Building Resilience in Low-Rise Buildings against Earthquakes in Developing Countries

 Introduction

Natural disasters, particularly earthquakes, pose a significant threat to human life and infrastructure worldwide. However, the impact of these disasters is disproportionately felt in developing countries, which often lack the proper resources and infrastructure to withstand seismic events. A peer-reviewed academic report published in Frontiers in Built Environment cited information from the World Bank that “low and middle-income countries have experienced 53% of all [global disasters] but have accounted for 93% of disaster-related fatalities” (Laghi et al. 1). Earthquakes such as Haiti in 2010 and Turkey-Syria in 2023 have caused many casualties and cost these countries billions.

Conversely, developed regions in seismic hotspots, such as Japan and California, haven’t faced any catastrophic disasters in recent times. These countries fare better in the recovery after an earthquake and suffer less destruction. The key to solving the infrastructure weakness in developing nations lies in the architecture of their buildings. The most effective solution is to strictly enforce earthquake codes, while also expanding the use of steel bracings as the most efficient and cost-effective seismic resistance modification to current buildings.

Designing the Buildings

To improve building designs in developing countries, we must understand how buildings respond to seismic activity. Most buildings in developing countries are low-rise buildings, which are typically built cheaper and with fewer earthquake reinforcements. During an earthquake, the ground vibrates the foundation of a building, causing it to collapse. Such building collapses lead to many casualties, property damage costs, and long-term effects on the region as it rebuilds. While copying the earthquake resistance strategy of successful countries could act as a solution, this doesn’t come without complications.

Japan’s Building Design

Japan is a prime example of a country with outstanding earthquake resistance, even distinguishing itself from even other developed countries. After analyzing the magnitude 6.3 L'Aquila earthquake in Italy, Keefer and others at the London School of Economics discovered that the earthquake “left almost 300 people dead and an estimated 28,000 homeless,” while recent 6.3 earthquakes in Japan produced “fewer casualties” (Keefer et al. 9).

Much of Japan’s fantastic resilience to earthquakes can be attributed to their strict earthquake codes, which are government building requirements specifying how to increase building strength. An article by Japan Property Central explains that building designs are recommended in these codes, with base isolation being the most highly promoted.

While base isolation has a successful history, Dang et al from the Lanzhou University of Technology explain that it isn’t viable for developing countries to emulate as its material costs are too high (Dang et al. 5). According to consultants at the Center for Earthquake Studies of Tehran, “the labor cost is low but the material is relatively expensive” in developing countries, while “the opposite is true” in developing countries (Teymourian et al. 1). As base isolation needs expensive and advanced materials, developing countries are unlikely to choose it, focusing on easier reinforcement solutions made from concrete or steel.

Shear Walls vs Steel Bracing

As for solutions better suited for developing countries, shear walls and steel bracing are the strongest and most cost-effective retrofitting designs for resisting earthquakes. Shear walls are vertical walls that resist horizontal seismic forces, while steel bracing uses braced steel beams. The biggest difference between the two designs is their philosophies on resisting earthquakes.

Shear walls are designed to dissipate seismic forces throughout the building, reducing its movement and improving residents' comfort during minor earthquakes. According to a peer-reviewed academic article by Hakim and Masri, civil engineers from Beirut Arab University, shear walls also offer greater stiffness and strength than steel bracing (Hakim and Masri 5). Overall, shear walls focus on stiffly resisting an earthquake and staying as still as possible.

Steel bracing is a different approach to resisting lateral loads that allows buildings to sway more without breaking. This is because of its high ductility, allowing it to bend and flex with seismic forces. Just like a surfer in a large wave, it is often better to ride out an earthquake rather than stiffly resist it. As best-selling author and architect Julia Watson explains in her TED Talk about ancient architecture, designing symbiotically with nature, instead of resisting it, can often help solve modern issues (Watson 8:03-8:20). In this way, steel bracing can be seen as an evolution of other successful earthquake resistant designs, like the wooden bracings used in the Horyu-Ji pagoda from 607 CE (Tarantola).

Steel bracings are also economically viable. According to an article published in the European Journal of Environmental & Civil Engineering by Furtado et al., a steel bracing solution with an energy dissipation device is cheaper than other solutions such as column jacketing and shear walls (Furtado et al. 386). On the other hand, this article also finds that steel bracing has slightly higher upfront costs than shear walls due to the varying costs of steel between countries (Furtado et al. 385). However, the article explains that steel bracing has easier construction and long-term durability advantages compared to other solutions, concluding that “costs associated [with it] are low compared with the...respective efficiency” (Furtado et al. 385).

Although steel bracing provides long-term benefits, it is still a downside that the upfront costs are slightly higher. Despite that, steel bracing is cheaper and easier for developing countries to implement than advanced solutions like base isolation, while being stronger than other cost-effective solutions like shear walls. This middle ground proves steel bracing to be the most viable solution to weaknesses in infrastructure in underdeveloped countries.

Constructing the Buildings

Improving building designs alone will not effectively solve the seismic vulnerability of underdeveloped regions. A BBC article by journalists Horton and Armstrong cited an interview with Professor Alexander from UCL on the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake, who explained that “the maximum intensity of this earthquake was violent but not necessarily enough to bring well-constructed buildings down” (Horton and Armstrong). While a building designed with better earthquake resistance, such as using steel bracing, likely would have survived better, the real issue is the way these buildings were constructed.

Mismanagement of Earthquake Codes

Earthquake codes are essential to any country that is located in a seismically active zone and can make or break survival in a disaster scenario. This is one of the main reasons Japan maintains such high earthquake safety, as their codes are strictly regulated to keep buildings safe. On the other hand, Professor Alexander mentions that “ ‘almost all of [the thousands of buildings that collapsed in Turkey-Syria] don't stand up to any reasonably expected earthquake construction code’ ” (Horton and Armstrong).

While the lack of buildings meeting code requirements might seem to be a legal issue, the BBC report from Horton and Armstrong reveals that the Turkish government has offered construction amnesties for a fee to bypass the code requirements, with the head of the Architects' Chamber of City Planners saying that “75,000 buildings across the affected earthquake zone…[were] been given construction amnesties” (Horton and Armstrong). The most concerning part of all this relates to information from a 2007 academic report published in the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities by Irtem et al., where “legalizing many unlicensed buildings by means of constructional remission laws” is concluded to be a key reason in the collapse of buildings during Turkish earthquakes in the late 90s and early 2000s (Irtem et al. 358). This report shows that the issue of construction amnesties has been widely regarded as a serious problem since the early 2000s, yet the Turkish government has done nothing to address it.

Most worryingly, they even doubled down on it, with Horton and Armstrong’s BBC article mentioning that “just a few days before the [2023 earthquake], Turkish media reported that a new draft law is awaiting parliamentary approval which would grant a further amnesty for recent construction work” (Horton and Armstrong). If the lack of proper management of earthquake building codes is such a vital factor behind disaster casualties, why is there so little political support behind reforming it?

Lack of Political Support

Samson and Yackley’s article in the Financial Times quotes Turkish President Erdogan before the 2019 local elections, where he mentioned that the construction amnesties he had expanded had “solved the problem of 205,000 citizens from Hatay” (Samson and Yackley). Urbanization is a major obstacle for developing countries and expanding their cities to accommodate the large amounts of people moving in can be difficult. For many leaders, introducing cheap housing by circumventing earthquake codes can gain public support and secure reelection, but this can come at the cost of earthquake resilience. This is ignored by politicians, as the public lacks awareness about the need for better earthquake architecture and is likely to forego some protection against a low-possibility event to save costs. According to a research report from the OECD, information from the Swiss Re states that “only 1% of Italian residential properties are covered against earthquake risk” despite Italy being one of the most seismically active countries in Europe (OECD 49). Charles Kenny’s academic report published in Disasters explains this: "in the absence of legal requirements, individuals are unlikely to take even fairly simple steps to reduce disaster risk” (Kenny 561).

Developing countries also struggle with corruption, and many building companies are willing to circumvent costly regulations by bribing government officials. This is especially an issue with steel bracing and other types of effective earthquake reinforcement, which Keefer et al. point out “cannot easily be verified at reasonable cost” due to being encased in concrete, causing buyers to be “less willing to pay a higher price for quality construction and [giving] construction companies…weaker incentives to provide it” (Keefer et al. 6).

Overall, with low public awareness for good earthquake-resistant architecture and little government regulation, new buildings are often built without following earthquake codes. In Teymourian et al.’s research report analyzing earthquakes in Tehran, they found that “using untrained laborers such as steel or concrete workers had resulted in many defects in the building workmanship,” which was worsened by a “lack of proper and frequent supervision by experienced and qualified engineers [leaving] most of the workmanship defects in place” (Teymourian et al. 3). This all stems from the lack of stricter government enforcement of the earthquake codes, as a strong hand guarding the guidelines would give more incentive for companies to follow regulations and construct well-made buildings.

Overall Solution

As Professor Alexander puts it in his interview with the BBC, while “‘there's very little retrofitting of existing buildings,…there's also very little enforcement of building standards on new builds’” (Horton and Armstrong). To properly solve the vulnerability of buildings in developing countries to earthquakes, earthquake codes must be improved to mandate the use of stronger building reinforcements and be enforced strictly.

Based on the evidence discussed previously, the best building reinforcement is using steel bracings. Steel bracing is cost-effective enough for developing countries to afford while having strong seismic resilience due to its high ductility and ability to “ride” the seismic waves to safety.

Greater government involvement is necessary to enforce earthquake codes by banning government amnesties, conducting strict inspections, and educating the public on the importance of earthquake-resilient buildings. Developing countries can model successful earthquake codes, but implementation should be gradual to avoid excessive economic strain.

Changes like these have already happened with great success. Only a month after the 2010 Haitian earthquake, Chile was struck by an earthquake described as “500 times more powerful than the Haiti earthquake” by the director of Extreme Events Research at Florida International University (Olson). His article also used data from EM-DAT showing that Chile’s earthquake only resulted in “562 deaths,” compared to Haiti’s “222,570 deaths” (Olson).

A big reason for this success was the use of well-designed seismic reinforcements that kept more buildings intact. In fact, the best seismic reinforcement solution proposed previously in this report, steel bracing, saw some action during the 2010 Chilean earthquake, where it performed admirably. A peer-reviewed academic report published in the Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering examined the performance of steel buildings in the Chilean earthquake, finding that a building with steel bracing did “not suffer from any damage” (Saatcioglu et al. 729).

In addition, improved government codes and better education allowed local authorities to respond far better to the disaster. Chilean President Bachelet supported this, quoting in a CNN article about the Chilean earthquake that the local authorities’ response after the disaster was “ ‘a great example…that when we work together in an adequate manner and when we follow the plans that have been established in the region, we work well’ ” (Sanchez).

In an interview with CNN, a Denver-based geophysicist at the U.S. Geological Survey explained Chile’s success in the 2010 earthquake due to their skill at “ ‘implementing their building codes similar to California’ ” (Sanchez). While Chile did base their model on California’s already well-proven model, a downside of following foreign models can be that they are designed for already wealthy, developed nations and may be unrealistic for developing countries to emulate. However, Chile’s building codes were modified to fit in a developing country better and may be a superior model for other underdeveloped nations to base on.

After their earthquake, people from Haiti aspired to take inspiration from Chile to redesign their earthquake code. In interviews with survivors of the 2010 Haiti earthquake in Rahill et al.’s peer-reviewed academic article published in the Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, survivors compared their government’s response to that of Chile’s, complaining that they “[saw] improvements in Chile, ” while “[in Haiti], there [was] no leadership” (Rahill et al. 595-596).

Chile’s success gives people in developing countries a model for earthquake resistance that they can realistically follow. With better building designs reinforced with steel bracings and an updated seismic code with more education and enforcement, the resilience of low-rise buildings in underdeveloped countries can improve against earthquakes.

Work Cited

Ahrens, Marty. “High-Rise Building Fires.” NFPA, November 2016, https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/Building-and-life-safety/oshighrise.pdf. Accessed 7 April 2023.

Dang, Yu, et al. "Analysis of the seismic performance of isolated buildings according to life-cycle cost." Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, Annual 2015. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A462299423/AONE?u=j043905006&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=dd1c6e5e. Accessed 18 Mar. 2023.

Furtado, André, et al. “Evaluation of Different Strengthening Techniques’ Efficiency for a Soft Storey Building.” European Journal of Environmental & Civil Engineering, vol. 21, no. 4, Apr. 2017, pp. 371–88. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2015.1119064.

Hakim, Amthal and Adnan Masri. “CASE STUDY OF SEISMIC EVALUATION AND STRENGTHENING OF EXISTING LOW-RISE REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING.” Proceedings of International Structural Engineering and Construction (2018)

Horton, Jake, and William Armstrong. “Turkey earthquake: Why did so many buildings collapse?” BBC, 9 February 2023, https://www.bbc.com/news/64568826. Accessed 18 March 2023.

Irtem, Erdal, et al. “Causes of Collapse and Damage to Low-Rise RC Buildings in Recent Turkish Earthquakes.” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, vol. 21, no. 5, Sept. 2007, pp. 351–60. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2007)21:5(351).

Japan Property Central. “Earthquake building codes in Japan.” Japan Property Central, https://japanpropertycentral.com/real-estate-faq/earthquake-building-codes-in-japan/. Accessed 2 April 2023.

Keefer, Philip, et al. “Earthquake Propensity and the Politics of Mortality Prevention.” World Development, vol. 39, no. 9, Sept. 2011, pp. 1530–1541, Semantic Scholar, https://doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.02.010.

Kenny, Charles. “Disaster Risk Reduction in Developing Countries: Costs, Benefits and Institutions.” Disasters, vol. 36, no. 4, Oct. 2012, pp. 559–88. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2012.01275.x.

Laghi, Vittoria, et al. "Seismic-Proof Buildings in Developing Countries." Frontiers in Built Environment, vol. 3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2017.00049. Accessed 18 Mar. 2023.

Olson, Richard S. “Haiti vs Chile - Extreme Events Institute (EEI) - Florida International University.” Extreme Events Institute, https://eei.fiu.edu/case_study/haiti-vs-chile/. Accessed 7 April 2023.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. “Financial Management of Earthquake Risk.” OECD, 4 June 2018, https://www.oecd.org/finance/insurance/Financial-management-of-earthquake-risk.pdf. Accessed 8 April 2023.

Rahill, Guitele J et al. “In their Own Words: Resilience among Haitian Survivors of the 2010 Earthquake.” Journal of health care for the poor and underserved, vol. 27., 2016, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27180697/

Saatcioglu, Murat, et al. “Performance of Steel Buildings and Nonstructural Elements during the 27 February 2010 Maule (Chile) Earthquake.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 40, no. 8, Aug. 2013, pp. 722–34. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2012-0244.

Samson, Adam, and Ayla Jean Yackley. “Erdoğan under fire as shoddy Turkish building standards exposed by earthquake.” Financial Times, 13 February 2023, https://www.ft.com/content/6113a9d2-25d4-4329-bb6a-0a50b1cff30c. Accessed 7 April 2023.

Sanchez, Ray. “Experts: Strict building codes saved lives in Chile earthquake.” CNN, 3 April 2014, https://www.cnn.com/2014/04/02/world/americas/chile-earthquake/index.html. Accessed 7 April 2023.

Tarantola, Andrew. “How Japan's Oldest Wooden Building Survives Giant Earthquakes.” Gizmodo, 5 October 2011, https://gizmodo.com/how-japans-oldest-wooden-building-survives-giant-earthq-5846501. Accessed 7 April 2023.

Teymourian, J., et al. “Strengthening of existing buildings against earthquake with consideration of economic constraints in developing countries.” Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, no. 2283, 2004. Semantic Scholar, https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/13_2283.pdf. Accessed 7 April 2023.

Watson, Julia. "How to Build a Resilient Future Using Ancient Wisdom | Julia Watson." Youtube.com, uploaded by TED, 30 Mar. 2023, youtu.be/_DOOJx7AZfM.