Thoughts

Cities / In an earthquake, taller is safer

13 November 2013 / 22 comment(s) / Jack Pappin
Like 165 Tweet 2
2 Share

+ Tall buildings such as the Southorn Garden Development in Hong Kong, have a long natural
period and a low frequency, a range in which moderate earthquakes have little energy.

You’re stuck on the 25th floor of a skyscraper when a major earthquake hits. What should you do?
Well, counter-intuitively for some, you should just be thankful… and move away from any filing
cabinets that might fall over.

The fact is that for most earthquakes, tall buildings are usually the safest place to be. In Hong Kong,
where I live, visitors often look at all the tall buildings and ask: “What would happen if there were
an earthquake?” The answer is that they’d probably be much safer than if they were standing in a
low-rise neighbourhood.

This might surprise some people, but there are a few reasons if you know a little about how
buildings respond during earthquakes. For one thing, on a practical level, if you’re inside a
building with more than 20-storeys, it’s too far to run out into the street when an earthquake hits.
You’re definitely safer inside away from falling debris and stampedes of panicking people in the
street.

Secondly, modern high-rises, in low seismicity areas, are designed to withstand lateral loads from
wind which may be much higher than those from earthquakes. In high seismicity areas they are
most likely to have been designed for the seismic motion, and for very tall buildings having a long
natural period (or a low frequency) will sway in a non-violent, but still a very alarming way.

In short, unless you happen to be at the epicentre of a really major earthquake or stuck in a very
old high-rise, you have a far better shot at surviving than your friends on the ground. Provided you
avoid the falling filing cabinet of course.

This is why I’d always opt for a high-rise home over a low-rise alternative in an earthquake zone,
even before considering all the other benefits that tall buildings offer for urban living such as
providing a city readily accessible by public transport.

Tags: urban design, earthquake, buildings

Leave a comment /

Name
Name

Email
Email address
Message

Before you can submit, we need to make sure you're human

6+7=
Answer
I agree to the terms and conditions

Submit

Slide to send

Comments /

Ziggy Lubkowski
14 November 2013 1:45pm Report?

Jack, I totally supportyour viewpoint when focussing on modern regular buildings designed to appropriat
e codes. It is particularly important in regions such as the Arabian Gulf, where there has been a lot of pani
c due to distant earthquakes making people feel uncomfortable in swaying building. This is often an irrati
onal reaction because the issue is not explained well to the general public in the region.

I do have one concern based on the few badly damaged tall buildings I observed in Chile following the 201
0 Maule earthquake. This is that irregularities in buildings appeared to play a big part in failures. I wonde
r whether designers sometimes neglect/misunderstand such design features when selecting appropriate f
orce reduction factors.

Reply Recommend (9)

Jack pappin
17 November 2013 8:30am Report?

I totally agree. My real point is not that you will always be safe BUT that in general you will be better off i
n a decent high rise than some older low rise that will probably have a much higher chance of collapse or
to drop obects onto its surroundings.
Reply Recommend (7)

Claro Vera
15 November 2013 7:52am Report?

Hi Jack,

Your write up caught my attention, especially with the recent earthquake that happened here in the Philip
pines a few weeks back.

First of all I would like to know the definite description of a tall building is there a specific number of stori
es that a building should have before a building could be considered a tall building?

Second what are the basic indications that a tall building is designed properly to withstand possibly say a
n intensity 7 earthquake, recently there has been a boom here in Metro Manila of construction of high ris
e residences and as you mentioned in your write up many are wondering if these structures can withstan
d earthquakes in case it happens.

Would be glad to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

Reply Recommend (56)

Jack Pappin
17 November 2013 8:37am Report?

For a high rise I was thinking of over 15 storeys. There is no strict definition.

With regard to Metro Manila there is a perfectly adequate code of practice that has been in place for over
25 years. The real risk is whether it has been properly followed. There is a much higher chance of that ha
ppening in a building over 15 storeys than for a low rise building. To be honest I would rather not be in
Manila if a 10% in 50 year 'design' earthquake ground otion occurred, but, if I was, I believe I would have
a pretty good chance of not incurring significant injury if I was in a high rise.

Reply Recommend (13)

Thomas Zhang
19 November 2013 1:43am Report?

Hi jack,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. And I agree with the point that "some older low rise that will probably
have a much higher chance of collapse than a decent high rise." But in my view, we should have a clear pi
cture of what is "a decent high rise" can survive from a low or moderate seismic strike.
I admit some long period structure will have a relative lower response than the short one. It's consistant
with the response spectrum theory and also well observed in some seismic event. But not all the high rise
perform well.
Most high rise in HK, they are designed to resist strong wind load, but with no seismic ductility considerat
ion. Many buildings have a very stiff core wall structure at upper level, but very soft moment frame at lo
wer level. The lateral resistant system is not continous to the base. The huge stiffness difference have a ch
ance to induce the seismic shear force concentrated at those weak/soft story. But this is not verified in the
current design practice in HK.
This is my big concern. And this is my question, if the wind-based design safe enough to resist seimic load
in HK?

Reply Recommend (4)

Jack Pappin
22 November 2013 9:41am Report?
I agree that it would be better in Hong Kong if buildings were systematically checked for earthquakes as
I agree that it would be better in Hong Kong if buildings were systematically checked for earthquakes as
part of their design and this will come in the future. In the meantime we have done a seismic check on a
minimally designed 40 storey commercial buidling with no ductility such that it just satisfies the wind co
de. We concluded that even in the quite extreme 2% in 50 year seismic ground motion (including soil effe
cts), the vertical load bearing elements were fine. There was quite a lot of damage to lintel beams joining
the core walls though as they failed in shear and not bending and could lead to the falling of chunks of co
ncrete.

Reply Recommend (2)

Alessandro Palmeri
19 November 2013 12:00pm Report?

Dear Jack,

Thanks for this note, useful to throw some scientific light on the ancestral fear of earthquakes.

I share your view that "the real risk is whether [the code of practice] has been properly followed. There is
a much higher chance of that happening in a building over 15 storeys than for a low rise building". And, u
nfortunately, this is true not only for buildings in Metro Manila, but probably almost everywhere around
the world.

People should probably fear more "inattentive" engineers than the earthquake itself, as scarce attention of
designers and contractors to seismic code requirements (particularly in terms of ductility) is still one of th
e main problems... And indeed "inattentiveness" tends to reduce in new high-rise buildings.

Reply Recommend (2)

Jack Pappin
22 November 2013 9:48am Report?

Well said. Even worse in low rise buildings (<4 storeys) where there is often not any sort of engineer invo
lved in the design.

Reply Recommend (1)

Colin Williams
21 November 2013 8:24am Report?

A great piece of guidance Jack and I think this needs a link from the H&S page which I have requested. On
e other point I would add though about high-rise (I am sadly a confirmed low rise person!), make sure you
have good building management and watch out for unauthorised alterations taking place!

Reply Recommend (0)

Lloyd
10 January 2014 8:25pm Report?

Unless you're in the CTV Building in Christchurch, NZ. a newer building but apparently poorly planned an
d engineered which pancaked and killed 115 people

Reply Recommend (0)

cecilia
27 January 2014 2:39pm Report?

so how come in Japan most infrastructures are designed to be short? The housings seem to be really short,
not skyscrapers

Reply Recommend (0)

Jack Pappin
28 January 2014 2:32am Report?

Thanks for the comment Cecilia. Unfortunately it would appear that Japanese people prefer low rise buil
dings and are not doing this because of their earthquake resistance. In the 1995 Kobe event, for example
(see the EEFIT report at http://www.istructe.org/resources-centre/technical-topic-areas/eefit/eefit-reports),
90% of fatalities were in pre-1971 low-rise traditional Japanese houses, whereas buildings over about 10 s
toreys performed the best.

Reply Recommend (4)

Melanie
27 January 2015 2:23pm Report?

This was very helpful

Reply Recommend (1)

Saurabh Kumar
27 April 2015 10:27am Report?

Need your help.

I am living in first floor of a building of six to seven located in totally densely populated region where ther
e is similar building all around. Running towards open ground wont be possible in such a time of aftersho
cks

Can you please guide me what to do and what not if there is a situation of earthquake?

Reply Recommend (29)

Newbie
29 April 2015 9:17am Report?

Jack, does your article also means that for high rise buildings the most governing load combination is that
which includes wind? Even though my high rise structure is located in a seismic design category E?

Reply Recommend (0)

Noel
Report?
06 July 2015 4:36pm Report?

Hi Jack, I am interested in buying a condominium unit in a high rise building (30+ stories). The building is
about 1 kilometer away from a faultline. Is it a good idea to buy the unit? If so, what floor level would you
recommend in terms of safety? 10th or 20th or 30th? Thanks

Reply Recommend (4)

Andrea
30 December 2015 5:43pm Report?

So... what if one is in a high rise at the epicentre of a really major earthquake? Then where is the safest pl
ace to be?

Reply Recommend (0)

katherine
14 January 2016 11:01pm Report?

Cool Thanks a lot

Reply Recommend (0)

Prof. Thomas Heaton

05 February 2016 3:56pm Report?

Perhaps you would learn something important about this suject by visiting my home page at heaton.caltec
h.edu. Your current analysis is alarmingly superficial and without scientific basis.

Reply Recommend (3)

Lola Hoi
06 February 2016 7:18am Report?

Nonsense, if the big one hits and the motion frequency is right on your toast.

Reply Recommend (2)

abhirup basu
17 April 2016 11:12am

The moderator has removed this comment. Read our guidelines for comments and feedback.

Reply Recommend (2)

big man
Report?
 13 June 2016 9:03am Report?

Mali kaya

Reply Recommend (3)

Search /
Search..

Browse /
All articles
All contributors

by Themes /
Cities
Connectivity
Health
Resources

Terms of use Email thoughts@arup.com arup.com