DISASTER RISK

REDUCTION
THROUGH
RESILIENCY IN
STRUCTURES
PRESENTED BY:
EMILIO M. MO RALES C E, MSC E, F. ASC E, F. PIC E F. ASEP
PI C TU RE F RO M U NIV ERSITY O F SALFO RD
CREDITS

Saadet Toker
BUT FIRST………
Let me share with you some Anecdotes :

1) The 16th Floor

2) Those were the Good old days when there was no computerized Analyses.

Additional References:

Visit www.pgatech.com.ph for some literature to augment this Lecture

 DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

INTRODUCTION
The Risk of exposure to natural and man made Disasters has been increasing with the changes in
the Environment brought about by Climate Change, increasing Urbanization and the need to
build even in Marginal areas due to scarcity of land.
Increased Environmental Loadings, wind velocities, higher seismic excitation, threats of
liquefaction, inferior or substandard materials of construction and poor structural engineering
all combine to present endangerment to the built environment.
These are serious challengers to the Structural Engineer, which are not really insurmountable
given the advances in the State of Practice and the documented failure Case histories of the
recent past as well as historical records.
This paper seeks to address some issues from the Author’s own experiences and through
Literature research, most Notably the ASCE 41-13 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Buildings
and the Companion ASCE 41-14 Research Needs – Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Buildings.
It is hoped that presentation of the State of Practice as well as experiences in Design will ensure
adequate survivability of our structures through sound Structural Engineering Practice.
 DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION:

1. What is Resiliency?
2. What is Disaster Risk Reduction when applied to Structural Engineering Design.
3. Assessing the Project Environment
4. Provision of Alternative Stress Paths
5. Examples of How to minimize Risks in Building Design
6. Some Examples of Structural Failures
7. Structural Engineering Intervention through Retrofitting and Remediation
8. Conclusions and Recommendations
 RESILIENCY IN STRUCTURES
(Kapucu et al., 2013 The concept of resilience is now widely adopted across academic and policy debate as
a way of reducing society’s vulnerability to threats posed by natural and human induced hazards (Haigh
and Amaratunga, 2010).
The original notion of the term resilience comes from a Latin word meaning ‘jump back’ or ‘bounce back’
(Manyena et. al., 2011).
The authors have further explained the term ‘resilience’ in the disaster context. In the disaster context,
they explained resilience as the ability of people to recover within the shortest possible time with minimal
or no assistance.
Manyena (2006) further argued that the limitations of the “bounce back’ notion as returning to the
original position may mean a return to vulnerability and to the conditions that caused the disaster.
Therefore it is necessary to strengthen existing structures and institutions to resist disasters and thus
resilience can be viewed as a ‘bounce forward’ strategy following a disaster (Manyena, 2006).
As such resilience can be viewed as
“the intrinsic capacity of a system, community or society predisposed to a shock or stress to ‘bounce
forward’ and adapt in order to survive by changing its non-essential attributes and rebuilding itself’
(Manyena et. al., 2011). In summary resilience can be defined as the “ability of a system, community or
society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a
timely and efficient manner, including the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and
functions” (UNISDR 2007). Accordingly the notion of resilience suggests a more proactive approach to
disaster risk reduction.
 RESILIENCY IN STRUCTURES
Bosher (2208) suggest a resilient built environment as where the “built environment is designed, located, built,
operated and maintained in a way that maximizes the ability of built assets, associated support systems
(physical and institutional) and the people that reside or work within the built assets, to withstand, recover, and
mitigate for, the impacts or extreme natural and human induced hazards”.
Adding to that,
1. insufficient consideration of coastal risks,
2. non-disaster resistant building designs and
3. constructions in disaster prone areas,
4. inaccurate assessment of hazards,
5. lack of consideration of climate change effects,
6. incompatibilities between structural designs and hazard levels,
7. lack of consideration of risks in town planning,
8. neglected building codes and regulations, illegal occupancy in high risk lands have been identified as
factors which increase the risk of disasters (Mannakkara and Wilkninson, 2013).

As such, it is important to reduce the risk by use of hazard resilient designs, specifications, construction
methods, materials and technologies; and construction of protective infrastructure and also by protecting
critical infrastructure available (Haigh and Amaratunga, 2011).
ADDRESSING RESILIENCY
PROVISION OF ALTERNATIVE STRESS PATHS

Structural design engineers need to be able to visualize how a load is transferred from its application point to the
support or reaction points. Knowing how load “flows” in a structure is important at the design stage to make sure
that the structure will perform its intended function properly.

It is also important for optimum material utilization and for assessing the overall integrity of a structure. In case
the structure is damaged, it is crucial to anticipate how the load flow will change in order to ensure that the
structure can continue to perform its basic functions. Thus, it is important to identify alternate load paths in case
the primary load path is damaged. In addition to identifying alternate load paths, engineers may want to be able
to specifically tailor alternate load paths so that the structure can perform its basic functions under various
unforeseen damage conditions.

Although it is clear why knowledge of load pathways is important, no unified approach has been developed to
quantify, characterize, and visualize available load paths in a structure. This work presents and compares different
methods that have been developed for characterizing load paths.

THIS BRINGS ATTENTION TO THE NEED FOR ALTERNATIVE STRESS PATHS IN BUILDING DESIGN.

Comparison of Load Path Definitions in 2-D Continuum Structures

Kun S. Marhadi and Satchi Venkataraman. San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182-1308
ADDRESSING RESILIENCY ----PROVISION OF ALTERNATIVE STRESS PATHS

Step by step approach to determining alternative stress paths:

1. Determine the most stressed Elements of the Structure.

2. Try to simulate Failure by eliminating the Structural Element and
verifying which of the adjacent members will assume the additional
load.
3. Try to Provide reinforcement and additional elements to Reduce the
Stresses in the Worst Case member.
4. Determine adequacy of Stresses with New framework by looking at the
stresses resulting from such intervention.
5. Accept if Satisfactory or determine other load paths which may reduce
the stresses in the Critical Structural Elements.
 What is Disaster Risk Reduction when applied to
Structural Engineering Design ?
The degree of vulnerability is closely related to the capacity of assets. The Capacity is
considered to be an inherent system property, the ability to withstand or accommodate
expected (future) adverse hazard impacts without loss of its functionality and integrity. For
example, the ability of a structure to resist earthquake ground motions without collapse, and
the ability of a roof to withstand wind velocity pressure without being up-lifted.
Although Design Engineers may not be held Liable for the Total Collapse or loss of
Functionality or Serviceability of a building during a severe Earthquake (Force Majeure)., it is
implicit in the responsibility of the Designer to ensure that the Design will allow ample time for
Occupants to Evacuate the Building.

This is where Resilient design Principles and the Alternative Stress Path Approach would serve
to ensure that this requirement is met.

AUS AID Designing resilient structures

The Concept of
ALTERNATIVE STRESS PATHS
What is Disaster Risk Reduction when applied to Structural Engineering Design-ALTERNATIVE STRESS PATHS.

The Grand Chancellor Hotel Building showing the damaged

elements show that:
1. The Lone shear wall D5-6 was carrying a Disproportionate
share of the Gravity Loads from the Cantilevered Floors
suspended to a Transfer Girder below.
2. The additional Pounding Damage added to the Loads
causing the Collapse.
3. The Length of the Transfer Girder was very limited,
allowing concentration of loads in a limited number of
columns and shearwall span.
4. Insufficient Confinement of the Wall led to Brittle Failure.
5. Lack of Boundary elements where stress concentration is
high during cyclic Loading.

NOTE:
This Building was demolished totally after the Christchurch Earthquake. From Internet Download
 What is Disaster Risk Reduction when applied to Structural Engineering Design-ALTERNATIVE STRESS PATHS.
ALTERNATIVE STRESS PATHS
Alternative stress paths need a
LACK OF AN ALTERNATIVE STRESS PATH COMPROMISED THE SAFETY OF THIS contingency in Disaster Risk
BUILDING Reduction DRR
It is important to identify the
critical vulnerable points and
provide secondary stress paths
through different members or
structural elements.
In the Figure to the left, the
critical elements are the transfer
girders and adjacent columns as
well as the bottom of the Frontal
walls.
The Transfer girder should be
carried through the Shear wall in
order to provide adequate
transfer. In Turn, at the toe of
the Shearwall by providing
Diagonal Struts .
 Alternative Stress Paths
1. In Professional Practice, it is NOT Expected that a Structural Engineer will Guarantee that his
structure will NOT Collapse. However, it is Implicit in our Professional Responsibility to allow
ample time for evacuation of the structure before Total Catastrophic Collapse occurs.
2. Thus, a Catastrophic or sudden collapse, should be deliberately avoided in the design and
this can be done through:
1. Proper Choice of Materials
2. Provision of Alternative stress Paths
3. Avoiding, the set up of a Chain Reaction of Failure or avoiding the “DOMINO EFFECT”
4. Ensuring Reserve strength is available for the most critically stressed members.

3. Avoid “Weak Column, Strong Beam “ Condition.

4. Anticipate worst case scenario, and address the Situation, through the above.
Alternative Stress Paths
Frontal Bays as well as the Perimeter of the
Large Area warehouse are Braced and the
Stiffening Trusses Extend all the way
Perpendicular to the main Trusses.
As such, may we invite you to serve as a resource person. You may access copies of the said measures at www.senate.gov.ph for your reference, and the tra

Critical Zoning in Roof Structures

3 2

1
Alternative Stress Paths
In accordance with the NSCP 2015, critical
Zones of the Roof are provided with more
Purlins at closely spaced Distances than the
Normal Trusses. Corners of Roofs are Beefed up
as well as the Perimeters , where most roofing
failures occur, due to tearing or delamination
type Failures.

Similarly, for Large areas , Liberal Provision of

Stiffener Trusses or Beams as well as X-Bracings
are Needed to Ensure that all members
participate in 3 Dimension to ensure Stress
Redistribution in case of Localized Failure
Alternative Stress Paths
The Provision of Knee Braces
also allow secondary support in
case the column to truss
supports Fail, other than
providing a deeper Connection
to the Columns
TRUSS DESIGN
Trusses are NORMALLY analyzed and designed as pin
jointed members, although in actual fact these are
welded at the joints and thus fixity is induced whether
accidentally or intentionally.
By of itself, trusses lend themselves to redundancies
and offer alternative stress paths in case of failure in
one member or joint. The loads or stresses are easily
transferred to other members, provided there is no
total discontinuities that could result in Total collapse.
Therefore, a TRUSS is an example of a multi redundant
structure and could reduce Disaster risk if Properly
designed.
With the advent of High Speed computers and
sophisticated Programs, joint fixity can be invoked.
Such procedure lends itself to Redundancies as
overstresses at some elements in the Joint can be
redistributed far more efficiently than for pin
connected Joints. In addition, a failure in a joint does
not signal failure of the overall system, although this is
also true with pin jointed Trusses.
WALLS and MASONRY
What is Disaster Risk Reduction when applied to Structural
Engineering Design.
Façade Walls consisting of lightly reinforced
Masonry walls resting or supported by the
Building Framework need to be looked into for
adequacy specially of the Connection Details
INFILL CHB OR CMU WALLS
CHB OR CMU WALLS ENCLOSED BY FRAMING COLUMNS.

1. The Designers of Structural steel Framed Buildings

sometimes fail to take into account the ACCIDENTAL
Contribution to the induced stiffness of the framed
columns at the Lower levels.
2. These walls if Rigidly Tied to the columns during
Construction will limit the assumed Flexibility of the
columns and in Fact transfer the UNINTENDED critical
loads on the columns at the level of the Top of the
wall.
3. Thus, the structural action is different from that
assumed in the Analysis and Design, leading to a
different stress condition nd the columns may fail at
the Critical Juncture.
MASONRY WALLS

Masonry walls specially for heights greater than

1.5 meters must be adequately reinforced in
both Horizontal and Horizontal Directions and
The Column Space is left Prevented From Toppling by adequate
as a Void so that Induced Anchorage Details. But must be isolated from
Stiffness will NOT occur the columns or Frames if NOT really intended to
during Lateral Loading. Participate in the Structural action
FAILURE IN SHEAR WALLS
BOUNDARY ELEMENTS OF SHEARWALLS

The Boundary Elements of shear walls must be specially detailed to

sustain large forces or Stresses similar to the Flange action of
Structural Sections.

The ends are normally thickened in accordance with good practice

and heavily reinforced with adequate closely spaced confinement
consisting of ties.

The shearwall Rebars must be coupled to these Boundary elements to

promote integral action as a Flanged section
WELDED CONNECTIONS
 Alternative Stress Paths TYPE 1 and TYPE 2 Welded
Connection

The Type 1 Welded Connection

The old TYPE 1 Welded Joint was

extensively used in the Past UNTIL the North
Ridge Earthquake in the US where
numerous buildings were damaged beyond
economical Repair due to the failure of this
joint.
TYPE 1 and TYPE 2 Welded Connection
Alternative Stress Paths TYPE 3 Welded Connection
TYPICAL FAILURES and
HOW THESE CAN BE
ADDRESSED
Using Rebars with
Problems
The Problem with Quenched Tempered
Rebars
1. QT/TMT Rebars owing to its Multi Phase or Multi Layer composition
are vulnerable to premature Failure due to Low Cycle Fatigue such as
what would be experience during Earthquakes.
2. Recent tests Indicate that QT/TMT Rebars would fail within 2 to 3
Cycles only compared to MA rebars with Resistance to LCF of 27
cycles before Failure.
3. The Failure in QT/TMT rebars is a sudden loss of the Composite
Strength and Immediate Transfer of Load to the Concrete due to Loss
of Bond, leading to an Explosive Type of Failure.
4. Additionally, Poor Control of the YIELD Strength leads to the concrete
Failing First than the Rebar resulting in an Explosive Type Failure.
Avoiding the Soft Story
Concept
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Toker, Saadet
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING
THE SOFT STORY PROBLEM
 DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING
1. Some Experiences in Structural Failures
 DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING
1. Some Experiences in Structural Failures
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL Soft Story Condition Occurs when
ENGINEERING Columns are exposed without the
Presence of Stiffening Walls or
Members that could Brace the
columns at the Critical bottom part.
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

PANCAKE TYPE OF FAILURE

Characteristically due to weak column strong

beam problem.

Soft story concept.

Lack of Alternative Stress Paths

DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
 DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

SOFT STORY FAILURE

DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL Soft Story Condition Occurs when
ENGINEERING Columns are exposed without the
Presence of Stiffening Walls or
Members that could Brace the
columns at the Critical bottom part.
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
STIFFNESS ECCENTRICITY
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
COLUMNS SHEAR FAILURE

Shear Failure of Columns

Columns show severe Damage.

This is primarily due to earlier yielding of Columns
due to stronger Beams.
 DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
POUNDING DAMAGE TO ADJACENT BUILDINGS

POUNDING DAMAGE

Pounding Damage occur when adjacent structures

Have different periods of vibration and Geometry.

When the vibrations are out of Sync with each

other, the buildings tend to collide or pound on
each other.
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
SHORET COLUMN EFFECT
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
REMEDIATION
POSSIBILITIES
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
 DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

REMEDIATION OF DAMAGED STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS.

DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
REMEDIATION OF DAMAGED SHEAR WALL.

Crack Epoxy injection

Increasing thickness of the shear wall after

remediation and providing more shear bars.

NOTE:

The Diagonal nature of the cracks, show that the

dominant failure in a SHEARWALL is essentially
Diagonal Shear. In Fact, the Ideal reinforcement
Pattern is also supposed to be Diagonal and
Perpendicular to these shear stress cracks.

Although performance was adequate to allow Repair

and Remediation, Boundary elements should be also
Provided whenever possible in such repairs.
What is Disaster Risk Reduction when applied to Structure Engineering Design

Non-Structural Members attached to

Buildings can induce an unanticipated
Loading or pounding Damage to Structures.

These must be considered Not Only in terms

of the Gravity Loading they induce but also on
the Inertia loadings as well as possible
overturning that such loads can induce.
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SOUND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
What is Disaster Risk Reduction when applied to Structure Engineering Design

Non-Structural Members attached to

Buildings can induce an unanticipated
Loading or pounding Damage to Structures.

These must be considered Not Only in terms

of the Gravity Loading they induce but also on
the Inertia loadings as well as possible
overturning that such loads can induce.
What is Disaster Risk Reduction when applied to Structural
Engineering Design.