Bhushan Raisinghani’s Post

View profile for Bhushan Raisinghani, graphic

Structural Design

As understood, earthquake is a rare event so for regions where frequency or numbers are less, its logical to follow the current practices as we may get time to fix the structure before the next event. However, if the number of shocks being experienced by the buildings are more than one or after/fore shocks are also more then the structural design is considered separately as the energy dissipation in each shock will be difficult to estimate. Our buildings can safely stand for at-least one major shock before failure if designed adequately. Re-occupancy requires structural adequacy check. Design for multiple events require cost and severity / hazard estimation only can help to balance it.

Marius Pinkawa

🏢 Earthquake Engineer — Training and Consulting: Seismic design and structural analysis of structures and components according to international seismic codes |⏳15+ years earthquake engineering 🎓120+ trained companies

10mo

Well said, Bhushan Raisinghani. In fact, structures are usually designed to withstand a main earthquake, not the aftershocks. Aftershocks tend to be less severe. On the other hand, they hit a structure that is already damaged. It is a difficult issue to handle. The recent catastrophic earthquakes in Turkey/Syria and Morocco showed both a rare and remarkable feature: Very strong aftershocks with the same energy as the main shock. Perhaps these events are valuable "lessons learnt" and the starting point for addressing the issue of aftershocks more seriously.

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics