Jump to content

Earthquake-Resistant Infrastructure

From Elisy
Earthquake-Resistant Infrastructure: Solutions for Functional Recovery


Earthquakes will keep happening – but large losses are not inevitable. Where modern seismic design is adopted, enforced, and paired with retrofit of older stock and well-planned recovery goals, communities can withstand strong shaking and return to function faster. This article outlines a practical, evidence-based path: codes and quality assurance, targeted retrofits, advanced response-reduction systems, protection of lifelines, earthquake early warning, and continuous monitoring – all guided by community functional-recovery objectives.[1][2]

The Problem

Many communities still rely on buildings and lifelines that predate contemporary seismic provisions, with limited enforcement capacity and under-investment in nonstructural safety (equipment, ceilings, piping, contents). In past earthquakes, nonstructural damage has often dominated losses and disrupted critical services even when structures met life-safety goals.[3]

Hazard is spatially variable and evolving, so using up-to-date hazard models and performance targets matters. Traditional “life-safety only” aims can leave communities inhabitable but economically stalled; functional-recovery goals aim for safe re-occupancy and near-normal services within defined time windows.[4][2]

Possible Solutions

Adopt, enforce, and continuously improve modern seismic codes

Modern codes and enforcement deliver among the highest returns in disaster risk reduction – independent benefit-cost studies find double-digit paybacks from code adoption and mitigation investments. Quality assurance during construction (special inspections, material traceability, site supervision) is essential to realize those benefits in practice.[1][5]

What helps in practice: mandate current code editions, require qualified peer review for risk-critical projects, fund building-department capacity, and track compliance with transparent dashboards.[5]

Systematically retrofit existing buildings and nonstructural components

Start with risk triage: screen portfolios using recognized rapid methods, then perform detailed assessment and retrofit where needed. Nonstructural bracing, restraints, shut-offs, and flexible connections can protect patients, staff, students, and essential operations at modest cost. Performance-based assessment/design helps target upgrades that reduce downtime and losses, not just collapse risk.[6][3][7]

Independent analyses also show lifeline retrofits (water, power, transportation, communications) produce strong returns by keeping communities operating.[1]

Use proven response-reduction technologies where they add value

Base isolation, viscous/viscoelastic dampers, buckling-restrained bracing, and self-centering “rocking” systems can reduce drift, accelerations, damage, and repair time when properly engineered and maintained. These approaches are now widely deployed, with thousands of seismically isolated buildings documented by professional societies, and have been validated in full-scale tests up to 10 stories.[8][9]

Protect lifelines and critical infrastructure

Design for damage control and rapid service restoration: segment networks, add redundancy, use flexible joints and shut-off devices, and harden control centers. Align projects with community resilience plans so essential functions (healthcare, water, power, mobility, communications) recover to defined performance within target timeframes.[1][10]

Deploy earthquake early warning (EEW) and automate protective actions

EEW does not predict earthquakes, but it can provide seconds to tens of seconds of warning in some regions – enough to trigger automatic actions (open fire-station doors, slow trains, shut valves, alert surgeons) and cue Drop-Cover-Hold On. Integrate EEW with facility controls and drills.[11][12]

Monitor, inspect, and learn continuously

Low-cost sensor networks, structural health monitoring, and remote reconnaissance (including drones with AI-assisted damage recognition) can inform rapid safety decisions and prioritize repairs. Post-event data improves models and future designs.[10]

Plan for functional recovery – not just life safety

Set explicit, community-adopted targets for re-occupancy and service restoration and design to meet them (e.g., essential facilities ready within days to weeks; housing and businesses within weeks to months). Embed these goals into capital programs and permitting.[2]

What You Can Do

City and regional leaders
Adopt latest codes and inspection capacity; publish compliance metrics; set functional-recovery targets in policy; align lifeline investments with resilience plans; onboard public EEW where available.[5][2][11]
Building owners and developers
Commission seismic screening for older assets; budget nonstructural anchorage/bracing; consider isolation/damping for high-value or continuity-critical facilities; plan for EEW automation.[6][3][8]
Hospitals and schools
Prioritize bracing of equipment, ceilings, sprinklers, medical gases, laboratory/storage racks; maintain alternative power and water; conduct regular drills tied to EEW procedures.[3][11]
Engineers and constructors
Use performance-based tools where downtime matters; document QA/QC rigorously; design details for repairability and rapid re-occupancy.[7][5]
Residents and workers
Secure heavy furniture and appliances; know Drop-Cover-Hold On; sign up for local alerts where offered; keep home/office emergency kits.[3]

FAQ

Are modern codes “enough”?
Codes target life safety; some damage and downtime can still occur. Where continuity is critical, use performance-based design and response-reduction systems to meet tighter recovery goals.[7][2]
Can retrofits be affordable?
Yes – studies find strong benefit–cost ratios for mitigation, and many nonstructural fixes are low cost with high payoff in safety and continuity.[1][3]
Do isolation and damping only make sense for special buildings?
They are broadly applicable when the value of reduced damage/downtime justifies the investment; thousands of isolated buildings are in service worldwide.[8]
Does earthquake early warning predict quakes?
No. It detects shaking already underway and can provide short warning in instrumented regions – enough to automate protective actions and alert people.[11][12]
Are new materials like mass timber viable for seismic regions?
Full-scale shake-table tests of a 10-story specimen demonstrated resilient performance of a self-centering mass-timber system aimed at quick repair. Applicability depends on local codes, detailing, and project goals.[9]

Conclusion

Earthquake resilience is achievable. The most cost-effective steps are well known – up-to-date codes and enforcement, targeted retrofit (especially nonstructural), lifeline hardening, and actionable early warning – all coordinated by community functional-recovery goals. The technologies exist; the task is consistent implementation with verification and learning.[1][2]

Organizations Working on This Issue

  • USGS Earthquake Hazards Program – hazard science, public education, and operation of public EEW in supported regions. How to help: share official preparedness guidance and EEW practices.[11]
  • NIST Community Resilience Program – functional-recovery concepts and resilience planning guides for buildings and infrastructure. How to help: use and share the free guides in local planning.[10]
  • FEMA & Applied Technology Council (ATC) – free handbooks and performance-based tools (P-154 rapid screening, P-58 performance assessment). How to help: train local staff and vendors on these methods.[6][7]
  • EERI – Earthquake Engineering Research Institute – professional network, field investigations, and practice guidance. How to help: join or follow briefings and implement lessons learned. https://www.eeri.org/
  • PEER – Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center – performance-based earthquake engineering research, tools, and training. How to help: use open resources and attend practitioner workshops. https://peer.berkeley.edu/
  • GEM Foundation (Global Earthquake Model) – open-source hazard and risk models and training (OpenQuake). How to help: apply open models and contribute data. https://www.globalquakemodel.org/ ; https://github.com/gem/oq-engine
  • USRC – U.S. Resiliency Council – voluntary building resilience rating for safety, damage, and recovery. How to help: pursue ratings to signal performance to occupants and investors. https://www.usrc.org/
  • GeoHazards International – programs to reduce preventable earthquake losses in high-risk communities, with a focus on schools and hospitals. How to help: support projects and knowledge sharing. https://www.geohaz.org/
  • Build Change – resilient housing systems change, technical assistance, and policy/finance innovation for safer homes. How to help: partner on housing programs or support the Climate-Resilient Housing Initiative. https://buildchange.org/
  • UNDRR – Making Cities Resilient 2030 (MCR2030) – a resilience roadmap and tools for local governments. How to help: enroll cities and use the staged roadmap. https://mcr2030.undrr.org/

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 National Institute of Building Sciences (2019). Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves – benefit–cost findings for building code adoption and mitigation. https://nibs.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/mitigationsaves2019_complete.pdf
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 NIST Special Publication 1254 (2021). Recommended Options for Improving the Built Environment for Post-Earthquake Reoccupancy and Functional Recovery Time. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1254.pdf
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 FEMA E-74 (2012–2021). Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage. https://femae74.atcouncil.org/
  4. ↑ USGS (2024). 2023 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/science/2023-50-state-long-term-national-seismic-hazard-model
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 FEMA P-2082 (2020). NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions. https://www.wbdg.org/dhs/criteria/fema-p-2082-vol-1
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 FEMA P-154 (2015). Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_earthquakes_rapid-visual-screening-of-buildings-for-potential-seismic-hazards-a-handbook-third-edition-fema-p-154.pdf
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 FEMA P-58 (2nd ed.). Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. https://www.atcouncil.org/docman/fema/246-fema-p-58-1-seismic-performance-assessment-of-buildings-volume-1-methodology-second-edition
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Japan Society of Seismic Isolation (2024). We are the JSSI – statistics on base-isolated and damped buildings. https://www.jssi.or.jp/eng/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/We-are-the-JSSI-2024-7-10.pdf
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Pei, S. et al. (2024). Shake-Table Testing of a Full-Scale 10-Story Resilient Mass-Timber Building, ASCE J. Struct. Eng. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/JSENDH.STENG-13752
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 NIST SP 1190 (2015). Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1190v1.pdf
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 USGS. Earthquake Early Warning – Overview. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/science/earthquake-early-warning-overview
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Congressional Research Service (2025). The ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System and the Federal Role (R47121). https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2025-04-24_R47121_70314fd6eac17543d3ab331a19be442ebedbf62a.pdf

References and Inspirational Resources

Retrieved from "https://elisy.org/index.php?title=Earthquake-Resistant_Infrastructure&oldid=288"