Traditional Chinese Buildings and Their Performance in Earthquake

By Zhang Zhiping
The Chinese architecture has a history as long as that of the Chinese culture and
longer than that of approximate 4000 years of the written history of China. We have
learnt from excavated ancient ruins that there were timber-frame buildings in valleys
of Yellow river and Yangtze rivers (the birthplace of the Chinese culture) in the
Neolithic Age. For instance, at the Banpo Ruins in Xian (7000-5000 years ago), there
are houses with timber frames and daub walls. At Hemudu Ruins in Zhejiang
province (7000-6000 years ago), a timber-frame building has been found. The
individual architecture is more than 30 meters long and 5-6 meters wide, with ground
floor opening and second floor planked. Those wood structural parts processed by
stone artifact are divided into the column, beam and board, and even tenon and
mortise. There are circular or rectangular mortises on the column and similar tenons
on both ends of the beam, and tongue-groove joint between the boards. (Figure 1)
From then on, the Chinese architecture has followed the conventional way of structure
that wood is the main material and the timber-frame is the main bearing system for
several thousand of years. That is a distinguish feature of the Chinese architecture, a
traditional and inherent architectural pattern, never changed for several thousand
years. The reason for the above is that, apart from the rich forest resources known to
everybody, the flexible layouts for plan and space of a building, the strong
adaptability for climate situation, the convenience in felling, transportation and
processing, and Chinese aesthetic and philosophical concept, through their practice
over the years, the Chinese fully understand and acknowledge the excellent material
performance of wood and ability of the timber-frame building to withstand natural
disasters, including its good shock resistant performance.
Why can the traditional Chinese architecture resist earthquake? We may know that
from its three distinguishing features of it, i.e. the characteristics in its, the plan and
facade, the structure and the base and foundation.
I. Since the limitation of length, diameter and material performance for wood, that
size and scale of timber-frame building are not very large. The Chinese people
like to group individual buildings in the form of a courtyard, and combine
building groups in different scales according different requirements of function,
economy conditions and social status. Usually a resident house has only one
 courtyard, a temple has several, and an imperial palace has several dozens
crisscross. (Figure 2)
1. The plan of a timber-frame building is mostly of a simple shape, usually a
rectangular shape, where its ratio of width to length is below 1:2, nearing a
square shape, symmetric to two axes. Its mass and rigidity are distributed
equally and symmetrically. Therefore, the point of resultant forces of
earthquake action in earthquake almost meet the point of resultant forces of
resistance, thus avoiding or reduce the torsion of the building, helpful for
shock resistance. (Figure 3)
In the layout of the column grid of an individual timber-frame building, the central
bay is the biggest one, and the more outward, the smaller the bay is. Avoid putting big
rooms on the either end because earthquake shall make the building torsional. The far
from the mass center, the bigger is the additional earthquake power and, it may
damage the architecture at the ends. Some layouts of column grid are designed as dual
ring style, or arranged an around corridor. Both may strengthen the structures outside,
helpful for shock resistance.
Apart from the rectangular plan, there are square, hexagonal, octagonal or circular
plans for timber-frame buildings, which are helpful for shock resistance. Other types
of more complicated plans are seldom rare, and even a complicated plan should have
a symmetry axis.
2. The facade of a traditional timber-frame building is generally of a simple style
seldom with a very projecting part, but in smooth changing. The Chinese
often use a curving roof and colorful decoration to meet their architecture
aesthetic desire.
II. Traditional Chinese timber buildings are all built on a brick or stone platform,
where are placed column bases, then where are erected columns and then are laid
beams, where is a roof made of purlines, rafters and sheathings, and above where
are loess-lime lay and tiles. (Figure 4) The timber-frame is the main supporting
system of a building, and it is a frame housed made of vertical columns and
horizontal beams, and for some high class buildings there are brackets linking the
columns and beams. (Figure 5)
Structure features of the timber-frame are:
1. A timber-frame linked by columns and beams is a group of space stress
system. Rigidities in beams on top of columns are nearly equal on cross ways
 so that its entire rigidity tends to identity and its ability to resist deformation
could be coordinated. The section of a column is mostly of a circular shape
while that of a beam is of rectangular shape, with a ratio of width to height of
2:3, a suitable section of for a bending member. Sections of columns and
beams in traditional buildings are larger than needed for sufficient safety
storage. Therefore, the timber-frame system not only meets the space rigidity
requirement but also keep enough strengthen, thus helpful for shock
resistance.
2. For the entirety of the timber-frame, the traditional method is to add some
horizontal linking in the frame, like ring beams in modern buildings. First, at
the foot of the column, link the independent columns into a frame with a
horizontal beam, then on the top of column link another beam into a second
frame, avoiding displacement of the columns of the floor. (If there are
brackets on the top of the columns, the linking between columns and beam
would be more elastic, the transporting of horizontal force would be
smoother, and the ability of anti-deformation would be increased.) Then,
above the beam of the up-structure there are sheathings over laid, holding the
roof entirety as the third frame. It has overcome the weakness of timber-frame
with above three groups of horizontal linking, avoiding parts loosing in
earthquake, and strengthening the entirety of structure and the ability of anti-
lateral stress.
3. There is no link between the column root and the base. The column is placed
on the stone base. The connection between the column root and the base relies
on gravity and friction, like a rubber pad or a ball bearing added to the
column root, allowing a tiny deformation but not standing bending moment
under earthquake action. The power of earthquake could be absorbed and
released by column root quickly, separating the building from vibration
without affecting the frame above.
4. Wood is a kind of elastic-plastic material with good ability to absorb power of
earthquake. Wood parts of timber-frame are connected with housed joint, in
which there is a tiny seam allowing a tiny angular displacement. The housed
joint is fixed when displacement is finished to become a rigid joint, which
would stand angular moment keeping the frame steady and with some
ductility. Since a housed joint in the frame seems between the pin joint and
 the rigid joint, it is a semi-rigid joint, and this structure has an advantage in
shock resistance.
5. All the columns in the traditional timber-frame have a form of Cejiao,
Columns were to be subjected to batter treatment which is that the roots of the
outside columns have inclined outward and tops inward. This form not only
increases stability of the structure but also resolves some horizontal forces
and translate them to a compress load to the columns, helpful for shock
resistance.
6. In the traditional building, a heavy adobe or brick wall is laid between
columns to meet the using requirements. The entire rigidity of building is
increased by the heavy wall but the vibration period of the structure is
shortened, which will increase the horizontal action of earthquake in the same
situation. As its poor shear strength, the brick wall is easy to break or fell
down. Once it happened, the collapsed wall would reduce the rigidity and so
the earthquake action, therefore, and it would reduce the damage of the
timber-frame and brings forth the phenomenon that though the wall
collapsed but the house still stands. It is no link commonly between the wall
and the column in traditional building, and wall would increase rigidity and
stability of the timber frame and even it is destroyed it would not affect the
safety of the timber-frame.
These features of timber-frame mentioned above show the originality and
advanced ness the understanding of the ancient Chinese for earthquake movement
and theyre in the study and use of wood and timber-frame.
III. Since ancient times, the selection of a building site has been considered as an
important link by Chinese people in building construction. From observation and
comprehension through nature phenomena and disasters to buildings in different
topography, the Chinese people have obtained a lot of perceptual knowledge and
experience in selecting a building set. Ancient cities, villages, temples, pagodas
and houses conserved to now are all built at places flat and wide with dense soil
or gentle slopes near mountains.
Although there are many types of foundations in traditional building suitable for their
specific situations but the main types are three:
1. Column base is set directly on solid rock.
2. Rammed lime earth foundation, that is ramming proportionate lime with
 earth. The ratio of lime and earth mostly is 2:8 or 3:7. Chemical reactions of
condensation and carbonization of lime with earth make the foundation more
solid, and the longer the time the stronger the foundation. For some important
building foundations there is a way to grout glutinous rice juice in lime-earth
for enhancing their combination and density.
3. Laid masonry foundation, that is laying brick or stone for individual
foundation beneath every column, laying walls to link individual foundation,
and filling them around with rammed lime-earth or laid masonry, and then till
to up ground as a platform of building.
Foundation types above have been beneficial to shock resistance for traditional
timber-frame buildings. As the amplitude of vibration of a solid foundation is small
and its period is short, it is not easy to meet the long period of a timber-frame
building, so they are not easy to have a sympathetic vibration, thus reducing the
impact of earthquake on the buildings. (Figure 6)
IV. Examples for the performances of traditional Chinese building in earthquakes
Example 1:
On July 28, 1976, a big earthquake measuring 7.8 on the Richter Scale hit Tangshan
city in North Chinas Heibei Province, claiming the lives of more than 240000 people.
Almost all the buildings collapsed and the whole city became a ruin. However, Lius
ancestral hall, only 200 meters away from the City Government Building in the center
of the city was an old building with three bays timber-frame. Its damage degree was
the wall collapsed but the houses stands , with all eaves tiles fallen down and only a
housed joint between a beam and the column inside the west gable pulled out for
about 2-3 cm. It was a miracle.
(Attached is a photo of Lius ancestral hall. See page 17,18)
Example 2:
Avalokitesvara Pavilion in Dule Temple in Ji County, Tianjin city, were built in 984
A. D. Avalokitesvara Pavilion is 20 meters in width, 14 meters in depth and its three
floors is as high as about 23meters. They have stood more than 30 times of
earthquakes, of which 4 were above 6.5 degree. The biggest one happened in 1679,
when they were from the epicenter 30 km away and its intensity was up to 10. The
ground vibrated heavily with noise innumerable buildings collapsed and many
people were pressed to deathHowever, Dule Temple sustained no damage. In
1793, another earthquake happened and All buildings, whether official or civil,
collapsed but Avalokitesvara Pavilion in Dule temple were safety only. Happening
not far from Dule Temple; the earthquake of Tangshan, had great impact on it, with an
intensity of 9The timber-frame and brackets of Avalokitesvara Pavilion was heard
cracking for a long time, but it was standing well after the earthquake. Inspection
found that only the plaster over the timber-frame fell off, the iron bar connected with
a column on back of the Avalokitesvara Pavilion, which was a 16 meters tall stature in
the Pavilion was broken, the shoulder and waist of the stature was cracked and the
column was slightly inclined inward.
(Attached are sections of Avalokitesvara Pavilion. See page 14)
Example 3:
Like that of the Avalokitesvara Pavilion, the structure of wooden pagoda in Yingxian
County is a twin-rings timber-framed high tower, with an octagonal plan of over 20
meters in diameter and a height of 66 meters. It has experienced several dozens of big
earthquakes since it was built 945-years ago and has damages all over its columns and
beams. However it has never been renovated and still stands loftily.
The traditional Chinese timber-frame buildings have a good performance in
earthquakes. Some of them have undergone a historical test over a thousand years. We
have to say that they have an excellent performance of shock resistance on their
loading system and structure construction. One can see from history records that
earthquake is one of important cause for damages of a traditional building since the
vibration destroy power of earthquake is terribly huge, the old buildings always
lacked repairing and its ability to conserve is weakness. The ancient building
uncollapsed after 2-3 height periods of earthquakes are rare. We should strengthen the
conservation and study for the existing ancient buildings so as to apply their scientific
performances of shock resistance to that of the modern buildings. That is of realistic
significance.
(See picture 15, 16)
Figure 1: Traditional multi-story residential dwelling in a Macedonian village.
Figure 2: Floor plan and section of Byzantine inscribed cross
in square type church (St. Nikita in Banjani).
Figure 3: Interior view of St, Andreij on Lake Matka
near Skopje showing interior timber ties.
Figure 4: Exterior view of St. Nikita.
 Input Base of the tambour Top of the dome Cracks
Acc. (g) Acc. (g) Disp. (mm) Acc. (g) Disp. (mm)
0.04 0.05 0.8 0.11 0.7 none
0.12 0.18 1.80 0.40 1.80 none
0.17 0.29 2.50 0.55 2.60 none
0.43 - - - - Failure

Figure 5: Results from Testing of Original Model (M-SN-EXIST)

for Different Intensities of El Centro Earthquake.
Figure 6: Typical details for seismic strengthening to St. Nikita model.
 Input Base of the tambour Top of the dome Cracks
Acc. (g) Acc. (g) Disp. (mm) Acc. (g) Disp. (mm)
0.25 0.49 7.80 0.78 15.8 None
0.33 0.59 15.2 1.00 18.3 Development of cracks
0.41 0.85 17.0 1.46 28.3
0.48 0.90 18.0 1.52 57.0
0.29 0.41 12.8 0.79 20.8
0.52 0.75 20.0 1.40 56.7

Figure 7: Results from Testing of Strengthened Model (M-SN-STR)

for Different Intensities of El Centro Earthquake.
Figure 8: View of seismic isolator in action.
 Input Foundation Base of the tambour Top of the dome
Acc (g) Disp (mm) Acc (g) Disp (mm) Acc (g) Disp (mm) Acc (g) Disp (mm)
0.18 9.0 0.09 11.0 0.09 15.0 0.08 13.0
0.42 26.0 0.26 35.0 0.27 50.0 0.33 44.0
0.45 29.0 0.33 40.0 0.37 60.0 0.58 55.0
0.48 33.0 0.43 44.0 0.51 69.0 0.69 65.0
0.51 36.0 0.47 48.0 0.58 77.0 0.66 73.0
0.62 42.0 0.55 57.0 0.65 89.0 0.85 0.91
0.65 45.0 0.64 63.0 0.74 94.0 0.76 96.0

Figure 9: Results from Testing of Base Isolated Model (M-SN-ISO) for

Different Intensities of El Centro Earthquake.
Figure 1: Swayambhu-Swayambhu, the monument which is in the list
of World Heritage Site and was not affected by 1934 Earthquake.
Figure 2: Degu Taleju, Hanumandhoka Durbar Square
Least effected by 1934 Earthquake
Figure 3: Kathmandu Durbar Square - Temples of Kathmandu
Valley Lal Baithak-Lal Baithak connected with the
Golden Gate of Fifty Five
Figure 4: Windows palace was not effected by 1934 Earthquake Nyata Pol
- Nyatapol which was not effected by 1934 Earthquake
Figure 5: Nyata Pola Temples Bhaktapur Nepal.
(Not destructed by 1934 Earthquake)
Illustration. no. 1. Kathmandu Darbar WHS. 1934 earthquake damage.
Three tiered Narayan Temple with timber arcade on the lower level (left) completely collapsed up to the
nd
plinth; Jagannath Temple (2 from left) partially damaged on the upper roof and wall on the ground level
rd
bulging outwards, this temple was completely dismantled and rebuilt; Indrapura Temple (3 from left),
upper tower completely collapsed and several cracks on the ground floor wall; Degu Taleju Temple
th
(4 from left) and Vamsagopal Temple (right), only upper tower collapsed.
Photo courtesy: Jharendra SJB Rana.
Illustration. no. 2. Nytapola (five tiered) Temple, Bhaktapur.
On this temple only upper most roof collapsed, due to its taller overall
proportion, which increases risk over smaller buildings. Thus perhaps buildings
with high plinths are safer. Huge plinth might act as a shock absorber (?).
There are several examples of temples surviving intact with the huge plinth.
Photo courtesy: Jharendra SJB Rana.
Illustration. no. 3. 55 Windows Palace, Bhaktapur Darbar WHS.
nd
Photo before and after earthquake of Bhaktapur Royal Square. Most probably the upper level of the palace (2
from left) was not able to hold the heavy load from the roof structure because here in this Palace, overhanging
windows supported the massive roof structure. All three of the pagoda temples in the center completely collapsed
rd
and two stone temples (3 from left and on the right) partially collapsed.
Photo courtesy: Ganesh Photo Lab
Illustration. no. 4. Degu Taleju Temple, Patan Darbar WHS.
Top: This large building with huge wall thickness collapsed completely. Even a thick
wall structure was not able to hold the upper massive structure in this temple.
Bottom: Contemporary view after reconstruction.
Photo courtesy: Jharendra SJB Rana.
Illustration no 5. A detail section of three-layered
wall structure in traditional buildings.
Illustration no. 6. Section of typical temple structure.
The upper most tower rests above the two principal and two secondary timber beams
Illustration no. 7. Kwalkhu Sattal (resthouse), Patan.
Whole upper front masonry wall structure rests on the timber arcade structure.
Illustration no. 8. Detail of the temple roof overhang.
All the rafters are giving force to the purlin, which is supported by struts,
and does not have rigid connection in between struts with purlin and main
wall of the temple.
Illustration no. 9. Seismic characteristics of the pagoda temple.
Illustration no. 10. Section of typical temple showing
reinforcement/ seismic improvement areas.