Advertisement

Can We Prevent Structural Failure Under Earthquakes?

  • Uwe E. Dorka
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Natural Hazards book series (SPRINGERNAT)

Abstract

Discussing the needs of the prevalent structural concept (the reinforced concrete frame with masonry infill: RCF) during the design and building process in order to provide adequate safety under earthquake loading, the robustness of this concept is called into question. It is concluded that, as long as we continue to build in this way, un-manageable earthquake disasters will strike our large urban centres. During the past two decades, new structural concepts have emerged that are not only more robust then RCF but also more economical to build. Among these are reinforced masonry, confined masonry and so-called seismic control concepts like Base Isolation, Hyde System and Tendon System. These concepts, their applications and advantages are briefly presented, also in the context of historical structures. For these, the Tendon System is particularly suitable, but basic understanding of the seismic performance of historic structures is missing. This is particularly true for Nepalese pagodas. It must be investigated using full-scale shaking table tests before any intervention or reconstruction should be allowed. Finally, strategies are suggested how to promote these concepts in order to substitute RCF eventually. If successful, widespread structural failures under earthquakes will become history.

Keywords

Earthquake robustness Earthquake codes Reinforced masonry Confined masonry Seismic control Historic structures 

References

  1. Ahmed MZ, Ahsan R, Dorka UE (2005) A possibility of using Hyde Systems for seismic safety of soft-storey buildings in Bangladesh. In: Tahmeed M, Al-Hussaini (eds) BES-1: 1st Bangladesh earthquake symposium, December 2005, Dhaka, Bangladesh Earthquake Society, pp 195–202Google Scholar
  2. Calvi GM, Spaziante V (2009) Reconstruction between temporary and definitive: the CASE project. J l’industria italiana del Cemento iiC 854:124–150Google Scholar
  3. Dorka UE (2004) Erdbebensicherung durch Structural Control. Stahlbau 73:661–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dorka UE, Gleim S (2005) Hyde Systems for earthquake protection of residential buildings. In: Wasti ST, Ozcebe G (eds) Advances in earthquake engineering for urban risk reduction. Nato science series: IV: Earth and environmental sciences 66, Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  5. E-Defense (2017) http://www.bosai.go.jp/hyogo/ehyogo/index.html. Accessed 20 Mar 2017
  6. Meli R, Brezev S (co-chairs) (2011) EERI & IAEE Confined Masonry Network: Seismic design guide for low-rise confined masonry buildings. Available via EERI https://www.eeri.org/products-page/world-housing-encyclopedia-2/seismic-design-guide-for-low-rise-confined-masonry-buildings/. Accessed 20 Mar 2017
  7. Nakahara K, Hisatoku T, Nagase T, Takahashi Y (2000) Earthquake response of ancient five-story pagoda structure of Horyu-ji Temple in Japan. In: 12WCEE: 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Feb 2000, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  8. NEES (2012) Introduction to the multi-functional shake tables lab at Tongji University. https://nees.org/site/resources/pdfs/MPSTL-Introduction-updated.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2017
  9. Obón SF, Dorka UE (2012) Effects of large numerical models in continuous hybrid simulation. In: 15th WCEE: 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, September 2012, LisbonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department for Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversität KasselKasselGermany

Personalised recommendations