Seismic resilience of critical

infrastructures and communities. Mexico’s

experience after the September 2017
earthquakes. Lessons and opportunities.
A Gustavo Ayala Milián
Instituto de Ingeniería, UNAM, MEXICO

area for logos
Scope of Presentation
• BACKGROUND ON DISASTERS, 
• THE 2017 MEXICO CITY EARTHQUAKE EXPERIENCE 
• METHODS FOR THE SEISMIC EVALUATION AND DESIGN OF BUIDINGS
• DISPLACEMENT‐BASED SEISMIC DESIGN OF BUILDINGS
• EVOLUTION OF THE DISPLACEMENT‐BASED SEISMIC EVALUATION AND DESIGN OF 
BUIDINGS WITH A GENERAL RESILIENCE‐BASED METHOD
• GUIDELINES FOR RESILIENCE‐BASED SEISMIC DESIGN OF BUILDINGS
• CLOSING REMARKS

2020 2
Terminology
• Hazard: potential threat to people and the things they value; impact of an event on 
society and the environment. A  process, phenomenon or human activity that may 
cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, social and economic 
disruption or environmental degradation.
• Disaster:  a singular large scale or large impact event that causes great damage and 
human suffering; overwhelms local capacity necessitating national or international 
assistance. A serious disruption  of the functioning of a community or a society at any 
scale due to hazardous events interacting with conditions of exposure, vulnerability 
and capacity, leading to one or more of the following: human, material, economic and 
environmental losses and impacts. 
• Disaster Risk:  The potential loss of life, injury, or destroyed or damaged assets which 
could occur to a system, society or a community in a specific period of time, 
determined probabilistically as a function of hazard, exposure, vulnerability and 
capacity.

2020 3
Metheorological disasters

Atlántico desde  1851
Pacífico desde    1949

2020 4
Metheorological disasters

2020 5
 Seismological disasters

100 YEARS OF EARTHQUAKES IN MEXICO

100 earthquakes per year with magnitudes > 4.5,

3 earthquakes per year with magnitudes > 6.0
1 earthquake > 7.5 every 5 years.

2020 6
Seismological disasters

2020 7
Casualties
Event/Location Year M. # of  Deaths per Mil.  Deaths per Mil.
Deaths Country Region
Michoacán/ Mexico city 1985 8.1 40,000?
Northridge/ Los Angeles, CA 1994 6.8 57 CA   1.8 14
Hanshin Awaji/Kobe, Japan 1995 7.2 5,500 47 3,600
Hur. Katrina/Nueva Orleans, Gulf Cost 2005 ‐‐‐ 1.970 Reg 1,640 N.O.   3,092
Wenchuan, China 2008 7.9 90,000 66 3,900
Port au Prince, Haiti 2010 7.0 316,000 32,250 100,000
Maule, Chile 2010 8.8 526 31 41
Christchurch, New Zeland 2011 6.3 184 46 74
Great Eastern/Tohoku, Japan 2011 9.0 19,000 148 3,300
Hur. Sandy/New York, New Jersey 2012 ‐‐‐ 120 2 state  3 15
Morelos Axochiapan/Mexico 2017 7.1 462

High Casualties even where good Building Codes exist
2020 Courtesy from Mary Comerio 2019
Losses
Evento Location                        % GDP Estimated
losses
Great Eastern Tohoku, Japan                        1‐4% $300,000 Mill
Hur. Katrina New Orleans/Gulf  0.1% $150,000 Mill
Wenchuan China                                     1‐3% $150,000 Mill
Hanshin Awaji Kobe, Japan $89,000 Mill
Hur. Sandy New York/New Jersey $60,000+ Mill
Christchurch New Zeland 20% $40,000 Mill
Maule Chile                                      18% $30,000 Mill
Northridge Los Angeles $26,000 Mill
Port au Prince Haiti                                     100% $12,000 Mill
Michoacán Mexico                              2.1‐2.4% %11,500 Mill 
Morelos Axo. Mexico $2,500 Mill  

Low Loss Value ≠ Recovery Speed
2020 Courtesy from Mary Comerio 2019
Recovery
Event/Location Year Est. Years to
Recover
Michoacán/ Mexico city 1985
Northridge/ Los Angeles, CA 1994 2‐4
Wenchuan, China 2008 3‐4
Maule, Chile 2010 4‐5
Hanshin Awaji/Kobe, Japan 1995 7‐10
Hur. Katrina/New Orleans, Gulf Cost 2005 5‐20
Christchurch, New Zeland 2011 10‐20
Great Eastern/Tohoku, Japan 2011 10‐20
Hur. Sandy/New York, New Jersey 2012 10‐20
Port au Prince, Haiti 2010 Decadas
Morelos Axochiapan/Mexico city 2017 ???
Recovery speed is slowed by disruption to complex urban systems
and proportion of the building type or system closed
2020 Cortesy from Mary Comerio 2019
Sumary of the Impact
total cost– 40,000 millions pesos, 
(est. $2 billion US Cy)

2020 11
Collapsed buildings

Structural configuration Cases
Ground floor used as a shop or for parking 16

In‐plan and in‐height irregularities 6

Corner buildings 12

Flat slabs 7

Pounding 1

Falta de resistencia lateral y/o mantenimiento 10

Number of storeys 4 a 8 (26)

1 a 3 (6)

2020 12
Example of damaged buildings
Much has to be learnt from reviewing the reasons of structural damage:
Soft/weak storeys Corner buildings

Flat slabs Lack of stiffness

2020 13
Seismic Design Approaches
Current status: 
Seismic Design:
Two methods
Highly severe demands
Force‐based: analise response to a fictitious static
Failure redefined
force.
Construction details
Performance‐based: analise response to a target 
Basic fundamentals only in last century
ferformance

After 1908
Resilience‐
Before 1908  based
Energy‐ based
Messina earthquake
Consequence
and risk‐based
Performance
Force‐Based ‐based
Intuition‐based

2020
Performance-based approach
Two concepts, one method:
• In seismic performance evaluation one knows (or thinks to know!) the 
design of the structure and aims to calculate its performance under a 
given seismic demand.
• In performance based seismic design one knows the desired performance 
and the seismic demand  of the structure and aims to obtain its design

2020
Performance-based seismic design
Sa
Sa

T1 T1
T2

Sd Sd

2
10.0 Sa (m/s ) 2
 2 
m  2
8.0
 2  2
k T    T1 
SCT-EW (erep2) 2  
SCT-EW (ereo)
Sao / Sa2
k1  2   T2 
6.0 m 
Sa2 = (R/m)2 - (R/m)1  T1 
4.0

2.0 (T2, Sao ) 10.0

160 R
/ m (gals)
2
Sa (m/s )

R/m1
T (s) 140
(T2, Sa2 ) [T1, (R/m)1]
8.0
Sao / Sa1

 ,  , ,
0.0 120
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Sa1 = (R/m)1
  
100
6.0 (T1, Sao)
SCT-EW (erep1) 80

SCT-EW (ereo)
4.0
60

R R (T1, Sa1)

     1      1
40
2.0

 m 2  m 1
T (s) 20 T (seg)

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

2020 16
Performance-based seismic design

Credits: Ron Hamburger

2020
Seismic design current vs. resilience-based

2020 18
Resilience is the word of the day
• Broad Concept:
– The capacity of a community to survive, adapt and  grow, no 
matter what kind of chronic stress or acute  shock they 
experience. Seismic resilience is defined as the ability of a 
structure to recover from the effects of an earthquake to its 
original functionality state in the shortest possible time and 
with a minimum cost
• Buzzword:
– Every city, every government agency, every academic  wants to 
be seen “doing something about it”
• Components:
– Research
– Policy
2020 – Implementation
Seismic Resilience

• Seismic resilience considers community capabilities as they relate to effective 
preparation and mobilization before, during, and after an earthquake. 
• Structural design, on the other hand, is load dependent and does not 
consider recovery time. 
• Three words describe seismic resiliency: robustness, redundancy, and 
functionality recovery. Ultimately, blending robustness, redundancy and 
recovery characteristics will satisfy society objectives.
2020
Attributes of seismic resilience
Robustness: strength, or the ability of elements and systems to withstand a given level of 
demand without suffering degradation or loss of functionality; a robust design improves 
structural safety and collapse resistance against unforeseen and extreme demands.  A 
robust design protects a structure against hazards such as earthquakes by evaluating 
robustness indicators and designing for progressive collapse.
Redundancy: the extent to which elements, systems, or other measures of analysis exist 
that are substitutable, i.e., capable of satisfying functional requirements in the event of 
disruption, degradation, or loss of functionality. A redundant building design can be 
expensive, but may be appropriate for critical systems. 
Functionality recovery: restoration of a specific system or set of systems to their 
“normal” level of functional performance. It isn't just about the building, it's about the 
people.

2020
 How to achieve a resilent system
The seismic resilience of a building can be achieved by reducing its probability of 
failure during an earthquake, as well as reducing the consequences from such failures 
and the time to recover functionality.
Functionality

2020
How to calculate resilience

2020
Resilience-based seismic design
Defined as a natural extension of the performance‐based approach, RBSD, in addition to 
guaranteeing performance, identifies and attempts to mitigate all threats that may hinder re‐
occupancy and functionality objectives through enhanced design of both structural and non‐
structural components, and pre‐disaster contingency planning.

Credits: ASCE 41-17

2020 24
Resilience-based seismic design
Interstorey drifts on a plane frame

The drift ratio,  of a frame is defined as the ratio of the interstorey drift to the
height of the storey, as (Priestley 1998):

2020
Resilience‐based seismic design
Calculation of interstorey drifts

Plane frame subassemblage

2020
Concluding remarks
This presentation suggests building functionality as base future seismic 
design/evaluation methods.  There are various alternative questioning the usefulness of 
such approach suggesting alternative and more complex approaches.
As profesionals we have to ask us: 1)WHO pays for the demolition of the buildings and 
the clean up of a city damaged by an earthquake?, 2) Are we properly communicating 
the risk to the stakeholders and the users of a building?, 3) Do we have to design for high 
levels of damage?, 4) Is it really more economical?, 5) Is it right that people cannot 
return to a their home/job?, 6) Do we want our city being destroyed by an earthquake.

2020 27
Epilog

We, structural engineers, have a mission

to make the world a better place to live.

Akira Wada

2020 28
Thank you!
POR MI RAZA HABLARA EL ESPIRITÚ

2020 29