Low Technology Anti-Seismic System Application in Post

Disaster Housing Reconstruction Project

Hafiz AMIRROL (25209022)

Department of Architecture
Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia

Abstract

In the last decade, the world has witnessed a multitude of earthquakes ranging
from the great tsunami of 2004 to the recent earthquake in Chile. These series of
unfortunate events had caused millions to lose their homes, and even worst,
thousands were killed and injured. Most of these cases were caused by collapsed
building structures that failed to resist the magnitude of the earthquakes. Since the
recent series of earthquakes took place in developing countries that cannot afford
expensive, high technology anti-seismic building system, this paper will discuss
the many possibilities to have safe houses that can resist the force of the
earthquake by the implementation of low-technology anti-seismic system to their
structural components and other parts of the house. The concept of cheap,
buildable and fast construction system for reconstruction and rebuilding projects is
most crucial in order to response the contextual demand of the areas involved. The
paper will also address the challenges and opportunities for improved building
concepts and system that may contribute to the response and recovery efforts in
enhancing safer house construction for post disaster housing reconstruction
project. It is hoped that the paper could excite the dissemination and exchange of
expertise, experience and information among the allied built environment
professions.

Keywords: low technology anti-seismic system; disaster area; core house;

rebuilding and reconstruction

Introduction
Most earthquakes are causally related to compressional or tensional stresses built
up at the margins of the huge moving lithospheric plates that make up the earth's
surface. The immediate cause of most shallow earthquakes is the sudden release of
stress along a fault, or fracture in the earth's crust, resulting in movement of the
opposing blocks of rock passing one another. These movements cause vibrations to
pass through and around the earth in waveform, just as ripples are generated when
a pebble is dropped into water. Volcanic eruptions, rock falls, landslides, and
explosions can also cause a quake, but most of these are only of local extent.
Shock waves from a powerful earthquake can trigger smaller earthquakes in a
distant location hundreds of miles away if the geologic conditions are favorable.

Earthquakes are among the most common and widespread of potential problems
that architects and builders must plan for. Earthquakes can cause many different
types of damage, and all must be taken into consideration. The most common type
of damage normally happened during the event of earthquake is surface rupture
(Hadi, 2006). An earthquake occurs when the earth at a fault line shifts in reaction
to deep underground pressures that build up as the tectonic plates grind up against
each other. When the pressure is released through an earthquake, the land on one
or both sides of the fault line moves a little or a lot. Building damages caused by
surface rupture and earth movements will be the main topic of interest to be
discussed in this paper.

Problem Statement: Earthquake-related Damages in Household Buildings

This paper will discuss in particular the problems facing poorly built houses that
were hit and damaged by earthquake. These earthquake-related damages in
household building were mostly caused by:

1. Badly built structures and housing components (i.e. foundations, columns,

beams, roof, wall, openings, etc.)
2. Lack of basic strengthening components for house structure (i.e. lintels,
stiffener, bracings, etc.)
3. Poor construction practices
4. Community’s lack of understanding on the importance of safe building and
good construction practice.

The main problem with rebuilding and reconstruction projects after a disaster lay
first in the scale of the destruction of buildings and infrastructures and, to a lesser
extent, in the poverty of those who lived with them. Taking the 2004 Indian Ocean
Tsunami, in the three worst hit countries – Indonesia, India and Sri Lanka, the
majority of people who suffered lived on the margins, on the edge both of the sea
and of society. Houses were often fragile and so the violence of the waves
rendered extraordinary numbers of people homeless. In Aceh, for instance, no
houses at all were left standing, over many acres of land, and large amounts of land
were permanently lost (Figure 1). Along the coasts of Southern India and Sri
Lanka, virtually all homes were destroyed in a belt stretching up to half kilometers
inland, for hundreds of miles. In Aceh alone, almost 700,000 people have been
made homeless. In addition to these shelter problems, clean water, sanitation and
hygiene issues are at the poorest level, thus contributing to the spread of diseases
(Kuntoro, 2005). With most of medical facilities such as community clinics and
hospitals were seriously affected, these problems have worsen the living standards
of the disaster victims.

Figure 1: Destroyed houses due to earthquake

In lieu of human losses in recent earthquakes and tsunamis, not much research and
development were conducted on seismic resistance of low-cost masonry and timber
buildings. Extensive amount of earthquake related research and development has
been carried out in research centers and universities of the developed and
developing countries but mainly deal with expensive modern buildings (Goodman
and Tabujara, 1979). It is the interest of this paper to share the author’s experience
in initiating, developing, implementing and completing a humble humanitarian
housing reconstruction project that responded to the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami
in Aceh, Indonesia. It will particularly discuss the subject on the importance and
techniques in constructing safe houses within a cheap and low- technology, simple
anti-seismic system. The case study will be the construction of 300 units of Core
Houses (Figure 2), constructed at Desa Weu Raya, Lhoknga, Aceh. The author was
the design and project architect, and worked under the banner of MERCY
Malaysia, a Malaysian-based non-profit organization that helps globally in the
name of humanitarian.

Figure 2: Core House design proposal

Anti Seismic Technology in Housing Construction

Due to economic and contextual constraints in post-tsunami Aceh, only masonry
and timber houses are the best choice for MERCY Malaysia to construct for the
internally displaced person (IDPs). This type of construction cannot be replaced
quickly and easily with modern earthquake resistant construction systems due to
the large dependence on low technology construction system, availability of
materials, and the ability of local workforce. Instead of relying on technological
approach for rapid and efficient construction, we decided to build simple houses
with conventional techniques of construction (Figure 3). This decision was driven
by the fact that the local community was becoming more associated to the project
and is seeing a potential of employment from the project (Amirrol and Samah,
2006). Communities were slowly being absorbed to contribute to the project by
understanding their capabilities to work. By assimilating the community into the
project, problems relating to understanding the purpose of the new design, which
are quite alien for them were successfully stripped away.
Collaborations between architects, engineers, contractors, experts, humanitarian
workers and local communities have resulted in an idea of tolerance that reduces
the risk of construction failure during earthquakes. Without overestimating the
omnipotence of new construction method and technology, architects should remain
committed to utilizing the progressive potentials of surrounding resources.
Shortages of materials, machineries, skilled workers and budget have driven the
architect to undertake creative solution. Architects are inherently charged with the
mission of creating works that contributes in the enhancement of the quality of life
of victims. In our process of reconstructing the new houses for the survivors of the
earthquake, we believe that technology must be manageable by locals for their
benefit. The use of technology and techniques should always be constructive to
civilization.

Figure 3: Structural and construction system

Discussion
Unreinforced masonry and timber structures generally have a brittle lateral-load-
resisting system. These types of buildings have a very poor seismic performance
(Razani, 1979). Total or partial collapse of these structures has been one of the
main causes of the loss of life during past earthquakes. Some of the important
causes of the failure of the walls and the subsequent collapse of roofs of this type
of structure are as follows:
1. The durability and the poor strength of materials (earth/clay) used in the
construction of adobe buildings.
2. The inferior quality of the mortar used in the construction of brick, concrete
block or masonry buildings, and the poor quality of the bricks and concrete
blocks.
3. Lack of sufficiently strong connection between the various elements of the
structure, such as between walls, partitions and roof. In addition, the
brittleness and low strength of the individual elements especially the walls.
Often, these structures do not behave as a rigid frame. Under moderate shaking,
various elements become disconnected from each other and gradually causing
the failure of the whole system.
4. The collapse of the unreinforced load-bearing walls, partitions and spandrels
over the openings due to the effects of shear-compression and shear-tension.
The failure modes by these effects are very brittle and highly strength
degrading. Therefore, under intense tremor, the wall elements crack and
subsequently disintegrate the load-bearing walls and partitions destroying the
lateral strength and rigidity of the structure and also the vertical-load carrying
capacity of the walls resulting in the collapse of roofs and supporting
structures.
5. Disintegration of the heavy, brittle, non-monolithic and non-rigid timbered
roofs or roofs made of unbraced trusses.

In reference to the proposed earthquake protection criteria for the Core Houses,
the primary goal is to prevent structural collapse during major earthquakes. From
our research and experiments through earthquake simulations, a structure become
less susceptible to collapse under strong earthquake if:

1. The roof and floor of the building remain monolithic with sufficient in-plane
rigidity during and after earthquakes.
2. The vertical load-carrying system of the structure can survive the earthquake
without its function impaired.
3. The lateral load-resisting system of that structure during the main earthquake
and succeeding after shocks can retain enough residual capacity to resist safely
the lateral forces due to lateral instability, wind load and future earthquake
lateral loads.

Figure 4: Roof bracing for rigidity

An alternative means in preventing the collapse of the roof and other structure of
houses is to use the techniques, which MERCY Malaysia developed in
collaboration with other experts. The construction technique incorporates a simple
braced skeleton system within the house design that can prevent structure failure
and collapse during an earthquake. The function of this skeleton is to tie together
various parts of the building. The main design components of this system are:

1. A horizontal in-plane umbrella-shaped bracing system (Figure 4) to tie together

the roof beams so that a monolithic roof with sufficient rigidity is obtained.
2. An auxiliary system of timber or reinforced concrete columns embedded within
the masonry walls so that in case of destruction of the walls, the ductile
columns can support the vertical loading.
3. These columns are braced together laterally by means of a vertical system of
diagonal bracing in such a way that the lateral instability and subsequent
collapse of the structure during earthquake is prevented.
Although possessing unique structural characteristics for better seismic resistance
behavior, the whole process of construction methods adopted conventional
building techniques which the community and local builders are familiar with
(Amirrol and Zubir, 2007). Collaboration with local engineers and experts, such as
from local universities also helped, not only for the contextualized design of the
project but to socialize the community with an ongoing educative program

Figure 5: Shake table demonstration

Conclusion
The development of anti-seismic construction methods and techniques does not
only stop after the technical parts are resolved. Educative explanations need to be
channeled down to the local community for them to absorb the new technology
with confidence. These can be carried out with workshops, simulations,
presentations and continuous discussion with communities and authorities (Figure
5). During these stages, we progressively learn to understand the contextual
elements of the area (soil, climate, resources availability, etc.). It is also as
important to understand the construction techniques practiced by local builders in
Aceh in order for us to introduce them with alternative and better techniques. As
architecture is absorbed into the knowledge industry, and the role of the architect
has shifted from building to organizing social relations, MERCY Malaysia feels
that in any future interventions of the public realms, a better inter-relation between
the architects and the end users must be established in order to generate successful
aid programs.
 Figure 6: Construction strategies and technical details

In building houses for a community that live with risks, all plans that have been
developed need to be properly studied, discussed, and put on test (Figure 6). From
our experience of designing, constructing and completing these Core Houses (Figure
7), it is proven possible to have cheap, efficient and decent houses that can resist
earthquake forces and prevent it from being damaged or destroyed. Through the
process of developing the idea of having a low- technology anti seismic system for
houses to be reconstructed after the event of disaster, we learnt that by
understanding the readily available resources (materials and construction workers),
it is the best practice to further apply these ideas when they are needed in the
future. However, the tested idea must be well documented and further improvise,
and to be spread to a wider audience of humanitarian workers, experts in the built
environment, and the civil society.
 Figure 7: The completed Core House

References

Hadi, M. (2006) Case Study of Indonesia on Research and Development (Research

Center for Human Settlements, Research and Development Agency, Ministry of
Public Works, Jakarta)

Kuntoro, M. (2005) BRR NAD-Nias: One Year After the Tsunami, BRR First
Year Report (BRR NAD-Nias, Jakarta)

Goodman, L.J. & Tabujara, E.G. (1979) Low-Cost Housing Technology: an East-
West Perspective (Pergamon Press, New York)

Amirrol, H. & Samah, N.A. (2006) Civil Society Role in Disaster, Disaster Risk
Reduction – Learning from the Tsunami Experience Training Workshop (MERCY
Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur)

Razani, R. (1979) Criteria for Seismic Design of Low Cost Housing (Pergamon
Press, New York)

Amirrol, H. & Zubir, S.S. (2007) MERCY Malaysia’s Experience in Recent

Response and Rebuilding of Disaster Areas (WIT Press, Southampton)