12

Architectural Detailing
for Earthquake Resistance

12.1 Introduction
A large part of the damage done to buildings by earthquakes is non-structural. For
instance, in the San Fernando, California, earthquake of February 1971, a total of
$500 million worth of damage was done to the built environment of which over half
was non-structural. The importance of sound anti-seismic detailing in earthquake areas
should need no further emphasizing. The choice of a suitable structural form is crucial,
involving full collaboration at conceptual design stage between architects and engineers
(Chapter 8).
Buildings in their entirety should be tailored to ride safely through an earthquake
and the appropriate relationship between structure and non-structure must be logically
sought. For the effect of non-structure on the overall dynamic behaviour of a building
see Section 8.3.8 (pages 2468), where the question of full separation or integration
of infill panels into the structure is discussed.
Architectural items such as partitions, doors, windows, cladding and finishes need
proper seismic detailing; many non-seismic construction techniques do not survive
strong earthquake motion as they do not provide for the right kinds or size of movements. Detailing for earthquake movements should, however, be considered in conjunction with details for the usual movements due to live loads, creep, shrinkage and
temperature effects. As with so many other problems, it is worth saying that good
planning can provide the right framework for practical aseismic details.
An ironic example of the inadequacy of a non-structural item comes from the San
Fernando earthquake; a modern fire station withstood the earthquake satisfactorily
with regard to its structure, but the main doors were so badly jammed that all the
fire engines were trapped inside. Arnold (1991) notes that engineers tend to emphasize structural damage in earthquakes, but in certain situations earthquake damage
to non-structural components will greatly exceed the cost of structural damage. For
example, in an analysis of a new 27-storey condominium building in Los Angeles,
Shipp and Johnson (1990) estimated that in a Maximum Credible Event the building
Earthquake Risk Reduction D.J. Dowrick
2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd ISBN: 0-471-49688-X (HB)

458

Architectural detailing for earthquake resistance

would suffer structural damage of just over $1 million compared to non-structural

damage of just under $6.7 million, relative to a total construction cost of $42.8 million.
This estimated cost is for direct economic loss only, excluding indirect losses of
revenue and building use. Moreover, costly damage to non-structural elements can
occur in earthquakes of moderate intensities which would cause little or no structural damage.
In the last two decades of the 20th Century, useful work on non-structural detailing has been carried out, in particular, by Massey (1992), Arnold (1984) and Arnold
and Reitherman (1982), to whom reference should be made to supplement the following discussion.

12.2 Non-structural Infill Panels and Partitions

12.2.1 Introduction
The recommendations of this section should be applied in conjunction with normal design considerations regarding creep, shrinkage and temperature effects which
overlap, but are generally less exacting than the seismic design requirements for
infill panels.
In earthquakes all buildings sway horizontally, producing differential movements of
each floor relative to its neighbours. This is termed inter-storey drift (Figure 12.1), and
is accompanied by vertical deformations which involve changes in the clear height h
between floors and beams.
Any infill panel should be designed to deal with both these movements. This can
be done by either (1) integrating the infill with the structure, or (2) separating the infill
from the structure. A discussion of both systems of constructing infill panels follows,
while further guidance on the aseismic effectiveness of some types of partitions may
be found in Rihal and Granneman (1984), while the need to avoid accidental formation
of soft storeys in infilled walls is discussed by Dolsek and Fajfar (2001) and also in
Section 8.3.8 (page 265).

Beam

Integrated
panel

Separated
panel

Column

2
Drift

(Not to scale)

Figure 12.1

Diagrammatic elevation of structural frame and non-structural infill panels

Non-structural infill panels and partitions

12.2.2

459

Integrating infill panels with the structure

In this case, the panels will be in effective structural contact with the frame such that
the frame and panels will have equal drift deformations (Panel A in Figure 12.1). Such
panels must be strong enough (or flexible enough) to absorb this deformation, and
the forces and deformations should be computed properly. Where appreciably rigid
materials are used the panels should be considered as structural elements in their own
right, as discussed in Sections 5.4.6 and 10.4.5. Reinforcement of integrated rigid walls
is usually necessary if seismic deformations are to be satisfactorily withstood.
Integration of infill and structure is most likely to be successful when very flexible
partitions are combined with a very stiff structure (with many shear walls). Attention
is drawn to the fact that partitions not located in the plane of a shear wall may be
subjected to deformations substantially different from those of the shear wall. This is
particularly true of upper-storey partitions.
Light partitions may be dealt with by detailing them to fail in controlled local areas
thus minimizing earthquake repairs to replaceable strips (Figure 12.2).
Finding suitable flexible construction for integral infill may not be easy, especially
in beam and column frames of normal flexibility. These may experience an inter-storey
drift of as much as 1/100 of the storey height in an earthquake.

12.2.3

Separating infill panels from the structure

(See Figure 12.1, Panel B.) For important structural reasons, this method of dealing with non-structural infill is likely to be preferable to integral construction when
using flexible frames in strong earthquake regions. The size of the gap between the
infill panels and the structure is considerably greater than that required in non-seismic
construction. In the absence of reliable computed structural movement, it is recommended that horizontal and vertical movements of between 20 mm and 40 mm should
be allowed for. The appropriate amount will depend upon the stiffness of the structure,
and the structural engineers advice should be taken on this.
This type of construction has two inherent detailing problems which are not
experienced to the same extent in non-seismic areas. First, awkward details may
be required to ensure lateral stability of the elements against out-of-plane forces.

Seismic movement gap

Structural wall

Column

Figure 12.2

Replaceable lining

Lightweight partition detailed so that earthquake hammering by the structure will

damage limited end strips only

460

Architectural detailing for earthquake resistance

Secondly, soundproofing and fireproofing of the separation gap is difficult. Moderate

soundproofing of the movement gap can be achieved with cover plates or flexible
sealants, but where stringent fireproofing and sound proofing requirements exist, the
separation of infill panels from the structure is inappropriate. Designers should be
careful in the choice of so-called flexible materials in movement gaps; the material
must be not only sufficiently soft but also permanently soft. Both polysulphide and
foamed polyethylene are not flexible enough (or weak enough) in this situation.
It is in fact difficult to find a suitable material; Mono-Lasto-Meric is both permanently and sufficiently soft, but is not suitable for gap widths exceeding 20 mm.
Foamed polyurethane is probably the best material from a flexibility point of view
and will provide modest sound-insulation, but may have little fire resistance. A fireresistant possibility is Declon 156, a polyester/polyurethane foam which intumesces in
fire conditions.
Figures 12.3 to 12.6 show some details used for separated infill panels. Note that
great care has to be taken during both detailing and building to prevent the gaps

Sealant
Soffit

Concrete
column

Corner
reinforcement
150 mm

Metal
stud

Attenuation
blanket

Corner
reinforcement

Plaster
board

Skirting

Metal
trim

Structural wall

75 mm

Plan sections

Floor
Sealant
Vertical section

Figure 12.3

Light partition details for small seismic movements (i.e. suitable for stiff-framed
buildings or small earthquakes
A

Slot

Sealant

Metal angles

(a)

Figure 12.4

Metal dowel
grouted into
hollow block

Flat metal strap

nailed in perpend

(b)

(c)

AA
(d)

Separated stiff partitions: top details for lateral stability of brick or block walls
(see Section 12.2.2)

Cladding, wall finishes, windows and doors

Difficult to keep
gap clear of
mortar
Column

Infill wall

461

Structural
wall

Stabilizing buttress

Figure 12.5 Separated stiff partition: plan view of stabilizing buttress systems

Plaster bead
Plaster

Figure 12.6 Plastering detail to ensure preservation of gap between partition and structure

being accidentally filled with mortar or plaster. Figure 12.6 shows a detail which helps
prevent plaster bridging the gap. Further details suitable for small seismic movements
may be found elsewhere (Arnold, 1984; Massey, 1992).

12.2.4

Separating infill panels from intersecting services

Where ducts of any type penetrate a full-height partition, the ducts should not be tied
to the partition for support. Support should occur on either side of the partition from
the building structure above. If the opening is required to be sealed because of fire
resistance or acoustics, the sealant should be of a resilient non-combustible type to
permit motion of the duct without affecting the partition or duct. It is important for
both seismic and acoustic considerations that the duct be independently supported by
hangers and horizontal restraints from the building structure.
Further discussion of ducts is to be found in Section 11.3.6, and for some remarks
on the required properties of gap sealants around ducts, see discussion on infill panels
in Section 12.2.3.

12.3 Cladding, Wall Finishes, Windows and Doors

12.3.1

Introduction

The problems involved in providing earthquake-proof details for these items are the
same in principle as those for partitions as discussed in the preceding section. Their
in-plane stiffness renders them liable to damage during the horizontal drift of the building, and the techniques of integral or separated construction must again be logically
applied.

462

Architectural detailing for earthquake resistance

Column

Beam
Gap

Gap filled with

flexible sealant
(section 8.2.3.)

Spandrel

Figure 12.7

Detail of external frame showing separation of spandrel from columns to avoid

unwanted interaction

12.3.2 Cladding and curtain walls

Precast concrete cladding is discussed in Section 10.3.12. Suffice it here to point out
that in flexible buildings, non-structural precast concrete cladding should be mounted
on specially designed fixings which ensure that it is fully separated from horizontal
drift movements of the structure. Brick or other rigid cladding should be either fully
integral and treated like infill walls (Section 5.4.6), or should be properly separated
with details similar to those for rigid partitions (Figure 12.4, 12.5) or for spandrels
such as shown in Figure 12.7.
External curtain walling may well be best dealt with as fully-framed pre-fabricated
storey-height units mounted on specially-designed fixings capable of dealing with seismic movements in a similar way to precast concrete cladding, as mentioned above.

12.3.3 Weather seals

Weather seals that may be damaged in severe earthquakes should be accessible and
suitable for replacement.

12.3.4 Wall finishes

Brittle or rigid finishes should be avoided or specially detailed on any walls subjected
to shear deformations, i.e. drift as applied to Panel A, Figure 12.1. This applies to
materials such as stone facings or most plasters. In Japan it is recommended that
stone facings should not be used on walls where the storey drift is likely to be more
than 1/300.
Brittle veneers such as tiles, glass or stone should not be applied directly to the
inside of stairwells, escalators or open wells. If they must be used, they should be
mounted on separate stud walls or furrings. Preferably the stairwells should be free
of material which may spall or fall off and thus clog the exit way or cause injury to
persons using the area.
Heavy ornamentation such as marble veneers should be avoided in exit lobbies. If a
veneer of this type must be used, it should be securely fastened to structural elements

Cladding, wall finishes, windows and doors

463

using appropriate structural fastenings to prevent the veneers from spalling off in the
event of seismic disturbance.
Plaster on separated infill panels must be carefully detailed to prevent its bridging
the gap between panel and structure (Figure 12.6) as this may defeat the purpose of
the gap, resulting in damage to the plaster, the infill panel and the structure.

12.3.5

Windows

It is worth observing that in the 1971 San Fernando, California, earthquake, which caused
$500 million worth of damage, glass breakage cost more than any other single item.
Window sashes should be separated from frame action except where it can be shown
that no glass breakage will result. If the drift is small, sufficient protection of the glass
may be achieved by windows glazed in soft putty (Figure 12.8), where the minimum
clearance c all round between glass and sash is such that
c>

w
2[1 + (h/b)]

(12.1)

The failure mode of hard putty glazed windows tends to be of the explosive buckling
type, and should be used only where sashes are fully separated from the structure, for
example when glass is in a panel or frame which is mounted on rockers or rollers as
described in Section 10.3.12. Further discussion of window behaviour in earthquakes
may be found elsewhere (Osawa et al., 1965).

12.3.6

Doors

Doors which are vital means of egress, particularly main doors of highly populated and
emergency service buildings, should be specially designed to remain functional after
a strong earthquake. For doors on rollers, the problem may not be simply a geometric
one dealing with the frame drift
, but may also involve the dynamic behaviour of
the door itself.
Column
Beam
w

c
c

(Drift not to scale)

Figure 12.8 Detail of external frame with window glazing set in soft putty

464

12.4

Architectural detailing for earthquake resistance

Miscellaneous Architectural Details

12.4.1 Exit requirements

Every consideration should be given to keeping the exit ways clear of obstructions or
debris in the event of an earthquake. As well as the requirements for wall finishes and
doors outlined in Sections 12.3.4 and 12.3.6, the following points should be considered.
Floor covers for seismic joints in corridors should be designed to take threedimensional movements, i.e. lateral, vertical and longitudinal. Special attention should
be given to the lateral movement of the joints.
Free-standing showcases or glass lay-in shelves should not be placed in public
areas, especially near exit doors. Displays in wall-mounted or recessed showcases
should be tied down so that they cannot come loose and break the glass front during
an earthquake. Where this is impracticable, tempered or laminated safety glass should
be used for greater strength.
Pendant-mounted light fixtures should not be used in exit ways. Recessed or surfacemounted independently supported lights are preferred.

12.4.2 Suspended ceilings

In seismic conditions ceilings become potentially lethal. Individual tiles or lumps of
plaster may jar loose from the supports and fall. Ceiling-supported light fixtures may
loosen and drop out, endangering persons below. Thus, alternatives to the standard
ceiling construction procedures should be considered. A thorough review of the seismic
hazard from suspended ceilings and detailing recommendations has been given by
Clarke and Glogau (1979), while studies on dynamic response behaviour have been
made by Rihal and Granneman (1984).
The horizontal components of seismic forces to which a ceiling may be subjected can
be allowed for in several ways. A dimensional allowance should be made at the ceiling
perimeter for this motion so as to minimize damage to the ceiling where it abuts the
walls: one way of doing this is to provide a gap and a sliding cover (Figure 12.9). Some
ceiling suspension systems need additional horizontal restraints at columns and other
structural elements, such as diagonal braces to the floor above, in order to minimize
ceiling motion in relation to the structural frame. This will reduce hammering damage
to the ceiling, and tiles will be less likely to fall out. The suspension system for the
ceiling should also minimize vertical motion in relation to the structure.
Lighting fixtures which are dependent upon the ceiling system for support should
be securely tied to the ceiling grid members. If such support is likely to be inadequate
in earthquakes, the light fixtures should be supported independently from the building
structure above. Diffuser grilles, if required for the air supply system, should also be
hung independently.
In seismic areas, a lay-in T-bar system for ceiling construction should be avoided
if at all possible, as its tiles and lighting fixtures drop out in earthquakes. In both the
1964 Alaska and the 1971 San Fernando earthquakes, the economical (and therefore
popular) exposed tee grid suspended ceilings suffered the greatest damage. Evidently
the differential movement between the partitions and the suspended ceilings damaged

References

465

Structure

Gap
Restraint

Ceiling

Alternative free
end detail

Figure 12.9

Cover plate or
moulding

Details of periphery of suspended ceilings to prevent hammering and excessive movement

Fixture yoke

Q-deck
type flooring

Concealed
Z-spline system

Figure 12.10

Box type light

fixture protection

Indirect
suspension
system

Two details of suspended ceiling construction providing movement restraint and

secure tile fixing (after Berry, 1972)

the suspension systems, and as the earthquake progressed the ceilings started to sway
and were battered against the surrounding walls. This damage was aggravated when
the ceilings supported lighting fixtures, and in many instances the suspension systems
were so badly damaged that the lighting fixtures fell.
Damage to ceilings can also occur where sprinkler heads project below the ceiling
tiles. One way of minimizing this problem is to mount the heads with a swivel joint
connection so that the pipe may move with the ceiling. Figures 12.9 and 12.10 give
suggestions for seismic detailing of suspended ceilings.

References
Arnold C (1984) Non-structural issues of seismic design and construction. Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California.

466

Architectural detailing for earthquake resistance

Arnold C (1991) The seismic response of non-structural elements in buildings. Bull NZ Nat Soc
Earthq Eng 24(4): 30616.
Arnold C and Reitherman R (1982) Building configuration and seismic design. John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Berry DR (1972) Architectural seismic detailing. State of the Art Report No 3, Technical Committee No 12, Architectural-Structural Interaction. IABSE-ASCE Int Conf on Planning and
Design of Tall Buildings, Lehigh University.
Clarke WD and Glogau OA (1979) Suspended ceilings: the seismic hazard and damage problem
and some practical solutions. Bull NZ Nat Soc for Earthq Eng 12(4): 292304.
Dolsek M and Fajfar P (2001) Soft storey effects in uniformly infilled reinforced concrete
frames. J Earthq Eng 5(1): 112.
Massey W (1992) Architectural design for earthquakeA guide to the design of non-structural
elements. New Zealand Nat Soc Earthq Eng.
Osawa Y, Morishita T and Murakami M (1965) On the damage to window glass in reinforced
concrete buildings during the earthquake of April 20, 1965. Bull Earthq Res Institute, University of Tokyo 43: 81927.
Rihal SS and Granneman G (1984) Experimental investigation of dynamic behaviour of building
partitions and suspended ceilings during earthquakes. Proc. 8th World Conf on Earthq Eng,
San Francisco V: 113540.
Shipp JG and Johnson MW (1990) Seismic loss estimation for non-structural components in
high-rise buildings. Proc. 4th US Nat Conf on Earthq Eng. EERI, Oakland, California.