because of their lack of flexibility w ith
regard to increasingly frequent building m odifications
required by changes in their use. Rem oval of m asonry
w alls require heavy structural interventions, w hich are
costly (up to several percent of the building value) and
BP10 Avoid mixed systems with
columns and structural masonry walls!
Avoid mixed
systems of
columns and
structural
masonry walls!
Reinforced
concrete frame
Structural
masonry wall
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
10
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
29
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
11/1 H ere the colum ns w ere clearly stronger and the m asonry fell
out w hile the fram e rem ained standing (Erzincan, Turkey 1992).
It is still a com m on opinion that filling in fram e struc-
tures w ith m asonry w alls im proves the behaviour under
horizontal loads including seism ic actions. This is true
only for sm all loads, and as long as the m asonry rem ains
largely intact. The com bination of tw o very different and
incom patible construction types perform s poorly during
earthquakes. The fram e structure is relatively flexible
and som ew hat ductile, w hile unreinforced m asonry is
very stiff and fragile and m ay explode under the
effect of only sm all deform ations. A t the beginning of
an earthquake the m asonry carries m ost of the earth-
quake actions but as the shaking intensifies the m asonry
fails due to shear or sliding (friction is usually sm all due
to the lack of vertical loads). The appearance of
diagonal cracks is characteristic of a seism ic failure.
Tw o basic cases can be identified: Either the colum ns are
stronger than the m asonry, or vice-versa. W ith stronger
colum ns the m asonry is com pletely destroyed and falls
out. W ith w eaker colum ns the m asonry can dam age
and shear the colum ns, w hich often leads to collapse
(see also BP 16 and 17).
BP 11Avoid bracing of frames with masonry infills!
Avoid bracing of frames
with masonry infills!
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
11
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
Page 30
11/2 In this case the m asonry w as stronger: The colum ns experi-
enced significant dam age and w ere partly sheared; nevertheless, the
fram e is still just standing (M exico 1985).
31
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
11/4 These diagonal cracks are typical of reinforced concrete fram e
m asonry infills (Turkey, Izm it 1999).
11/3 The m asonry w as also stronger in this case; it sheared the
relatively large colum ns (A dana-C eyhan, Turkey 1998).
32
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
12/1 Such and also low er! new m asonry structures, w ithout
bracing reinforced concrete structural w alls, are extrem ely vulnerable
to earthquakes (Sw itzerland 2001).
12/2 This new 3-storey residential building w ith unreinforced
m asonry structural w alls is braced longitudinally by a reinforced
concrete structural w all in each facade, and transversely by an
interior reinforced concrete structural w all (Sw itzerland 2001).
Traditionally in m any countries, houses and sm aller
com m ercial buildings are often built w ith unreinforced
m asonry w alls m ade of clay, lim estone or cem ent
bricks. M asonry is a good construction m aterial in
term s of therm al insulation, storage and vertical loads
carrying capacity. For seism ic actions how ever, m asonry
stuctures are not w ell suited. O n one hand they are
relatively stiff, so they usually have a high natural
frequency w ithin the plateau area of the design
response spectrum and therefore experience large
earthquake actions. O n the other hand unreinforced
m asonry w alls are rather brittle and generally exhibit
relatively little energy dissipation. G enerally, it is not
possible to obtain adequate seism ic resistance (even in
regions of low seism icity) and additional m easures are
therefore necessary.
A possible solution consists of bracing unreinforced
m asonry buildings w ith reinforced concrete structural
w alls. H ereby it is possible to lim it the horizontal
deform ations of the m asonry and therefore preserve its
gravity load carrying capacity. The reinforced concrete
structural w alls m ust be designed to be sufficiently
stiff, the horizontal w all length and the vertical
reinforcem ent ratio being key param eters. They m ust
be able to carry the seism ic actions and to transm it
them to the foundations w hile rem aining elastic, i.e.
w ithout notable yielding of the reinforcem ent.
The horizontal deflection of the reinforced concrete
structural w alls under the design earthquake m ust not
exceed the displacem ent capacity of the stiffest, i.e.
longest, m asonry w all.
BP 12 Brace masonry buildings with reinforced concrete
structural walls!
Stiffen masonry buildings with reinforced
concrete structural walls!
Masonry
Structural
concrete wall Masonry
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
12
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
33
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
12/4 Structural m asonry w alls, reinforced concrete structural w alls
and slabs should respond together w hen subjected to shear,
com pression, and if possible tension (Sw itzerland 2001).
12/3 This new 4-storey m asonry structure is braced by one
reinforced concrete structural w all in each m ajor direction. There
is also a long m asonry w all in both directions that has a horizontal
layer joint reinforcem ent and is anchored to the concrete w all
(Sw itzerland 2001).
12/5 This is w hy it is recom m ended to fill in the joints betw een
structural m asonry w alls and reinforced concrete structural w alls
w ith m ortar (Sw itzerland 2001).
34
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
A possible alternative to basic principle 12 for m aking
m asonry structures substantially m ore suitable for
seism ic actions is to reinforce som e long m asonry w alls
and thus stiffen them in the longitudinal direction.
In this case, for exam ple, vertical and horizontal
m inim um reinforcem ent and stronger vertical rein-
forcem ent in the boundary zones m ust be detailed [Ba
02]. Thus sliding in the horizontal layer joints can be
prevented and a global ductility of up to

~
=2 can be
achieved. The reinforced w alls can therefore be
considered as structural m asonry w alls for horizontal
actions. The horizontal displacem ent of the reinforced
m asonry w alls for the design earthquake m ust not
exceed the ultim ate displacem ent capacity of the
stiffest i.e. longest, unreinforced m asonry w all.
This is necessary to ensure that the vertical load-
bearing capacity of the unreinforced m asonry w alls is
preserved.
BP 13 Reinforce structural masonry
walls to resist horizontal actions!
13/1 13/2 Reinforced m asonry requires special bricks, particularly to
incorporate and coat the vertical reinforcing bars. W orldw ide
developm ents in reinforcing system s and adequate bricks are under
w ay. The tw o pictures show new developm ents in the clay m asonry
industry (Sw itzerland 1998).
Reinforce structural
masonry walls to
resist horizontal actions!
Minimum reinforcement
Edge reinforcement
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
13
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
35
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
13/4 13/5 Vertical pre-stressing can also im prove the earthquake
behavior of m asonry w alls by substantially increasing the vertical
force (Sw itzerland 1996).
13/3 This type of vertical reinforcem ent is anchored at the top and
bottom w ith U -shaped bars extending in 2 brick layers. The bars
used to anchor the w alls to the slabs or low er w alls are very im por-
tant (Sw itzerland 1998).
36
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
Page 37
13/8 It is also necessary to consider the capacity requirem ent
perpendicular to the w all (out-of-plane). This applies in particular
to gable w alls (cantilever), to other m asonry w alls that are poorly
restrained against horizontal forces and, for stronger earthquakes,
also to w alls supporting slabs. H ere the w alls in the upper floor,
w hich carried only a sm all vertical load, failed out-of-plane (Lom a
Prieta 1989). Reinforcem ent, vertical pre-stressing, or glued on plates
can also prevent such failure.
13/6 The strength and ductility of m asonry w alls in existing
buildings can be im proved w ith carbon fiber or steel plate
reinforcem ents (Sw itzerland 1996).
13/7 The plates m ust be glued on carefully and anchored in the
slabs (Sw itzerland 1997).
38
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
14/1 H ere, the non-structural partition w alls w ere destroyed,
although the fram e structure deform ed only little and is hardly
dam aged. Even the w indow s rem ained intact (A rm enia 1988).
14/2 A nd here, a collapsed partition w all is sim ply rebuilt until the
next earthquake... (A dana-C eyhan, Turkey 1998).
Page 39
14/3 The glass facade of this new m ultistorey building survived a
strong earthquake alm ost w ithout loss, ow ing to special flexible
fastenings for the facade elem ents (Kobe, Japan 1995).
If deform ation-sensitive non-structural partition w alls
and facade elem ents (e.g. of m asonry) are incorporat-
ed into a horizontally soft structure (e.g. a fram e
structure) w ithout using joints, substantial dam age
m ay develop even for relatively w eak earthquakes.
Experience show s that in such cases a building m ust
som etim es be dem olished, even though the structure
suffered no substantial dam age. A m odern earthquake
resistant design m ust therefore m atch the stiffness of
the structure and the deform ation capacity of the
non-structural partition w alls and facade elem ents.
The interstory drift ratio (i.e. the interstorey drift, ,
divided by the interstorey height, h) and the vulnerabil-
ity of the non-structural elem ents are crucial. The
skillful selection and com bination of structural
and non-structural elem ents can prevent dam ages,
even for relatively strong earthquakes.
BP 14Match structural and non-structural elements!
Match structural and
non-structural elements!
Governing size:
Inter-storey
displacement
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
14
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
40
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
In flexible skeleton structures, it can be beneficial to
separate non-strucutral partition w alls from the
structure by soft joints. This is particularly true for
inplane stiff and brittle m asonry w alls.This w ay,
dam age occuring even for w eak earthquakes can be
prevented. The joints run along colum ns, structural
w alls, and slabs, or beam s and m ust be filled by a very
flexible soundproof m aterial, e.g. boards of soft
rubber. Styrofoam , cork, etc. are too stiff in this case.
The necessary joint thickness (typically 20 to 40 m m )
depends on the stiffness of the structure and the
deform ation sensitivity of the partition w alls as w ell as
the desired protection level (dam age lim it state
earthquake < design earthquake) [D 0171]. G enerally
the partition w alls m ust also be secured against out-
of-plane actions (plate effect), e.g. by support angles.
BP 15 In skeleton structures, separate non-structural
masonry walls by joints!
Rubber
1040 mm
In skeleton
structures,
separate
non-structural
masonry walls
by joints!
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
15
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
15/1 H ere a vertical joint separates the m asonry w all and the
reinforced concrete colum n, but it is probably m uch too thin
(Sw itzerland 1994).
41
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
15/2 The joints thickness here a horizontal joint betw een a
m asonry w all and a slab and the capacity of the support angles
(bolts) m ust be m atched to the deform ation of the structure and
the capacity dem and for the desired protection level (dam age lim it
state earthquake) (Sw itzerland 1994).
15/3 This joint betw een a m asonry w all and a reinforced concrete
structural w all w as filled by expanded polystyrene boards. But
Styrofoam is too stiff for earthquake displacem ents; soft rubber
w ould be a m ore suitable m aterial (Sw itzerland 1994).
42
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
16/1 The diagonal cracks and shear failures in the short colum ns of
a m ulti-storey car park alm ost caused collapse (N orthridge, C alifornia
1994).
The shear failure of so-called short colum ns is a
frequent cause of collapse during earthquakes.
It concerns squat colum ns, i.e. colum ns that are
relatively thick com pared to their height, and are often
fixed in strong beam s or slabs. Slender colum ns can
be turned into short colum ns by the addition of
parapet infills in fram e structures (unintentionally
shortened colum ns).
C olum ns under horizontal actions in fram e structures
m ay be stressed up to their plastic m om ent capacity
(plastification or failure m om ent). In the case of short
colum ns w ith considerable bending capacity, an
enorm ous m om ent gradient and thus a large shear
force results. This often leads to a shear failure before
reaching the plastic m om ent capacity. Short colum ns
should therefore be avoided. A n alternative is to
design and detail the colum ns in accordance w ith the
rules of capacity design, w hereby the shear capacity
m ust be increased to account for the overstrength of
the vertical reinforcem ent [Ba 02] [PP 92].
BP 16 Avoid short columns!


Avoid short columns!
Enormous
moment gradient
shear failure!
Mpl
Mpl
l
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
16
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
43
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
16/3 Shear failure in the corner short colum n on the ground floor
led to near-failure of this com m ercial building (Erzican Turkey 1992).
16/2 H ere, the m asonry colum ns in the ground floor of a restaurant
behaved as short colum ns. They w ere highly dam aged by diagonal
cracks (U m bria, Italy 1997).
44
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
17/2 To the left of the destroyed colum n there used to be a w indow
opening sim ilar to the one on the far left of the picture. The already
dem olished m asonry w all under the w indow opening behaved like a
partial infill w all. It m oved to the right, pushed against the colum n
and sheared it off.
17/3 Better transverse reinforcem ent in the colum n (sm all spaced
hoops and ties) w ould probably have prevented the shear failure.
H ow ever, the source of the problem lies in the partial infilling of the
fram e that caused the short colum n phenom enon (lzm it, Turkey
1999).
The infill of parapet w alls into a fram e structure w ithout
the addition of joints can cause short colum n phenom e-
na (see previous basic principle). Shear failure occurs,
or in cases of sufficient shear strength a sw ay
m echanism develops w ith possibly significant second
order effects (P--Effect).
17/1 In this case, inserting parapet w alls into a fram e led to a short
colum n phenom enon. O w ing to the good confinem ent of the
transverse reinforcem ent, no actual shear failure occurred, but an
equally dangerous sw ay m echanism developed (Friaul, Italy 1976).
BP 17 Avoid partially infilled frames!
Avoid partially infilled frames!
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
17
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
45
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
17/6 A possibility to avoid or strongly reduce the unfavourable
effect of infill parapet w alls into fram es, is the addition of joints
betw een the infill w all and colum ns. The joint w as realized correctly,
since it is filled by a soft and therefore strongly com pactible rock
w ool sheet. H ow ever, the w idth only perm its a 1% free lateral drift
ratio of the colum n (Sw itzerland 2001).
17/4 H ere too, inserting m asonry w alls and long w indow openings
caused high additional stresses and colum n failure. The relatively
good behavior of the m assive colum n to the right in the picture con-
tributed to the fact that the building narrow ly escaped collapse.
17/5 This colum n illustrates unsatisfactory detailing (hoops w ith 90
instead of 135hooks, com pare w ith BP 25). W ithout the unfavorable
effect of the infill w alls it w ould how ever have behaved m uch better
(lzm it, Turkey 1999).
46
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
18/1 D iagonal elem ents w ith broad flange cross sections have
buckled about their w eak axis...
18/2 and have broken (Kobe, Japan 1995).
For the bracing of builidings, in particular industrial
buildings, steel truss system s can be used. It m ust
how ever, be carefully thought out and designed.
The com m on truss bracing w ith centre connections
and slender diagonal m em bers m ay show a very
unfavourable behavior under cyclic actions. The diago-
nals yield under tension, lengthen m ore w ith each
cycle and end up buckling under com pression. U nder
repeated cyclic m ovem ents, the stiffness of the truss
becom es very sm all at the zero deform ation point.
This, com bined w ith dynam ic effects, can contribute to
the failure of the structure. Such bracing m ust there-
fore only be designed for elastic behaviour, or if
necessary very low ductility. It is advisable m oreover to
check com patibility betw een the deform ations of the
bracing and those of the other structural and
non-structural elem ents. This can indicate the need for
m ore stiff bracing or other bracing system s, such as
w alls. Steel truss system s w ith eccentric connections
and com pact m em bers behave m uch better than
trusses w ith centre connections and slender m em bers
[Ba 02].
BP 18 Design diagonal steel bracing carefully!
Design diagonal
steel bracing carefully!
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
18
47
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
18/3 This truss structure also suffered buckling of truss elem ents and
m any local dam ages (Kobe, Japan, 1995).
48
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
19/1 This steel fram e suffered large perm anent deform ations. There
w as probably no lateral bracing and the connection detailing w as
inadequate for cyclic actions (Kobe, Japan 1995).
19/2 The bolts failed in this beam to colum n connection (Kobe,
Japan 1995).
Steel generally possesses a good plastic deform ation
capacity (strain ductility). N evertheless steel m em bers
and steel structures m ay show low ductility or even
brittle behavior under cyclic actions, particularly due to
local instabilities and failures. For exam ple elem ents
w ith broad flanges (colum ns and beam s) m ay buckle in
plastic zones or fail at w elds. Therefore, certain
requirem ents m ust be com plied w ith and addtitional
m easures m ust be considered during the conceptual
design of the structure and the selection of the
m em bers cross sections [Ba 02] [EC 8].
BP 19 Design steel structures to be ductile!
Design steel
structures to
be ductile!
Critical zones
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
19
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zrich
19/5 19/6 There is a w ide crack at the bottom of this m ain fram e
colum n in a m ulti-storey steel building (to the right in the upper
picture). Possible causes include the high cyclic norm al loads, the
high strain rate m aterial defects, w eld defects, and therm al stresses
(Kobe, Japan 1995).
19/3 This picture show s the failure of a typical fram e connection.
The w elding betw een the colum n and the beam failed, resulting in a
w ide crack (Kobe, Japan 1995).
19/4 The rectangular colum n of this 3-storey fram e structure suf-
fered local buckling at its foot. The resulting cracking of the coating
w hite paint is visible (Kobe, Japan 1995).
49
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
50
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
20/1 The pounding of tw o sim ilar buildings w ith floors at the sam e
levels caused dam age to the faades as w ell as spalling etc. to the
structure (M exico 1985).
Pounding and ham m ering of adjacent buildings can
cause substantial dam age, if not collapse. The threat
of collapse is greatest w hen the floor slabs of adjacent
buildings are at different levels and hit against the
colum ns of the neighbouring building. In such cases
the joints m ust conform w ith the relevant design rules.
This im plies the follow ing:
1) the joints m ust have a certain m inim um w idth
(specified in the building codes)
2) the joints m ust be em pty (no contact points)
In order to enable free oscillations and avoid im pact
betw een adjacent buildings, it is often necessary to
have a substantial joint w idth. A s long as the structural
elem ents do not lose their load bearing capacity at
pounding, other solutions are also possible [EC 8].
BP 20 Separate adjacent buildings by joints!
Separate adjacent
buildings by joints!
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
20
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
51
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
20/3 The m odern reinforced concrete building to the left collapsed
after pounding against the older very stiff building to the right
(M exico 1985).
20/4 The collapsed building w as an extension of the older building
to the left. Either the joint w idth w as insufficient or the buildings
w ere not connected properly. D uring the earthquake, the older
building pounded against the new one and caused its collapse
(Kobe, Japan 1995).
20/2 Substantial dam age resulted from the pounding of these tw o,
very different, buildings (M exico 1985).
52
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
21/1 In order to allow building w ings oriented orthogonally to each
other to oscillate independently, they should be separated by a
sufficiently w ide and com pressible joint.
W hen designing a building, it is im portant to visualise
the dynam ic behaviour of the structure as realistically
as possible. In this L-shaped building, the stiffnesses of
the tw o w ings, respective to each principal direction,
are very different. The tw o w ings w ill tend to oscillate
very differently but w ill also hinder each other. This
leads to large additional stresses, particularly at the
corners of the floor slabs and at the end of each w ing,
and m ay necessitate heavy structural m easures. The
problem can be avoided by separating the tw o w ings
by a joint respecting relevant seism ic design rules.
The result is tw o com pact rectangular buildings that
are dynam ically independent.
BP 21 Favour compact plan configurations!
Favour compact plan configurations!
unfavourable better
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
21
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
22/1 A corner area of this building collapsed. The slabs consisted
only of precast elem ents w ithout reinforced concrete cover and
w ithout reinforced connections to the vertical load bearing elem ents
(A rm enia 1988).
In m ulti-storey buildings the floor slabs m ust be nearly
rigid diaphragm s. They m ust be properly connected to
all the gravity load bearing elem ents to act as section
shape preservers (diaphragm s). The slabs have to
ensure that all the vertical elem ents contribute to the
lateral resistance. They distribute the seism ic forces and
displacem ents betw een the various vertical structural
elem ents according to their individual stiffness.
Slabs m ade of prefabricated elem ents are not recom -
m ended. If this solution is adopted, the floor elem ents
m ust be covered w ith adequately cast in place
reinforced concrete of sufficient thickness. M onolithic
reinforced concrete slabs w ith eventual additional
boundary reinforcem ent bars are m uch better suited to
act as diaphragm s.
53
BP 22 Use the slabs to tie in the elements and
distribute the forces!
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities




Use the slabs to tie in
the elements and distribute the forces!
unfavourable better
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
22
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
54
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
22/2 22/3 In these houses also, the slabs consisted only of precast
elem ents, w hich w ere insufficiently connected betw een each other
and w ith the w alls (A rm enia 1988).
55
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
D uctile (i.e. w ith large inelastic deform ation capacity)
structures usually offer substantial advantages in com -
parison to sim ilar brittle structures. M ost im portantly,
the required structural resistance can be reduced
bringing substantial savings and increased safety
against collapse. W henever possible the structure of a
building should be designed to be ductile. This is also
appropriate w here the structural resistance for other
reasons is so large that the design earthquake can be
accom m odated w ithin the elastic capacity range of the
structure. In this case, it is im portant because real
earthquakes do not read the codes (T. Paulay) and
m ay be substantially stronger than the design earth-
quake and bring the structure in its inelastic dom ain.
The capacity design m ethod offers a sim ple and
efficient approach to ductile structural design:
The structure is told exactly w here it can and should
plastify, and w here not. H ence, a favourable plastic
m echanism is created. A large and predictable degree
of protection against collapse can be achieved by good
capacity design [PP 92] [Ba 02].
BP 23 Ductile structures through capacity design!
Ductile structures through capacity design!
Fragile
structure
Ductile
structure
Failure
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
23
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
23/1 Static-cyclic tests on the low er part of 1:2 scale 6-storey
reinforced concrete structural w alls have clearly dem onstrated the
effectiveness of a ductile design [D a 99]. The capacity designed w alls
achieved, at little additional cost, a seism ic capacity 3 to 4 tim es
larger than that of w alls conventionally designed according to the
Sw iss building code SIA 162.
56
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
In reinforced concrete structures the reinforcing steel
m ust enable the developm ent of sufficiently large and
deform able plastic zones. Tw o param eters (ductility
properties) are crucial to ensure this:
strain hardening ratio R
m
/R
e
, i.e. the ratio betw een
the m axim um tensile stress R
m
and the yield stress R
e
total elongation at m axim um tensile stress A
gt
The strain hardening ratio is also very im portant for the
buckling resistance of reinforcem ent bars in com -
pression. The sm aller R
m
/R
e
, the low er the buckling
resistance [TD 01].
In Europe a large part of the reinforcing steel available
on the m arket has insufficient ductility properties, in
particular for the sm aller bars w ith diam eters up to 16
m m [BW 98]. In order to ensure that reinforced
concrete structures reach an m edium ductility, it is
necessary that the reinforcing steel fulfils the follow ing
m inim um requirem ents (fractile values):
R
m
/R
e
1.15
A
gt
6 %
D esignations such as reinforcing steel in accordance
w ith SIA building code 162 or fulfils the building
code requirem ents or ductile or very ductile etc.
are insufficient and m isleading because the current
building codes are them selves insufficient. It is
therefore highly recom m ended that clear requirem ents
are issued at the tim e of the invitation to tender and
that suitable tests are m ade before the purchase and
im plem entation of the reinforcing bars.
BP 24 Use ductile reinforcing steel with R
m
/R
e
1.15
and A
gt
6 %!


Use ductile
reinforcing steel
with:
R
m
/R
e
1.15
and A
gt
6 %!
strain hardening ratio
total elongation at
maximum tensile stress
Elongation [%]
S
t
r
e
s
s

[
M
P
a
]
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
24
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
Hysteretic Behaviour of Static-Cyclic Test Walls
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
m
)
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
m
)
Horizontal top deflection (mm)
Horizontal top deflection (mm)
A
c
t
u
a
t
o
r

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
A
c
t
u
a
t
o
r

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
24/1
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zrich
24/1 These plastic hysteresis-curves of 2 different 6-storey reinforced
concrete structural w alls w ith (W SH 3) and w ithout (W SH 1) ductile
reinforcing steel clearly illustrate the difference in behaviour. The w all
w ith low ductility barely achieved a displacem ent ductility of

=
~
2,
w hile the ductile w all achieved

=
~
6. The ductile w all can therefore
survive an earthquake approxim ately 4 tim es stronger!
57
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
24/2 In this test w all, w ith reinforcem ent bars w ith insufficient strain
hardening ratio R
m
/R
e
, the plastic deform ations w ere concentrated at a
single crack (one-crack hinge according to [BW 98]). The reinforce-
m ent bars ruptured inside the w all (x) early in the test. This w eakened
the relevant section and concentrated the subsequent plastic deform a-
tions in it, causing the rupture of bars located at the edge of the w all.
The w all barely reached a displacem ent ductility

=
~
2 after 2 cycles
[D W 99].
24/3 24/4 The failure of the reinforcem ent bars having a relatively
low R
m
/R
e
value w as initiated by their buckling in com pression (left)
follow ed after a load reversal, by rupture in tension (right).
The rupture occurred w here the reinforcem ent bars had experienced
the largest buckling curvature [D W 99].
58
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
25/1 In this colum n of an industrial building m ade of precast
reinforced concrete elem ents, the hoops w ere too w idely spaced and
insufficiently anchored w ith only 90hooks. They consequently
opened, allow ing the vertical reinforcem ent to buckle (A dapazari,
Turkey 1999).
25/2 The hoops anchorage at the foot of this colum n in a fram e
structure also failed because the hoops only had 90 hooks (Turkey,
lzm it 1999).
Page 59
25/3 This transverse reinforcem ent hoops and ties at the edge of
a reinforced concrete structural w all is exem plary concerning anchor-
age w ith 135 hooks. H ow ever, the vertical spacing of the transverse
reinforcem ent is too large, i.e. s = 7.5d instead of s 5d as required
for steel w ith a relatively sm all strain hardening ratio (R
m
/R
e
= 1,15)
[D W 99][TD 01].
W ithin cyclically stressed plastic zones of reinforced
concrete structural w alls and colum ns, the concrete
cover spalls w hen the elastic lim it of the reinforcem ent
is exceeded. In these zones it is therefore necessary to
stabilise the vertical bars against buckling and to con-
fine the concrete to allow greater com pressive strains.
The stabilising and confining transverse reinforcem ent
(hoops and ties) m ust be anchored w ith 135 hooks.
D am aging earthquakes have repeatedly illustrated that
90 hooks are insufficient. The spacing of the trans-
verse reinforcem ent m ust be relatively sm all s 5d
(d = diam eter of the stabilised bar). This is a conse-
quence of the relatively poor ductility properties (sm all
strain hardening ratio R
m
/R
e
) of European reinforcing
steel, w hich result in an unfavourable buckling behav-
iour [TD 01].
Sim ilar rules apply to the plastic zones in fram e
structures [Ba 02].
W ithin the zones that are to rem ain elastic according
to the capacity design m ethod it is sufficient to apply
the conventional design rules.
BP 25 Use transverse reinforcement with 135 hooks and
spaced at s 5d in structural walls and columns!
Use transverse
reinforcement
with 135 hooks
and spaced
at s 5d in
structural walls
and columns!
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
25
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
60
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
26/1 This w ell designed earthquake w all has been com pletely
ruined by recesses placed in the form w ork, careless creation of
openings and brutal cutting of the reinforcem ent bars.
26/2 Expensive repair w ork, consisting of refilling the openings w ith
expansive concrete and gluing steel plates restored the designed
ultim ate resistance of the w all. H ow ever, it is alm ost im possible
to fully recover the ductile behaviour obtainable w ith the original
reinforcem ent (Sw itzerland 2001).
O n som e building sites there is a tendency to create
recesses in the structure for services, air ducts etc.,
or even larger openings for other purposes, w ithout
consulting the civil engineer. These recesses and
openings are often inserted into the form w ork of
reinforced concrete elem ents or even jack ham m ered
after concreting. The repercussions are particularly
serious w hen the openings are located in plastic zones.
It is necessary to avoid this practice because it can lead
to the prem ature failure of carefully designed critical
structural elem ents and therefore to serious safety
problem s.
O n the other hand, it is generally possible to place
recesses and even larger openings in the elastic zones
of the structure. The recesses and openings m ust be
w ell planned and positioned, and the reinforcem ent
around them m ust be strengthened eventually based
on a fram e calculation [D 0171].
BP 26 No openings or recesses in plastic zones!
No openings or
recesses in plastic zones!
prohibited!
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
26
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
26/3 H ere, an excessively large hole w as created and the reinforce-
m ent w as brutally cut. H ad the engineer been consulted the pipes
could have been grouped and a m uch sm aller hole could perhaps
have been created w ithout w eakening the reinforcem ent.
26/4 H ow ever, it w as possible to repair the dam age to a certain
extent and, in contrast to the preceding case (p. 60), to restore som e
of the planned behaviour (Sw itzerland 2001).
61
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
26/5 This type of unplanned insertion of pipes can also im pair the
seism ic behaviour of a reinforced concrete structural w all
(Sw itzerland 2001).
26/6 U nder certain conditions, it is perm issible to insert openings in
elastic zones of earthquake relevant structural elem ents (here a
slender reinforced concrete structural w all). C areful planning w ith the
engineer is essential (Sw itzerland 2001).
62
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
The connections in prefabricated buildings are often
designed for construction gravity loads only. Such
buildings can therefore be very vulnerable to earth-
quakes. Short support lengths, w eak or m issing
dow els, and unsatisfactory overturning restraints of
girders are frequently the cause of collapse. Therefore,
m obile bearings m ust have a m inim um support length
(b
m in
) in accordance w ith the seism ic building codes,
and fixed bearings m ust have dow els designed for the
forces accounting for the overstrength of the plastic
zones (capacity design m ethod). A dditionally, the
beam s m ust usually be secured against lateral
overturning m ovem ent. In case of prefabricated floors
adequately reinforced concrete cast in place m ust
cover and connect the floor elem ents in order to
guarantee a diaphragm action (see also BP 22).
BP 27 Secure connections in prefabricated buildings!
Secure connections in
prefabricated buildings!
Mobile
bearing
Dowel
In addition:
secure against lateral buckling
Fixed
bearing
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
27
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
27/1 The dow els on the colum n corbels of this prefabricated factory
building did not provide sufficient stability. The support area failed
and the m ain beam s overturned (in the direction of the longitudinal
axis of the building)...
27/2 and the entire roof structure collapsed (A dana-C eyhan,
Turkey 1998).
Page 63
27/3 The consequences of bad planning and insufficient design and
detailing of a prefabricated industrial building (A dapazari, Turkey 1999).
64
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
To ensure that seism ic forces can be transferred to the
soil it is advisable to study the force path in the
foundation structure. The allow able soil stresses under
dynam ic action m ay be higher than the corresponding
static stresses, but care should be taken to ensure that
plastic deform ations of the soil are avoided under all
circum stances [SK 97].
28/1 H ere soil anchors w ere installed to prevent the lift off of the
ductile reinforced concrete shear w alls (Sw itzerland 1999).
The ability of the foundation structure to bear the
seism ic actions is im portant for the overall earthquake
resistance of the building. U sually, cantilever w alls, as
w ell as fram e colum ns, rest on one or m ore basem ent
storeys (rigid box) or on a m assive raft. A ccording to
the principles of the capacity design m ethod, the foun-
dations should be able to transfer the overstrength
sectional forces of the plastic zones to the ground
w ithout yielding [PB 90] [PP 92]. Foundation structures
should alw ays rem ain elastic since plastic deform ations
generally lead to an unpredictable behaviour and
additional displacem ents and stresses in the building
structure. Besides, repairs are usually substantially
m ore difficult to execute in the foundation than in the
building structure. The reinforcem ent m ust therefore
be strengthened directly below the plastic zones and
detailed accordingly [D 0171].
W hen the foundation structure form s a rigid box m ade
up of reinforced concrete w alls and slabs, it should be
checked that the path of com pression, shear, and
tensile forces can be transferred from the plastic zones
of the structural w alls through the slabs to the exterior
w alls and to the raft. It m ay be necessary to reinforce
these structural elem ents (accounting for possible
recesses and openings) and to increase locally the
depth of the raft and to account for a local increase in
bearing pressure acting on the soil beneath the w alls.
BP 28 Protect foundations through capacity design!
Protect foundations
through
capacity design!
Overstrength
sectional forces
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
28
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
29/1 A t the site of a building w ith planned base isolation
(m ounted on special earthquake bearings) the grounds predom inant
eigenfrequency m easured in nearby drill holes w as 0.65 to 0.85 H z,
w hich corresponds to an eigenperiod from 1.2 to 1.5 s.
The developm ent of a site specific response spectrum show ed that
the acceleration in this period range w as substantially higher than
that of the relevant building code spectrum . H ence this spectrum
w as raised and for a period greater than T=1.5 s a constant displace-
m ent w as assum ed. In order to elim inate the possibility of resonance
and to m inim ize accelerations, a target eigenperiod of T
0
=
~
3s
(f
0
=
~
0.33 H z) w as selected in the seism ic design w ith base isolators
(Sw itzerland 2000).
In certain soils, the local ground m otion param eters
and structural response m ay differ substantially from
the values obtained w ith the design response spectrum
of the building codes. This can be the case:
in soft soils w ith a shear w ave velocity less than
approxim ately 200 m /s, and/or w ith large thicknesses
of soil layers
in certain valleys w ith alluvial or glacial sedim ents
(depth to w idth ratio greater than ~ 0.2).
generally in cases of suspected resonance betw een
soil and building
U nder such conditions, the ground is likely to experi-
ence strong vibrations even for a m oderate earthquake
(significant am plification of the ground shaking from
the bedrock to the surface). In such cases, it is neces-
sary to perform a site specific investigation, especially
for im portant buildings. If no m icrozonation study has
been conducted yet, it is necessary to determ ine the
grounds predom inant eigenfrequency and to develop
the design response spectrum valid for the local soils
param eters and layer thicknesses (acceleration and
displacem ent spectrum ).
65
BP 29 Develop a site specific response spectrum!
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
Develop a site
specific
response spectrum!
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
29
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
Site specific response spectrum
Lutzelhof site
EC 8, soil class B
EC 8, soil class A
EC 8, reduced for rock
Period (s)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
29/1
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
66
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
30/1 This building sank evenly about 1 m due to soil liquefaction.
The displaced soil caused a bulge in the road (Izm it, Turkey 1999).
30/2 This inclined building sank unevenly and leans against a neigh-
bouring building (Turkey, lzm it 1999).
C ertain sandy or silty soils saturated w ith w ater can
display a sufficient static load-bearing capacity. H ow ev-
er, w hen vibrated, such as during an earthquake, they
w ill suddenly behave like a liquid. Entire buildings or
sections thereof m ay sink, or tilt if the soil is inhom o-
geneous or unequally liquefied, often leading to total
collapse. Sandy or silty soils m ust therefore be studied
for their liquefaction potential. C ounter m easures such
as consolidation by injections, pile foundations etc.
can be necessary.
BP 30 Assess the potential for soil liquefaction!
Assess the potential for soil liquefaction!
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
30
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
30/4 This tank also tilted due to the liquefaction of the sandy
artificial landfill (Kobe, Japan 1995).
30/3 This solid building tilted as a rigid body and the raft foundation
rises above ground. The building itself suffered only relatively m inor
dam age (A dapazari, Turkey 1999).
67
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
68
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
31/2 Seism ic high dam ping rubber bearings (60 cm diam eter, 30 cm
high) w ere incorporated into the eight reinforced concrete colum ns.
W hen designing the seism ic im provem ent of existing or
planned buildings, m any architects and civil engineers
think of strengethening them , i.e. increasing their lateral
resistance. A strengthening alw ays stiffens the building,
thereby raising the eigenfrequencies. U nder certain condi-
tions how ever, it m ay prove m ore beneficial to soften a
structure rather than to strengthen/stiffen it [Ba 01]. By
installing special horizontal relatively soft seism ic bearings
above the foundation (base isolation), a frequency shift
tow ards the low er area of the design response spectrum
can be achieved. A s a result, and because dam ping is
usually also increased, a significant reduction of the seism ic
forces and thereby the dam age potential is achieved.
H ow ever, relative displacem ents increase notably, w hich
requires sufficient clearance around the isolated buildings.
In addition service pipes m ust be sufficiently flexible.
BP 31 Softening may be more beneficial than
strengthening!
Softening may be
more beneficial than
strengthening!
Softening Strengthening
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
Frequency
Frequency
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
31
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
31/1 A softening strategy w as im plem ented to seism ically im prove
this 700 t liquid gas industrial tank carried by a reinforced concrete
structure (Sw itzerland 1999).
Page 69
31/3 The acceleration and displacem ent design response spectra
illustrate the com bined effect of the reduction of the fundam ental
frequency to ~0.5 H z and of the increase in dam ping.

Prof. Hugo Bachmann
ibk ETH Zrich
Frequency (Hz)
Site specific response spectrum = 5%
Site specific response spectrum = 8%
Spectrum for medium-stiff soil according to SIA 160 = 5%
Frequency (Hz)
Increase in damping
Frequency shifted due to base isolation
Increase in damping
Frequency shifted due to base isolation
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
S
2
)
Design spectra for industrial tank
70
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
32/1 The structure of this building did not collapse, but heavy and
insufficiently anchored facade panels fell to the ground (Kobe, Japan
1995).
32/2 These light concrete panels, cladding an only slightly dam aged
steel structure, w ere also destroyed (Kobe, Japan 1995).
The facade elem ents anchoring is frequently designed
for vertical gravity loads only. O ften facade elem ents
sim ply rest on corbels and are lightly fixed at the top.
D uring earthquakes, the friction from the dead loads
can be overcom e by horizontal and vertical accelera-
tions. The collapse of facade elem ents and the
resulting threat to pedestrians, vehicles, etc. becom es
inevitable. The facade elem ents anchoring m ust
therefore be designed and detailed not only for gravity
loads but also for horizontal cyclic forces (tension /
com pression). A dditionally, the anchorages and
possible connections betw een the facade elem ents
should be able to follow the expected deform ations
of the structure.
BP 32 Anchor facade elements against horizontal forces!
Anchor facade
elements against
horizontal forces!
insufficient better
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
32
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
71
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
32/3 This facade cladding w as insufficiently anchored and could not
follow the deform ations of the reinforced concrete fram e structure
(N orthridge, C alifornia 1994).
32/4 A glance into this side street reveals a vast am ount of fallen
facade m aterials. Rescue w ork, fire trucks access, etc. is seriously
ham pered (Kobe, Japan 1995).
72
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
33/2 and the cornice and parapet dam aged the overhanging
roof panel w hen they fell (Lom a Prieta, C alifornia 1989).
33/3 C antilever w alls not anchored in the foundation can tip over
(Kobe, Japan, 1995).
A n overturning m om ent occurs under rapid horizontal
displacem ents and corresponding inertia forces. U nless
they are adequately anchored or fixed, slender
elem ents m ay tip over.
33/1 This neo-classic reinforced concrete building did not suffer
large dam age and even the w indow -panes rem ained intact. H ow ev-
er, the parapet on the roof terrace turned over
BP 33 Anchor free standing parapets and walls!
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
33
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
Anchor free
standing parapets
and walls!
Horizontal
seismic force
Overturning
moment
Page 73
33/4 These dry stone garden w alls also turned over (N orthridge,
C alifornia, 1994).
74
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
The fall of suspended ceilings and light fittings can
present a serious danger to people. A s w ell as the
dead load, the connections m ust be able to safely carry
the forces from vertical and horizontal accelerations
and vibrations. The sam e applies to the fixings of air
ducts and service pipes of all kinds, w hich are installed
betw een suspended ceilings and structural floor slabs.
BP 34 Fasten suspended ceilings and light fittings!
Fasten suspended
ceilings and
light fittings!
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
34
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
34/2 that hang from thin w ires only constitute a safety threat to
people (N orthridge, C alifornia 1994).
34/3 34/4 Poorly fastened light fittings, such as these, can fall and
endanger people (San Fernando, C alifornia 1971).
34/1 Suspended ceilings and ceiling panels
75
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
35/2 C ontainers and m achines can tilt if they are not sufficiently
anchored (Kobe, Japan 1995).
35/3 In this chem istry laboratory, unsecured glass containers broke
w hen they fell from the table and through open cabinet doors (San
Fernando, C alifornia 1971).
It is very im portant to guarantee the integrity of installa-
tions and equipm ent that m ust rem ain operational after a
strong earthquake, including equipm ent outside the
building, on roofs etc. This concerns prim arily lifeline
structures w hich are vital for rescue operations and recov-
ery (buildings of class III according to SIA 160), such as hos-
pitals, m ain pharm acies, fire-fighting facilities, operational
com m and centres, com m unication installations etc. It can
also include industrial facilities w hose business interruption
w ould cause significant financial losses. A ll installations
and equipm ents such as pipelines, w ater fire sprinklers,
laboratory instrum ents, containers, cabinets, shelving units
etc. and if necessary also production lines m ust be system -
atically exam ined for seism ic adequacy. If necessary they
m ust be secured by m eans of suitable fixings or bracings.
35/1 Pipelines especially of large diam eter are very vulnerable unless
they are adequately fastened (San Fernando, C alifornia 1971).
BP 35 Fasten installations and equipment!
Fasten installations
and equipment!
Basic principles for the seismic design of buildings
35
Prof. Hugo Bachmann ibk ETH Zurich
76
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
35/6 Because books represent a considerable m ass, strong anchor-
age and bracing of the shelves in both m ain directions is necessary
(W hittier N arrow s, C alifornia 1987).
35/4 Filing cabinets can tip over, particularly if the draw ers are not
secured (M organ H ill, C alifornia 1984).
35/5 O pen bookshelves em pty them selves at each strong earth-
quake. Valuable books can be secured by the use of retaining bars or
inclined shelves (Lom a Prieta, C alifornia 1989).
35/7 W ell-secured battery groups and em ergency pow er generators
can guarantee a pow er supply, even after a strong earthquake
(C alifornia 1980).
77
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
35/9 A nd even storage fram es for w ine barrels can be tested on an
earthquake sim ulator (shaking table) (Berkeley 2000).
35/8 These valuable bottles in a liquor store w ere secured by
spring w ires (C alifornia 1978).
78
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
The photographs and figures com e from the follow ing
persons and institutions:
W alter A m m ann, D avos: 11/2, 20/1, 20/2, 20/3
H ugo Bachm ann, Zrich: Schem atic figure 1 and 3 to
35, E/1, E/2, 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 2/2, 4/9, 4/10, 6/1, 7/1, 8/1,
8/2, 9/1, 9/3, 9/4, 10/1, 12/1, 12/2, 12/3, 12/4, 12/5,
15/1, 15/2, 15/3, 17/6, 21/1, 25/1, 26/1, 26/3, 26/5,
26/6, 27/3, 31/3
M arc Badoux, Lausanne: 30/1
A lessandro D azio, San D iego C A : C over photograph
w ith rebars, 9/2, 23/1, 24/1, 24/2, 24/3, 24/4, 25/3
M artin Koller, C arouge: 28/1, 29/1
Pierino Lestuzzi, Lausanne: 4/2, 4/3, 11/3, 11/4, 17/2,
17/3, 17/4, 17/5, 25/2, 30/2
Eberhard Luz, Stuttgart: 14/1, 22/1, 22/2, 22/3
Roland M adry, Basel: 31/1
Paul M issbauer, Sion: 31/2
Kaspar Peter, Lausanne: 14/2
M eta Sozen, Illinois: 30/3
D ieter W epf, Flaw il: 11/1, 16/3
Thom as W enk, Zrich: C over phtograph w ith build-
ings, shem atic figure 2, 4/4, 4/5, 4/6, 4/7, 4/8, 5/2,
5/3, 6/2, 6/3, 6/4, 6/5, 6/6, 13/6, 13/7, 14/3, 16/2,
27/1, 27/2, 30/4, 32/1, 32/4
A rchitectural Institute of Japan: 5/1, 18/1, 18/2, 18/3,
19/1, 19/2, 19/3, 19/4, 19/5, 19/6, 20/4, 32/2, 32/3,
33/3
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, O akland
C A : C over photograph w ith pipes, 16/1, 32/3, 33/1,
33/2, 33/4, 34/1, 34/2, 34/3, 34/4, 35/1, 35/2, 35/3,
35/4, 35/5, 35/6, 35/7, 35/8
Losinger A G , Lyssach BE: 13/4, 13/5
M unich Re G roup: Schem atic figure E/3
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research C enter,
Berkeley C A : 35/9
Sw iss brick industry, Zrich: 13/1, 13/2, 13/3
Stahlton A G , Zrich: 26/2, 26/4
N N .: 4/1, 13/8, 17/1
Illustration credits
79
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
[PB 90] Paulay T., Bachm ann H ., M oser K.:
Erdbebenbem essung von Stahlbeton-
hochbauten. Birkhuser Verlag Basel
Boston Berlin 1990.
[PP 92] Paulay T., Priestley M .J.N .: Seism ic D esign of
Reinforced C oncrete and M asonry Struc-
tures. John W iley & Sons, N ew York 1992.
[Sc 00] Schum acher R.: Zur rechtlichen Verantw or-
tung fr die Erdbebensicherung von Bauw -
erken . D ocum entation SG EB/SIA D 0162
Erdbebenvorsorge in der Schw eiz
M assnahm en bei neuen und bestehenden
Bauw erken, Socit suisse des ingnieurs et
architectes, Zurich 2000.
[SIA 160]SIA 160 (norm e): A ctions on Structures.
Sw iss society of engineers and architects,
Zurich 1989.
[SK 97] Studer J., Koller M .G .: Erdbebengerechter
Entw urf und Kapazittsbem essung eines
G ebudes m it Stahlbetontragw nden.
D ocum entation SG EB/SIA D 0171, Socit
suisse des ingnieurs et architectes, Zurich
2002.
[TD 01] Thiele K., D azio A ., Bachm ann H .:
Bew ehrungsstahl unter zyklischer
Beanspruchung. Institut fr Baustatik und
Konstruktion (IBK), ETH Zrich. Bericht N r.
264, Birkhuser Verlag Basel Boston Berlin
2001.
[Ba 02] Bachm ann H .: Erdbebensicherung von
Bauw erken. 2. A uflage. Birkhuser Verlag
Basel Boston Berlin 2002.
[Ba 01] Bachm ann H .: Softening as Seism ic
U pgrading Strategy Requirem ents and
C ase Studies. Proceedings 20th European
Regional Earthquake Engineering Sem inar
Sion, Septem ber 3-7, 2001. Sw iss Society for
Seism ic Engineering and Structural D ynam ics
SG EB, Sion 2001.
[BW 98] Bachm ann H ., W enk T.: U ngengende
D uktilitt beim Bew ehrungsstahl. Schw eizer
Ingenieur und A rchitekt, H eft 29, Juli 1998.
[D W 99] D azio A ., W enk T., Bachm ann H .: Versuche
an Stahlbetontragw nden unter zyklisch-sta-
tischer Einw irkung. Institut fr Baustatik
und Konstruktion (IBK), ETH Zrich. Bericht
N r. 239, Birkhuser Verlag Basel Boston
Berlin 1999.
[D 0150] Bachm ann H ., D arbre G .R., D eichm ann N .,
Koller M .G ., Studer J., Tini S., Tissires P.,
W enk Th., W ieland M ., Zw icky P.: H and-
lungsbedarf von Behrden, H ochschulen,
Industrie und Privaten zur Erdbeben-
sicherung der Bauw erke in der Schw eiz.
D ocum entation SG EB/SIA D 0150, Socit
suisse des ingnieurs et architectes, Zurich
1998.
[D 0171] Bachm ann H ., D azio A ., Bruchez P., M ittaz
X., Peruzzi R., Tissires P.: Erdbeben-
gerechter Entw urf und Kapazittsbem essung
eines G ebudes m it Stahlbetontragw n-
den. D ocum entation SG EB/SIA D 0171,
Socit suisse des ingnieurs et architectes,
Zurich 2002.
[EC 8] Eurocode 8 (N orm ): D esign of structures for
earthquake resistance. N orm SIA
V160.811/812/813 as European prestandard
EN V 1998-1-1/-2/-3. Sw iss society of engi-
neers and architects, Zurich 1997.
[La 02] Lang K.: Seism ic Vulnerability of Existing
Buildings. Institut fr Baustatik und Kon-
struktion (IBK), ETH Zrich. Birkhuser Verlag
Basel Boston Berlin 2002.
[M R 00] M unich Re G roup: Topics 2000: N atural
C atastrophes The current position.
M nchener Rckversicherungs-G esellschaft.
M nchen 1999.
Bibliography
80
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
http://w w w .bw g.adm in.ch
Federal O ffice for W ater and G eology
C oordination C entre for Earthquake Risk M itigation
Lndtestrasse 20
C H -2501 Bienne
Sw itzerland
http://w w w .eda.adm in.ch
Federal D epartm ent of Foreign A ffairs
Sw iss A gency for D evelopm ent and C ooperation
Freiburgstrasse 30
C H -3003 Bern
Sw itzerland
http://w w w .uvek.adm in.ch
Federal D epartm ent of the Environm ent, Transport,
Energy and C om m unications
G eneralsekretariat U VEK
Kochergasse 10
C H -3003 Bern
Sw itzerland
http://w w w .ibk.baug.ethz.ch
Institute of Structural Engineering,
Structural D ynam ics and Earthquake Engineering
ETH H nggerberg
C H -8093 Zrich
http://seism o.ethz.ch/gshap/
G lobal Seism ic H azard A ssessm ent Program
http://w w w .eqnet.org
Earthquake Inform ation N etw ork
http://w w w .m unichre.com /pdf/topics_sh2000_e.pdf
M unich Re G roup
Topics 2000 : N atural catastrophes
The current position
http://w w w .eeri.org
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
http://w w w .w orld-housing.net/about/abouttp.asp
W orld H ousing Encyclopedia
Encyclopedia of H ousing C onstruction Types in
Seism ically Prone A reas
http://w w w .iaee.or.jp/
International A ssociation for Earthquake Engineering
Contacts / Links
81
Appendix
Basic principles for engineers, architects, building ow ners, and authorities
Global Seismic Hazard MAP
Produced by the Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP),
a demonstration project of the UN/International Decade of Natural Disaster Reduction, conducted by
the international Lithosphere Program.
Global map assembled by D. Giardini, G. Grnthal, K. Shedlock, and P. Zhang

You might also like