Missouri University of Science and Technology

Scholars' Mine

International Symposia on Low Cost Housing Civil, Architectural and Environmental

Problems Engineering Conferences

09 Oct 1970

Earthquake Resistant Construction Features in Low Cost

Buildings
A. S. Arya

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/islchp

Part of the Civil Engineering Commons

Recommended Citation
Arya, A. S., "Earthquake Resistant Construction Features in Low Cost Buildings" (1970). International
Symposia on Low Cost Housing Problems. 47.
https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/islchp/47

This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been
accepted for inclusion in International Symposia on Low Cost Housing Problems by an authorized administrator of
Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for
redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact
scholarsmine@mst.edu.
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION FEATURES IN LOW COST BUILDINGS

By
A. S. Ary*, Ph.D.*

Introduction constructions are more recent examples in earthquake be­

'Lou cost* building is a relative tens. The standard havior'13’23* The Alaska earthquake of 1964 presented full
of construction indicated by it Mill differ from region to size tests of framed constructions as well as that of pre­
region and country to country depending upon the level of fabricated constructions in reinforced and prestressed con-
(Ita)
socio-economic development. One common fact is however ob­ crete. The Caracas earthquake of 1967 tested multi-storyed
served that usually the low cost construction, besides having reinforced concrete buildings with hollow-brick panel fill­
inferior specifications, has poor quality of construction as ings,'1^* the kinds of which are being used in Yugoslavia
well. In seismicallv active areas the results are diastrous and in India too but using the solid bricks. At many
as has been amply exemplified by the recent earthquakes in places the shaking of the structures has been the reason for
Chile, India, Iran and Turkey. Assuming that in most countries, its damage or collapse but in others, the foundation has been
adobe, unreinforced brick and stone masonry and timber con­ the villain as its settlement led to the straining of the
structions will continue to constitute low cost structures, structure. Thus the behavior of most types of constructions
their earthquake resistant construction features are dis­ can be studied separately. The Chilean earthquake of May 22,
cussed in this paper. 1960 offers at one place a comparative study of various con­
The problem of earthquake resistant construction of small structions which are particularly used in buildings of a few
building has attracted the attention of several research workers storys height.'10* During this earthquake, about 45000 dwell­
during the last few years and a number of papers have been ings of various types were damaged of which about 10% were
published on the subject. The reports regarding damage damaged beyond repairs. Table 1 presents a comparison of their
to structures during the past earthquakes have brought out earthquake behavior. The percentages given in the Table refer
the weaknesses in construction and suggested improvements for to the total number of buildings of a particular type. The
future construction such as those contained in the reports'9 '10* order of usefulness with respect to loss of life as indicated
of Bihar earthquake of 193** and Koyna earthquake of December therein has been worked out on the basis of percentages of
11, 1967. The aim of this paper is to review briefly the avail­ 'dangerous' and 'destroyed' buildings combined. Another sur­
able information and summarize the main principles of earth­ vey of damage to such buildings in ten Chilean earthquakes
quake resistant construction. is summarised in Figure 1 showing the percentages of houses
Behavior of Different Construction in the Past Earthquakes. developing different degrees of damage in zones of various
The random vibrations which are associated with earth­ seismic intensities. These generalized results confirm
quake motions and propagated in all directions at speeds of the results of Table 1. Similar behavior has also been seen
about 5 km per second actually subject the structures to large in the earthquakes in India where frequently adobe, random
scale field tests. As a result, the poor constructions collapse, rubble masonry and composite constructions of unburnt and
weak ones suffer the damage to a large extent, strong ones get burnt bricks are often encountered.'9-11* These types may
away with minor damage and the exceptionally sound construc­ at best be graded slightly higher than unreinforced adobe but
tions remain intact. Since all parts of a structure are shaken, below unreinforced brickwork. The diagonally braced timber
the weak links can not escape damage. They give in first and
(17 )
frames as often used in old houses in Kashmir valley with
in turn lead to distressing of stronger parts as well. or without brick nogging (see Fig. 2) are highly resistant to
Earthquakes have been occurring in most parts of the earthquakes and may be classed with the first two types in
world. Therefore, all types of constructions have been put Table 1.
to this type of severe test in one or the other earthquake. From the numerous observations of damage and non-damage
For instance, in India, the buildings constructed from brick, during earthquakes such as the Chilean earthquake described
stone, mud, timber or a combination thereof have been usually above the constructions can be divided in the following four
involved in the seismic regions.'9 '10'11* Occasionally some categories indicating their suitability.
reinforced concrete buildings have also been present in earth­ (i) Highly suitable constructions are .steel or rein­
quake affected area and their behavior has presented a strik­ forced concrete rigid frames and diagonally braced timber build­
ing contrast to that of the masonry constructions. The old ings. Such buildings have minimum weight, high strength to
Japanese earthquakes present the behavior of wood framed lateral forces and high ductility or deformation capacity
buildings with or without brick panel filling'12* Reinforced which are the most desirable qualities for resisting the
concrete-block constructions and reinforced concrete framed applied forces and absorbing the kinetic energy fed into the
structure by the ground shaking.
*Professor and Assistant Director, School of Research and Train­ (ii) Moderately suitable construction are reinforced
ing in Earthquake Engineering, University of Roorkee, Roorkee,
U.P., India. block or reinforced brick masonry and timber frames with
brick nogging or sufficient brick walling acting with it. lintels over openings with sufficient length of bearing say
These buildings have moderate weight, high lateral lead re­ 20 to 25 cm, over the jambs as shown in Figure 6. Jack or
sistance and moderate ductility. flat arches for covering openings must be avoided, or other­

(iii) Feebly suitable constructions are unreinforced wise, tie rods used for keeping them intact.
brick, block or stone masonry buildings with horizontal Besided the factors of weight, strength and ductility,
runners of timber, reinforced concrete or reinforced brick­ the other important factor is quality of workmanship. Damage
work at plinth, floor and roof levels having proper connections is found to be less in well constructed buildings following
at corners; or the same type of buildings without the runners the standard specifications than in the poorly constructed
but constructed in good cement or lime mortars and having buildings. Incidentally, the quality of construction also
flat roofs like reinforced concrete slabs. These buildings drops down generally with the order of suitability mentioned
have large weight, some amount of lateral strength and little above because of the nature of materials involved and the skill
ductility. They can be much improved by introducing vertical required to do the job. For example, a reinforced brick con­
steel bars at corners and junctions of longitudinal and cross struction will usually have better workmanship than unre­
walls and reinforced concrete band at lintel levels of all inforced one.
Storys as recommended in Is: ‘+326-1967 Code of Practice for Effect of foundation Soil upon Structural Behavior.
Earthquake Resistant Construction of B u i l d i n g s T h e s e pro­ Softness of soil has been observed to have pronounced
visions have been found to cost about 4 to 8 percent of the effect on the structural behavior of buildings during earth-
cost of buildings in areas of moderate seismicity having (9)
quake as evidenced m the Bihar earthquake of 1934 and
Modified Mercalli Intensity VIII (19). With such strengthen­ Kern County (USA) earthquake of 1 9 5 2 ^ ^ In the former,
ing measures the buildings can be brought to almost the same houses founded on rock out-crops suffered much less damage
level of suitability as reinforced block or reinforced brick than similar buildings in the valleys resting on alluvial
masonry. deposits. Table 2 shows the behavior of different types of
The beneficial effect of introducing small amounts of construction resting on different types of foundation ma­
reinforcement at critical locations will be evident from the terials as observed in the Kern County earthquake.
test results on three storyed building models made to one- The general trend of damage observed in most earthquake
third scale shown in Figure 3. All models were constructed is similar to that shown in Table 2, that i s , the damage in­
in 1:6 cement-sand mortar. First model (WR) was constructed creased with the softness of ground. But the reverse also
without reinforcement, second (CR) with .05% reinforcement happens sometimes as in the case of Long Beach (USA) earth-
located at corners, third (CLR) with similar steel at cor­ (21)
quake of 1933 where the damage to buildings on soft soil
ners plus reinforcement all round at lintel level forming a on the beach was somewhat less than those on more firm ground.
band, and fourth (CUR) having vertical reinforcement at It appears that the short period structures suffered more
corners and jambs of operings as well as lintel level band. damage in that earthquake than long period ones due to the
The ultimate loads taken by the four models are compared in short period characteristics of the earthquake.
Figure 4. A typical load deflection curve of models CR is Some soils like poorly graded sands and sand-gravel mix­
shown in Figure 5. The load-deflection curves of models CR tures are found to loose their structure when vibrated in dry
and CLRJ were similar but that of WR was almost a straight condition causing large amount of settlement and they liquefy
line upto the load when first story cracked in flexural ten­ and lose their shear strength if saturated with water and
sion. Thus it is seen that even with small percentage of subjected to vibrations. In this condition, the buildings
vertical steel at corners and ductility of the construction sink into the ground. The same type of behavior is seen
is increased which provides energy absorption capacity into with the water bearing soft alluvial soils. Large areas li­
the structure enabling it to withstand large shocks without quefied during the Bihar earthquake of 1934 and Dhubri (Assam)
collapse. Addition of lintel band steel along with the ( 22 )
earthquake of 1930. Most striking examples of liquefaction
vertical steel resulted in increased strength as well as in­ of soil and sinking of buildings occurred in Niigatta (Japan)
crease in ductility. For severe seismic zones this combin­ (23)
earthquake of 1964. The contrast in the behavior of struc­
ation is recommended. tures founded differently also provided the remedy against
(iv) Unsuitable constructions are unreinforced brick such failures. The buildings which were founded on bearing
or block or stone masonry construction in mud or weak mortars, piles remained standing vertical although the soil slumped
composite constructions, adobe and mud huts. Such buildings down at the surface whereas those having shallow footings
have large weight, little or no lateral strength and almost sank, tilted or overturned. Therefore, point bearing piles
no ductility. The lateral strength of brick or block con­ must be used where loose soils having Standard Penetration
structions can be improved by constructing the jambs of open­ value N less than 10 are encountered. Driven piles are to
ings and a few courses at plinth and floor levels in cement be preferred since the vibrations and compaction caused by
sand mortar and using reinforced concrete or reinforced brick them will improve the soil through which they pass. Friction

20S
piles may be used in the case of soft clays. located^1 ’2*** IS: i»326-1967(18> provides the following re­

It, therefore, follows that from the point of view of strictions on the size and position of openings:

behavior during earthquake, buildings should be founded on (i) The openings shall preferably be located away from

rock where available. Otherwise, the following types of the corner by a clear distance equal to at least l/*» of the

foundations may be adopted in the decreasing order of pre­ height of opening.

ference depending upon the height, size and importance of (ii) The length of opening shall not be more than half the

the building: length of the wall between consecutive cross walls.

(1) Bearing piles in cohesionless material resting on (iii) The horizontal distance (pier width).between two

stiff soil having high N value. openings shall not be less than 1/2 of the height of the

(2) Friction piles in cohesive material. shorter opening.

(3) Solid raft under the whole building. (iv) Where the openings do not comply with the above re­

(4) Continuous reinforced concrete strip footings running quirements , they should either be boxed in reinforced con­

in both directions interesting and monolithic with crete or reinforcing bars provided allround them through

each other. the masonry.

(5) Individual reinforced concrete footings connected (d) Projecting Parts - Overhanging parts such as project­

together by plinth beams. ing cornices, balconies, parapets and chimneys are the first to

(6) Continuous unreinforced strip footings with plinth fall during 3m earthquake. Not only that there is damage to

level band (reinforced concrete runner). the building but such parts, when they fall, injure the people

(7) Unconnected individual footings or unreinforced strip who may be running out of the houses or moving on the streets.

footings. Such projecting and overhanging parts should be avoided as far

Sand piles may be used for compacting, draining and con­ as possible or enough care should be taken to reinforce them

solidating loose soft fills. and anchor them to the main structure adequately.

General Planning and Details (e) Suspended Ceilings - Suspended ceilings often used for

In addition to the main factors of type and quality of aesthetic reasons, are usually brittle and weak and incapable

construction of structure and its foundation, there are other of resisting horizontal forces with the result that during an

more or less important factors influencing the behavior of earthquake they crumble and fall down. Thus special care is
buildings during earthquakes. These are briefly stated in the required in the design of suspended ceilings if they cannot
following: be avoided. They should be strong and rigidly tied to the

(a) Plan and elevations - Buildings irregular in plan or roof or be ductile enough to withstand the strains during

elevation are found to develop torsional stresses. Therefore, ground motion.

those having symmetry in plan and elevation are better. Com­ Similarly, the plaster on the ceiling frequently falls

pact plans are seismically better them extended plans with d o w n ^ * ^ The thickness of such plaster should be kept to a

several projections. E, U, T or L shaped plans must be pro- minimum.

vxded with 'separation sections' ' so as to reduce them (f) Deunage to Non-Structural Parts - During the past
to an assemblage of rectangular units. earthquakes it has sometimes happened that whereas the struc­

(b) Roofs and Floors - Roofing and flooring units, where tural frame was strong enough to resist the earthquake forces,
used instead of monolithic slabs, are to be tied together and the non-structural elements like brick filling in a timber
fixed to the supporting members so as to prevent their dis­ frame, which is not supposed to carry any other loads besides
lodging due to shaking. Therefore, corrugated iron or asbestos its own weight, have fallen out of the f r a m e T h e r e f o r e ,
sheets are better than earthen tiles, slates etc. Joists it is necessary that the non-structural parts should be well
of timber or reinforced concrete, if used for supporting floor­ tied to the structural framing. To avoid damage to window
ing units, should be blocked at ends and tied together so as feames or glazing, the drift in buildings should also be
not to allow any relative displacement between them. Jack limited to about 1.5 cm per story height.
arched roofs are to be avoided unless ties are used in every Conclusions
span. From the behavior of buildings during paist earthquakes as
(c) Load Bearing Walls - The damage is found to increase presented above, it may be concluded that the' most desirable
with height and the collapse of a multi-storyed building is qualities for earthquake resistance are light weight, high
much more disastrous in terms of loss of life and property. lateral load resistance, large ductility and non-yielding
Therefore, height of masonry buildings may be restricted to foundation. Besides the building should have simple regular
about three storys. plan and elevations, well integrated construction of all u n its,
Studies carried out on the effect of openings on the strength with as few openings in walls and as few projecting parts as
of walls indicate that they should be small and more centrally possible.

206
Acknowledgement 25. Joaquin Monge E., "Seismic Behavior and Design of Small
Buildings in Chile", IV World Conference on Earthquake
The author is grateful to Dr. Jai Krishna, Director, School Engineering., B-6, p. 9, Santiago, Chile, 1969.
of Research and Training in Earthquake Engineering, University 26. Arya, A. S. and Swaminathan V., "Multistoryed Brick Shear
Walls Under Lateral Earthquake Forces", Research Report
of Roorkee for his encouragement in making this study. in Earthquake Engineering, University of Roorkee, India,
Dec. 1969.
References

1. J. Krishna and A. S. Arya, "Building Construction in

Seismic Zones of India", Second Symposium on Earthquake
Engineering, University of Roorkee, Nov. 1962.
TABLE 1
2. J. Krishna and A. S. Arya, "Earthquake Resistant Design
of Buildings" Journal of the Institution of Engineers
(India), V o l . XLV, No. 7, March 1965. Comparative Study of Damage in Different Constructions
3. J. Krishna and B. Chandra, "Protection against Earthquake
Damage", Publication and Information Directorate, Council X TotalX XDanger- 5? XTotalXOrder of
of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi, 1966. XNumberXRepair-Xous must XDestroX of XUsefulness
Type of X of Xably Xbe dis- X yed XDama-Xwith respect
4. A. S. Arya, "Design and Construction of Masonry Buildings
in Seismic Areas", Bulletin of the Indian Society of construction XDwell-XdamagedXmentled X % Xged Xto loss of
Xings X % X % X Xones Xlife.
Earthquake Technology, Vol. 4, No. 2, April 1967. X______ X______ X_________X X % X______ __
5. A. S. Arya, "Construction of Small Buildings in Seismic 1. Reinforced
Areas" Bulletin of the Indian Society of Earthquake Brickwork 1781 8.3 1.4 0.8 10.5 II
Technology, Vol. 5, Nos. 3 and 4, Sep.-Dec. 1968.
2. Reinforced Con­
6. J. Krishna and B. Chandra, "Strengthening of Brick Build­ crete Blockwork 5 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 I
ings in Seismic Zones", Proceedings, Fourth World Con­
ference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, Jan. 3. Unreinforced
1969 . brickwork 1149 37.6 33.6 11.6 82.8 VI
7. J. M onge, "Seismic Behavior and Design of Small Buildings 4. Unreinforced Con­
in Chile", Proceedings, Fourth World Conference on Earth­ crete Block-
quake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, 1969. work 6 16.7 33.3 16.7 66.7 VII
8. A. I. Churayan and S. A. Djabua, "On One Method of In­ 5. Combined rein­
creasing the Seismic Stability of Brick Buildings", Pro­ forced and
ceedings, Fourth World Conference on Earthquake Engineer­ unreinforced
ing, Santiago, Chile, 1969. brickwork 1334 37.7 20.8 3.5 52.0 V
9. "The Bihar-Nepal Earthquake of 1934" Memoirs of the 6. Wood Frame 1516 24.8 8.0 1.9 34.7 III
Geological Survey of India, Vol. 73, 1939.
7. Wood frame with
10. "Koyna Earthquake, December 11, 1967" Report of Committee Masonry 147 53.0 19.7 3.5 76.2 IV
of Experts Vol. I., New Delhi, April 1968.
8. Adobe 187 17.0 52.5 23.0 92.5 VIII
11. N. Gosain and A. S. Arya, "A Report of Anantnag Earth-
quate of February 20, 1967", Bulletin of the Indian Society
of Earthquake Technology, Sept. 1967. Total dwell- 6125
ings con­
12. "Tottori Earthquake of 1943, and Fukui Earthquake of 1948" sidered
personal communication with Prof. T. Hisada, Director
Building Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan.

13. Miyagi Earthquake of 1962, Personal communication with

Prof. T. Hisada, Director Building Research Institute,
Tokyo, Japan.

14. F. J. Wood, "The Prince William Sound, Aloska, Earthquake

of 1964 and After shocks Vol. II, ESSA, Coast and Geodetic TABLE 2
Survey, 1967.

15. M. A. Sozen, "The Caracas Earthquake of July 29, 1967", Effect of Foundation Material on Damage
Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Vol. 65,
No. 5, May 1968, pp. 394-401.

16. K. V. Steinbrugge and R. Flores, "The Chilean Earthquakes SIT Y Type of Building Y Foundation Material Y
Damage
of May, 1960, A Structural Engineering View Point", No. x X X
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol.
53, No. 2, pp. 225-307, Feb. 1963.
1. Steel or Reinforced Thick alluvium None
17. L. S. Srivastave etc., "Badgam Earthquake of September concrete
2, 1963", Bulletin of the Indian Society of Earthquake
Technology, Vol. I, No. 1, Jan. 1964, p. 83. 2. Framed Building -do- Little or
no damage
18. I .S .:4326-1967 "Code of Practice for Earthquake Resistant
Building Construction", Indian Standards Instition, New 3. Reinforced Block -do- Little or no
Delhi, Jan. 1967. damage ex­
cept for
19. IS: 1893-1966, "Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design cracking of
of Structures", Indian Standards Institution, New Delhi, unsupported
Nov. 1967. facade

20. Steinbrugge and Moran, "An Engineering Study of the 4. Unreinforced Brick
Southern California Earthquakes of July 21, 1952 and After or Block -do- Extensive
Shocks", Bulletin Seisomological Society of America, 1953. damage or
collapse
21. R. R. Mattel, "Earthquake Damage to Type III Buildings in
Long Beach, 1933", in ’Earthquake Investigations in the 5. Stone masonry i) Thick alluvium Moderate
Western United States, 1931-1964", U. S. Department of ii) Rock damage to
Commerce publication No. 41-2, p. 221. collapse
Little or
22. E. R. Gee, "The Dhubri Earthquake of the 3rd July, 1930", no. damage
Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India, 1931.
6. Adobe i)Thick alluvium Collapse
23. B. H. Falconer, "Niigate Earthquake, Japan, 1.02 PM, 16 ii)About 3m deposit Extensive
June 1964", International Institute of Seismology and iii)Rock cracking
Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 1964. slight crack­
ing or no
24. V. K. Agnihotri, "Strength of Single Story Brick Shear damage
Walls Against Earthquake Forces", M. E. Thesis, University
of Roorkee, 1962.
207
F ig. 3 (a) Three storeyed models, after tests F ig. 2 Wooden house with brick nogging

F ig. 3 (b) Three storeyed models, simulation of dead load, loaded horizontally for
ultimate strength

208
 FIG 4 COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF ULTIMATE LOAD TE S T S .

FIG. 6 -STRENGTHENING ADOBE OR BRICK­

WORK IN MUD

FIG 5 -L O A D -D E F LE C TIO N CURVES (MODEL CR)

209
 BRICK MASONRY^© r e in f o r c e d © u n r e in f o r c e d
WOODEN FRAME:® w it h o u t f i l l @ w it h h e a v y f il l
® a d o b e c o n s t r u c t io n
PERCENT OF BUILDINGS DAMAGED 100

VII VIII ix

SLIGHTLY DAMAGED

r e p a ir a b l e dam age

DANGEROUS, SERIOUSLY
DAMAGED, PARTIALY
DESTROYED
DESTROYED,COLLAPSED

VII VIII IX
MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY

FIG. 1 -D E G R E E OF DAMAGE IN BUILDINGS

2 1 0