Seeking Low-Cost Seismic Protection for Urban Masonry in an Unstable Terrain

1 

Undergraduate Research Analyst: 

Sam Borton 

Undergraduate Project Manager: 

JuliaGrace Walker 

Graduate Advisor: 

Kostas Kalfas 

In-Country Partner: 

Dr. Marcial Blondet 

Global Development Lab Portfolio Manager: 

Corrie A. Harris, M.A. 

Hunt Institute Affiliate: 

Dr. Nicos Makris 

Southern Methodist University 

Lyle School of Engineering 

Hunter and Stephanie Hunt Institute for Engineering and Humanity 

Global Development Lab 

Summer 2020 

MARKET ANALYSIS OF LOW-COST SEISMIC PROTECTION 

BORTON, SAM

2 

Table of Contents 

ABSTRACT ____________________________________________________________________ 4 

BACKGROUND ________________________________________________________________ 5 

I. FOCUS _______________________________________________________________________ 6 

II. PURPOSE _____________________________________________________________________ 8 

MARKET ANALYSIS ____________________________________________________________ 11 

I. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ______________________________________________________ 11 

II. MARKET DESCRIPTION _________________________________________________________ 12 

III. MARKET TRENDS/STABILITY _____________________________________________________ 14 

IV. MARKET SEGMENTATION: Low-Cost Solutions ______________________________________ 15 

V. TARGET MARKET ______________________________________________________________ 17 

LOW-COST SEISMIC PROTECTION ________________________________________________ 17 

COST COMPARISON ___________________________________________________________ 20 

LOW-COST ROCKING ISOLATION _________________________________________________ 22 

CURRENT ROCKING ISOLATION EXAMPLES ________________________________________ 23 

RECOMMENDATION __________________________________________________________ 24 

APPENDIX A: _________________________________________________________________ 25 

Sustainable Development Goals ______________________________________________________ 25 

TABLE OF FIGURES ____________________________________________________________ 26 

REFERENCES _________________________________________________________________ 27 


BORTON, SAM

3 

"Part of our role as structural engineers is the design and construction of structures that 

are affordable to the local society and meet acceptable performance levels at present 

and the years to come without compromising the ability of future generations to use 

them, maintain them and benefit from them." 

Nicos Makris, Ph.D., Hunt Institute Fellow 

Addy Family Centennial Professor in Civil Engineering, 

Southern Methodist University 

Lyle School of Engineering 

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 


BORTON, SAM

4 

ABSTRACT 

Earthquakes pose a significant threat to housing in developing countries. The 

citizens of these countries often lack the financial means to sufficiently protect their homes 

against seismic actions. In accordance with the eleventh UN Sustainable Development 

Goal (SDG), steps need to be taken to protect these vulnerable populations from the 

looming possibility of a severe earthquake. Specifically, the geographic location of Peru 

designates it as an especially earthquake-prone country, and many of its citizens cannot 

afford seismic reinforcement for their homes. Middle-class, urban residents, such as 

those in Lima, Peru often reside in informally constructed confined masonry houses 

which, in the case of a severe earthquake, would likely suffer significant damage or even 

collapse. For this reason, the seismic protection market is increasingly narrowing its focus 

to low-cost solutions. 

This report summarizes the existing low-cost propositions and discusses to what 

extent they would provide a feasible option for the aforementioned target population in 

Peru. Finding that even these “low-cost” solutions are out of reach for most of the middleclass 

residents of Lima, this report makes an alternate proposition. Rocking isolation 

offers great potential as an innovative and economical seismic protection alternative, but 

it has yet to be implemented as low-cost housing reinforcement. This emerging system 

of seismic protection could fill a gap in the market as it may provide a sufficiently low-cost 

accessible manner of protecting confined masonry homes. 


BORTON, SAM

5 

Figure 1: Compliments of Dr. Marcial Blondet’s research 

BACKGROUND 

Peru is located on the western edge of South America, one of the most seismically 

active regions of the world, where informal construction with confined masonry is 

common. During strong earthquakes, these buildings can suffer significant damage. 

Base isolation with rubber bearings or sliding pads can provide solutions to this problem. 

These techniques, however, are too expensive or of equivocal quality for the majority of 

the population. It is proposed that kinematic rocking isolation using rocking columns 

could provide an affordable solution for the seismic protection of masonry buildings. This 

market analysis is meant to investigate the existing low-cost seismic protection market 

and identify what is missing. 


BORTON, SAM

6 

The ultimate goal of this project is to identify viable solutions to be tested to 

minimize structural damage from earthquakes in multi-story masonry buildings in Peru 

and other parts of the world. A future technical approach will involve the development of 

a finite element model of a typical masonry building in Peru. It is hoped that this project 

will demonstrate that kinematic isolation is a safe, and innovative low-cost solution 

for the protection of masonry buildings in developing countries located in seismic 

regions. To learn more about this project and its future phases, visit the Hunt Institute 

Digest. 

I. FOCUS 

The focus of this report will be to address the eleventh UN SDG which seeks to 

ensure that growth in housing and urban development is safe, equitable, and 

environmentally conscious. Peru’s shortcomings in this area are made especially evident 

by severe earthquakes, as the lack of safe and equitable urban development creates a 

disparity in who is most affected. Peru is located in a seismic zone where the South 

American Tectonic Plate moves toward the sea over the Nazca Tectonic Plate, creating 

a reverse fault mechanism and causing earthquakes as a result of the thrust from the 

subduction fault. According to Volcano Discovery, Peru endured 81 earthquakes in May 

2020. [1] The chart in Figure 1 maps the number of earthquakes and their severity over a 

ninety-day span. Evidently, Peruvians live with earthquakes as a frequent threat. 


BORTON, SAM

7 

Figure 2: Frequency and severity of earthquakes over a ninety-day span in Peru 

This report centers around UN Target 11.5 which states, “By 2030, significantly 

reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially 

decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by 

disasters...with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations.” [2] It is 

beyond the scope of this analysis to focus on seismic protection solutions for adobe 

shelter in rural areas, as housing in rural areas is an entirely different issue with a different 

solution set. Rather, this report will focus on seismic protection solutions for confined 

masonry urban housing. Developing countries are estimated to account for 95% of 

imminent urban expansion, and thus, disaster-protected infrastructure is vital in the urban 

areas of the world. [3] 


BORTON, SAM

8 

II. 

PURPOSE 

Peru is located on the western edge of South America, one of the most seismically 

active regions of the world. According to the European Commission’s Index for Risk 

Management (INFORM), Peru ranks 62 nd in the world for INFORM Risk, which combines 

metrics for hazard & exposure, vulnerability, and lack of coping capacity. [4] When 

narrowed to earthquakes specifically, however, the situation appears much worse. Peru 

has the 9 th “most risk for a Level VIII earthquake” as assigned by the Modified Mercalli 

Intensity (MMI) Scale. [5] This magnitude, according to the United States Geological 

Survey (USGS), corresponds to damage that is “slight in buildings designed to be 

earthquake resistant, but severe in some poorly built structures.” [4] The Global Facility for 

Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) notes that in Peru, “more than sixty-four 

percent of schools are highly vulnerable to earthquakes,” and their study concluded that 

only eight percent of schools met seismic resistance standards, though that study was 

limited to the Lima metropolitan area. [6] A World Bank report ranks Peru 20 th in economic 

risk from multiple hazards. [7] As can be seen in Table 1, only 1.4% of Peru’s land area is 

at overlapping risk from floods, earthquakes, and landslides, but that includes 30.4% of 

their population and 43.9% of their GDP. [8] When isolated to earthquakes and floods 

alone, those figures jump to 4% of land area, 41.5% of population, and 53.7% of GDP at 

risk. [8] 


BORTON, SAM

9 

Table 1: Peru’s Economic Risk from Multiple Hazards 

Floods, earthquakes, & 

landslides 

Earthquakes & floods 

alone 

Land 1.4% 4% 

Population 30.4% 41.5% 

GDP 43.9% 53.7% 

Table 1: Peru's Economic Risk from Multiple Hazards 

The 2007 earthquake on the central coast of Peru alone resulted in an estimated 

$2,000,000,000 in damages. [8] While these figures have prompted increased awareness, 

foreign aid, and government action for better preparedness and recovery, these 

responses are often focused on large population centers. From 1995 to 2007, the National 

Information System on Disaster Prevention and Management (SINPAD) showed that the 

areas most affected by disasters were some of the most poverty-stricken as well. 

The 64.6% of Peruvians living below the poverty line are especially vulnerable to 

natural disasters. [8] Masonry buildings are common in Peru. Their design that is not based 

on codes and standards and their construction that is carried out without professional or 

certified engineering, render these buildings with confined masonry is common in Peru 

and is much less safe than a professionally designed and constructed masonry home. 


BORTON, SAM

10 

Figure 3: Compliments of Dr. Marcial Blondet’s research 

A presentation from Dr. Marcial Blondet and César Loaiza informed the following 

two categorizes. 

Building performance during earthquakes: 

1. completely operational 

2. operational 

3. survival 

4. nearly collapsed 

5. collapsed [9] 

Peruvian earthquakes: 


BORTON, SAM

11 

1. frequent (approx. every 43 years) 

2. occasional (approx. every 72 years), 

3. rare (approx. every 475 years) 

4. very rare (approx. every 970 years) [9] 

Examining multiple types of construction methods common in Peru, they found that 

while every building remained at least “operational” following a “frequent” earthquake, the 

picture soon became bleaker. Professionally-built confined masonry, common for the 

upper class in urban areas, is likely to stand up to an earthquake unless it falls in the “very 

rare” category. [9] They noted that in the case of a “rare” or “very rare” earthquake, informal 

construction will likely take severe damage or even collapse completely. [9] 

Many techniques for seismic protection of buildings have been developed over the 

years, and they have proven effective. These technologies, though, have focused on 

developed countries in seismically active areas such as California, Japan, and New 

Zealand. Currently, due to the expense of materials and lack of accessibility, only the 

most affluent populations in developing countries currently have access to these 

technologies. Consequently, there lies great significance in the development of an 

accessible, low-cost seismic protection system. 

MARKET ANALYSIS 

I. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND 

The damage caused to masonry buildings from earthquakes typically arises 

because the walls, which are non-structural elements, are especially thin and brittle. The 

walls cannot handle the stress developed due to the shaking, and several cracks that are 


BORTON, SAM

12 

typically formed in the wall corners, sometimes continue until the walls ultimately 

collapse. [10] For this reason, seismic protection mechanisms are sorely needed in areas 

where design that is not in accordance with codes and standards is common. One 

frequently discussed technique for protecting masonry structures is base isolation, which 

describes a system that creates separation between the structure and the foundation. 

This often includes the use of rubber bearings and sliding pads to absorb the kinetic 

energy of the earthquake, effectively reducing the extent to which buildings are damaged 

due to earthquakes. Seismic protection expert James Kelly writes that “time and time 

again, we have seen base-isolated buildings emerge from an earthquake relatively 

unscathed compared with their neighbors” and “rubber bearings could bring much needed 

safety and security to buildings in earthquake-prone developing countries, preventing 

costly property damage and saving countless lives.” [11] As noted, though, these 

mechanisms need to have an emphasis on being low-cost and accessible to urban 

populations in developing countries. 

II. 

MARKET DESCRIPTION 

Some major players in the large-scale seismic reinforcement market include 

Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc., Hyundai Steel Company, West Fraser Timber Co. 

Ltd., AreclorMittal, Toray Industries, Inc., LafargeHolcim Ltd., Tata Steel Limited, and 

BASF SE. [12] These companies are currently strengthening their market position by 

increasing their research and development activities to produce technological 

advancements. The target audience for most of these corporations are construction 

companies in industrialized countries at high-risk for earthquakes. This includes 


BORTON, SAM

13 

government-contracted companies working on public infrastructure and companies 

interested in constructing seismically protected buildings in the private sector. 

These corporations and others are working on seismic isolation primarily in urban 

areas of developed countries, meaning that these are rather large-scale, expensive 

projects. In a Robinson Seismic Limited seismic reinforcement project, they used 135 

rubber bearings and 132 slider bearings for the Wellington Regional Hospital in 

Australia. [13] The seismic isolation alone cost about $110 per square meter, totaling three 

percent of the $165 million construction cost. In another project, they say that seismic 

isolation was closer to $140 per square meter, but again close to three percent of the total 

cost. [13] The addition of seismic base isolation technology to these construction projects 

helps to ensure safety of the occupants and contents of the building in case of an 

earthquake, and as an added benefit, the bearings typically don’t need to be replaced 

following an earthquake. Another possible benefit is a discount on insurance for buildings 

that are seismically isolated. In Japan, owners of base-isolated apartment buildings can 

expect a 30% discount on their insurance because of the safety enhancement provided 

by the technology. [13] These incentives provide a way to enhance safety in a city, but they 

rely on building owners having the resources to do so. When it comes to large downtown 

buildings, an employee from the engineering firm Simpson Gumpertz & Heger described 

the decision to use base isolation as “com[ing] down to judging the economic welfare of 

the individual property owner against that of society as a whole” and adds that “Most 

developers believe it is a low enough risk to warrant taking a chance.” [14] In the US, a 

base isolation system costs roughly $30 to $50 per square foot (about $100 to $160 per 


BORTON, SAM

14 

square meter), or between $600,000 to $1 million for a typical five-story building, adding 

about five to ten percent of the total construction cost. [14] 

The costs for adding a base isolation system to the construction projects of large 

engineering firms that build in urban areas of developed countries do not pose a barrier. 

When extrapolated to communities in developing countries, the situation looks much 

different. Not only would over $100 per square meter be too significant of a cost, but 

products like rubber bearings and sliding pads are not readily accessible in these 

communities. 

III. 

MARKET TRENDS/STABILITY 

Focusing specifically on low cost methods of seismic protection, one foundational 

trend is the rise in awareness of this industry in general. Not until the late 20 th century did 

base isolation become popular, and that trend unsurprisingly began in developed yet 

seismically vulnerable locations like Japan and California. In recent years, research has 

begun addressing the barriers of cost and access that prevent seismic protection from 

reaching similarly vulnerable communities in developing countries. A few different factors 

facilitated this shift into the low-cost arena. For one, as international media coverage has 

become more prevalent, awareness of international natural disasters has increased, like 

earthquakes of the past fifteen years in Haiti, Nepal, Ecuador, Chile, and Indonesia. With 

greater awareness comes more foreign aid and attention from the scientific research 

community. Along with greater media attention, there is also greater physical accessibility 

to some of these developing areas. Improving infrastructure can allow for easier and less 

costly transport of materials and engineers to seismically vulnerable communities. Policy 


BORTON, SAM

15 

changes are another factor influencing the low-cost seismic protection market. We have 

seen national and local governments update building codes to require structures to be 

better protected from earthquakes. For low-income residents of these jurisdictions, 

seismic reinforcement is unlikely to be financially accessible. Policy changes and 

educational campaigns, though, do not change the reality of cost as a barrier. 

Other than both supply and demand increases for general low-cost methods, other 

trends are emerging within the low-cost seismic protection market. Many researchers 

have emphasized sustainability in their designs for base isolation. This includes utilizing 

reused materials as the isolating layer between the foundation and building. Others have 

prioritized ease of access, making the case that no matter how inexpensive the materials, 

transportation from a non-local manufacturer can significantly raise the price. These 

researchers propose solutions that use very basic or locally-produced materials in their 

systems of seismic protection. 

IV. 

MARKET SEGMENTATION: Low-Cost Solutions 

Low cost, seismically protective methods of construction are needed across the 

developing world in earthquake-prone areas. Residents of these areas often lack the 

financial resources required for housing in accordance with building codes, and even with 

sufficient funds, engineers and materials can be difficult to access. One study found that 

in addition to these barriers, residents of unstable masonry homes are often resistant to 

changing their traditional building methods for cultural reasons. [15] Also, due to the 

infrequent nature of earthquakes, many are either unaware of the potential dangers or 

reason that investing their scarce resources to prevent only the possibility of an 

earthquake is simply not worth it. A study in the Handbook on Culture and Urban Disaster 


BORTON, SAM

16 

found that people’s “memories of previous disasters...influence their interpretation of risk 

and their response to future disaster.” [16] An example of this would be if consistent 

earthquakes are not severe, the conclusion would be there is no need for seismic 

protection. This is problematic due to the fact that severe earthquakes do not happen very 

often. If one hasn't happened in a person's lifetime, they are less likely to understand the 

risks and therefore less likely to take action. 

It is estimated that 20% of the world’s population lacks adequate housing. [17] The 

poverty rate in Peru is 21.7%, equating to the majority of residents living in masonry 

buildings that have not been designed in accordance with the building codes and 

standards. [18] Unreinforced masonry housing, though likely to qualify as “adequate 

housing,” still poses significant dangers to its occupants in the case of a strong 

earthquake. Considering Peru’s geographical location, the question is not if but when the 

next big earthquake will strike. 

In Nepal, for example, it is estimated that sixty percent of buildings fit this 

description. [19] The prevalence of unreinforced masonry construction was a contributing 

factor to the significant amount of damage caused by the massive Nepal earthquake in 

2015. [20] One study on the reconstruction efforts noted that although “low-strength 

masonry” construction failed to withstand the earthquake, it will continue as a primary 

building technique due to insufficient funds and lack of access to more resilient materials 

and adequate reinforcement technology. [20] The situation in Nepal is just one example. In 

Haiti, a primary hazard in the 2010 earthquake was also the poorly-constructed infilled 

masonry buildings. A study of the damage described that the earthquake “revealed the 

vulnerability of unreinforced masonry.” [21] In the United States, too, cities are taking action 


BORTON, SAM

17 

to prevent the tragedies due to earthquakes associated with unreinforced masonry in 

structures. The cities of Portland, OR and Seattle, WA have both released proposals in 

recent years to require retrofitting of all unreinforced masonry buildings with seismic 

[22, 23] 

reinforcements. 

This is clearly not an issue that is confined to a single country or community; it is 

a global one. Importantly, while it may be feasible in developed countries to simply require 

building upgrades to prevent damage from earthquakes, this would be more difficult to 

mandate in a less developed country. As was previously explained, Peru is especially 

vulnerable to earthquakes due to its geographic position and development status. In 

urban areas, residents are likely to live in confined masonry houses. Despite the 

perceived upgrade of this type of construction, risk persists due to about 80% of these 

homes being built slowly over time, often not following building codes. Homeowners are 

generally aware of the risks but lack the resources to mitigate them. 

V. TARGET MARKET 

Due to the COVID-19, this section is incomplete as the global pandemic has delayed 

the selection of an international building site. Our in-country partners in Lima, Peru 

continue to advise and collaborate with us in this work. It is our goal to address this 

section when safety permits. 

LOW-COST SEISMIC PROTECTION 

The exposure from international media coverage of earthquakes among other 

factors has led to more research of low-cost methods for seismic protection. Researchers 


BORTON, SAM

18 

have proposed several different materials as means for creating a system of base 

isolation accessible even to low-income residents of developing countries. 

Most existing research focuses on replacing traditionally expensive materials with 

low-cost alternatives. Traditional rubber bearings are “relatively large, heavy, and 

expensive.” [24] These bearings include alternating rubber layers with laminated steel shim 

plates in between, connected via vulcanization. There are several categories of traditional 

bearings used in base isolation—lead-rubber bearings (LRB), high-damping natural 

rubber bearings (HDNR), friction pendulum bearings, and slider bearings—though the 

HDNR bearings with steel shims are the most commonly used variety. [25] Most low-cost 

methods of base isolation include a replacement for both the steel and rubber, often 

proposing a type of fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolator (FREI). 

Some methods have focused on sustainability, examining the potential use of 

recycled materials. Turer and Özden examined the potential use of scrap tire pads as 

alternative rubber in base isolation. [26] While the technique has not been implemented yet, 

they examined a hypothetical case implementing the scrap tire pads for a single-story 

masonry house and found that they would successfully reduce the susceptibility of the 

house to damage in a strong earthquake. [26] In addition, they specifically noted that “Scrap 

Tire Pads (STP) presents advantages such as low-cost technology and no cost pad 

production…and environmental issues by recycling scrap tires.” [26] Calabrese, et al. 

similarly proposed Recycled Rubber Fiber Reinforced Bearings (RR-FRBs). [27] Another 

environmentally-friendly system, developed by Ahmad, Ghani, and Adil, uses demolished 

waste as the separation between the building and the foundation. [28] Using a shaking 

table, they determined that the sliding of the structure dissipated over 70% of the shaking 


BORTON, SAM

19 

energy, and no cracks were observed in their trial structure. [28] This is another example 

of a base isolation system providing seismic protection with an added benefit of 

sustainability. 

Recognizing the financial inaccessibility of traditional base isolation systems, other 

projects have explicitly focused on the cost reduction. Some of these include costeffective 

replacements for steel shims often used in rubber bearings. Tan, et al. 

suggested an “unsaturated polyester fiber reinforcement.” [24] Other studies proposed a 

variety of fibers as steel substitutes, including fiberglass, woven fabric, polyester, and 

nylon. Tsiavos et al. did a study using a sand-rubber layer in base isolation. [29] The project 

emphasized the importance of local sourcing of materials, noting that fine sand and 

recycled tires can be locally acquired. [29] Minimizing shipping costs of materials is another 

mechanism to decrease costs associated with the final product. Their experiment was 

conducted in association with the SAFER Schools for Nepal project. Another project, 

conducted by Nanda, Shrikhande, and Agarwal, proposed marble-marble and marblegeosynthetic 

interfaces to improve seismic response of masonry buildings in the 

Himalayan regions of India. [30] 

While little information exists on the potential implementation of these strategies, 

one example is the SAFER project for seismic safety of school buildings in Nepal. This 

project recognized the widespread destruction caused by the 2015 Nepal earthquake and 

set out to prevent similar effects from future earthquakes. They noted that base isolation 

is “prohibitively expensive for many regions,” and they therefore decided to “investigate 

low-cost, culturally acceptable, locally-sourced ways of co-producing a similar system.” [31] 

The SAFER initiative proposed technology like a 3D topographic mapping system and a 


BORTON, SAM

20 

mobile application for pre- and post-earthquake structural inspections. After identifying 

the location and extent of earthquake damage of schools across Nepal, they planned to 

conduct testing of several retrofitting techniques with a shaking table. Finally, these 

techniques would be matched with the corresponding level of damage they would best 

apply to, and community workshops would be held to train people in the affected 

communities on how to implement the repair techniques. This project received a nearly 

$2,000,000 grant from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council 

(EPSRC) in the UK, with which they continue to investigate both the retrofitting of schools 

in Nepal and a mobile application to assess the structures. 

Another model of implementation is that of the Build Change organization, who 

organizes homeowner-driven reconstruction efforts in areas affected by earthquakes. 

While not focusing on a specific method of low-cost seismic protection, Build Change 

uniquely places control and oversight in the hands of homeowners to ensure their trust in 

the reconstruction process. Build Change provides this justification for their work: 

“Earthquakes disproportionately affect poor people in developing countries who have no 

safety net, no savings or insurance, and no well-off relatives to take them in.” [32] Build 

Change is an example of a successful partnership with a community that ensures long 

term change by using a bottom-up approach. This is the type of strategy required for 

successful implementation of low-cost seismic protection. 

COST COMPARISON 

Among the various propositions in the low-cost seismic protection space, little 

information exists on the cost of implementation. Included in Nanda, Shrikhande, and 

Agarwal’s report were costs of their proposed systems, projected at 6 USD per meter and 


BORTON, SAM

21 

5 USD per meter run for the marble-marble and marble-geosynthetic, respectively. [30] 

Calabrese, et al. describe Recycled Rubber Fiber Reinforced Bearings (RR-FRBs) that 

can be produced for about one hundred euros per bearing while also noting that costs for 

traditional bearings can be in the thousands. [27] No matter the minimal cost of the raw 

materials, recycled tires accompanied by a type of fiber, the manufacturing process 

required with this technique causes a significant cost. On the other hand, some authors 

describe their seismic protection system as zero cost. While the cost of materials may be 

zero, especially in the case of recycled tires and demolished waste, there is presumably 

a cost of transportation. Transportation is a significant issue affecting the cost of existing 

low-cost solutions. These added costs of transportation and import fees make these 

solutions too expensive to be considered. In addition, despite a surplus of these materials 

existing in some areas of the world, that may not be the case in less industrialized 

locations. 

For implementation in Lima, along with other urban areas of developing countries, 

many of these proposed solutions fall short of the accessibility required to reach middle 

class urban residents. Any manufactured bearing, despite its attempts at low costs of 

materials, will incur too significant of production and transportation costs. Materials like 

marble or geosynthetic mesh, as proposed in some solutions, will also be difficult for these 

populations to acquire. In addition, many of the existing seismic protection propositions 

focus on single-story buildings, and a significant proportion of homes in Lima are multistory. 


BORTON, SAM

22 

LOW-COST ROCKING ISOLATION 

In search of a more cost-effective, accessible, and safe method of seismic 

protection, one emerging technology appears suitable. Rocking base isolation is a form 

of kinematic base isolation that utilizes rocking columns to protect the structure in case of 

a seismic event. While little implementation of this technique has taken place, it fills a gap 

in the existing methods and therefore merits further exploration such as a demonstration 

project. Aside from the possible need for an extra base slab, rocking isolation does not 

require any especially unique materials, and therefore the costs associated with acquiring 

the materials could be lower than other techniques. The most significant cost would likely 

be the expertise of an engineer to install the system properly. This system is anticipated 

to be suitable for multi-story buildings, while many other low-cost methods are confined 

to single-story homes. Rocking isolation was previously implemented for use in bridges, 

and that is the focus of most existing research on the topic. One recent study found that 

“both structural rocking and foundation rocking provide effective base isolation” for 

buildings. [33] As with most seismic protection methods, there are those that focus on costminimization 

and those that do not, so a significant gap in research is the exploration of 

low cost rocking isolation for confined masonry buildings, such as those common in urban 

areas of Peru. 


BORTON, SAM

23 

CURRENT ROCKING ISOLATION EXAMPLES 

Table 2: Instances of Rocking Isolation 

Location Application Effectiveness Cost 

New Zealand 

Wigram Magdala 

Bridge 

Implemented and 

Built 

30 million NZD 

(~19.6 million USD) 

New Zealand 

South Rangitikei 

Bridge 


Built 

not available 

Chile 

VRIS (Vertical 

Rocking Isolation 

System) 

Not Implemented 

N/A 

Vancouver, Canada Lions’ Gate Bridge 

Table 2: Instances of Rocking Isolation 


Built 

Retrofitting cost 

was 4.2 million 

CAD (~3.1 million 

USD) 

Table 2 contains a few examples of rocking isolation systems. The Wigram 

Magdala Link Bridge, completed in 2016, utilizes Dissipative Controlled Rocking 

(DCR). [34] It was the first bridge in the world to include DCR, and the total construction 

cost was about 19.6 million USD. [35] Both the South Rangitikei Bridge in New Zealand 

and the Lions’ Gate Bridge in Vancouver contain steel yielding devices to contribute to a 

controlled rocking system. [36] The Lions’ Gate Bridge, originally completed in 2000, was 

retrofitted in 2014 for about 3.1 million USD. [37] A more theoretical example is the Vertical 

Rocking Isolation System (VRIS) developed in Chile. VRIS is supposed to be a “costeffective 

alternative” to traditional base isolation and would be used for protecting storage 

tanks or machinery. [38] Of course, most of the examples here are not in the low-cost 

market, but rather significant industrial projects. 


BORTON, SAM

24 

RECOMMENDATION 

There is a sense of urgency to find an effective low-cost seismic protection 

solution, as the safety of communities in seismically active areas is at stake. Our findings 

reveal a significant gap in the seismic protection market and the little-explored area of 

rocking isolation has tremendous potential to bridge the gap with implementation for lowcost 

multi-story urban housing. In order to further investigate low-cost rocking isolation, 

more research is required. This will involve developing a finite element model and, later 

on, implementing the system on a scaled-down structure. 


BORTON, SAM

25 

APPENDIX A: 

Sustainable Development Goals 

In September 2015, the United Nations developed a comprehensive agenda of 

Sustainable Development Goals to be achieved by 2030. These goals demonstrated a 

worldwide commitment to seventeen goals that address the newest challenges facing an 

increasingly global society. These goals are, in short: 1) to eradicate extreme poverty and 

ensure equal rights to basic services; 2) to ensure year-round access for everyone to 

safe, nutritious, and sufficient food; 3) to achieve universal access to quality health care 

services; 4) to reach universal access to quality primary and secondary education while 

eliminating gender disparities; 5) to promote policies supporting gender equality; 6) to 

ensure complete access to safe and affordable drinking water for all; 7) to make available 

affordable, reliable, and modern energy services to everyone; 8) to achieve sustainable 

economic growth, especially in Least Developed Countries (LDCs); 9) to facilitate 

sustainable industrialization, innovation, and infrastructure development; 10) to reduce 

income inequality and enhance representation of developing countries; 11) to promote 

universal access to sustainable, safe, and affordable housing; 12) to substantially reduce 

the generation of waste; 13) to prioritize and incorporate climate-friendly measures in 

policymaking; 14) to combat the pollution and acidification of the world’s bodies of water; 

15) to address desertification, poaching, and other threats to life on land; 16) to promote 

peace, justice, and strong institutions within and among countries; 17) and to promote 

partnerships contributing to sustainable development. [2] 


BORTON, SAM

26 

TABLE OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: Compliments of Dr. Marcial Blondet’s research ____________________________________________ 5 

Figure 2: Frequency and severity of earthquakes over a ninety-day span in Peru ____________________ 7 

Figure 3: Compliments of Dr. Marcial Blondet’s research ___________________________________________ 10 

Table 1: Peru's Economic Risk from Multiple Hazards ____________________________________________ 9 

Table 2: Instances of Rocking Isolation ________________________________________________________ 23 


BORTON, SAM

27 

REFERENCES 

[1] 

Volcano Discovery. (2020). Earthquake Statistics: Last 90 Days. Retrieved 2020, from 

https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/earthquakes/peru.html 

[2] 

About the Sustainable Development Goals – United Nations Sustainable Development. (n.d.). 

Retrieved 2020, from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-developmentgoals/ 

[3] 

Cities – United Nations Sustainable Development. (n.d.). Retrieved 2020, from 

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/ 

[4] 

Country Profile: Peru. (2020). Retrieved 2020, from https://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/informindex/Countries/Country-Profile-Map 

[5] 

The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale assigns intensities as ... (n.d.). Retrieved 2020, from 

https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/modified-mercalli-intensity-mmi-scale-assigns-intensities 

[6] 

GFDRR: Peru. (2020). Retrieved 2020, from https://www.gfdrr.org/en/peru 

[7] 

“Disaster Risk Management in Latin America and the Caribbean Region: Peru. (2009). Retrieved 2020, 

from 

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/320331468002135501/pdf/701230ESW0P1150ntry0N 

otes0Peru02010.pdf 

[8] 

Dilley, M., Chen, R. S., Deichmann, U., Lerner-Lam, A. L., & Arnold, M. (2005). Natural Disaster 

Hotspots: A Global Risk Analysis. Retrieved 2020, from 

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/621711468175150317/pdf/344230PAPER0Na101offi 

cial0use0only1.pdf 

[9] 

Blondet, M., & Loaiza, C. (2020). Vulnerabilidad Sísmica de las Construcciones en el Perú: Informe 

Preliminar. Lecture presented in Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú: Departamento de 

Ingeniería. 

[10] 

Blondet, M., Vargas, J., & Tarque, N. (2008, October 12). Low-Cost Reinforcement of Earthen Houses 

in Seismic Areas. In The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Retrieved 2020, 

from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228673651_LOW- 

COST_REINFORCEMENT_OF_EARTHEN_HOUSES_IN_SEISMIC_AREAS 

[11] 

Kelly, J. (2013, November 13). A Tested, Inexpensive Way to Protect Buildings from Earthquakes. 

Retrieved 2020, from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/rubber-bearings-seismic-protection/ 

[12] 

“Seismic Reinforcement Materials Market 2019 By Regional Industry Trend, Revenue & Growth 

Forecast To 2025. (2019, August 14). Retrieved 2020, from 

https://www.americanewshour.com/2019/08/14/seismic-reinforcement-materials-market-2019-byregional-industry-trend-revenue-growth-forecast-to-2025/27590/ 

[13] 

Devine, M. (2012, March 12). Costs and Benefits of Seismic / Base Isolation. Retrieved 2020, from 

https://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz/documents-bykey/20120309.3765/$file/ENG.DEV.0001A.pdf 

[14] 

Bendix, A. (2019, July 08). A critical 'base isolation' system could keep California buildings from 

crumbling during an earthquake, but few structures have it. Retrieved 2020, from 

https://www.businessinsider.com/base-isolation-buildings-safe-earthquake-2019-6 


BORTON, SAM

28 

[15] 

Serrano, M., Blondet, M., Rubiños, Á, & Mattsson, E. (2016). Sustainable dissemination of earthquake 

resistant construction in the Peruvian Andes. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 12(1), 

22-33. doi:10.1080/15487733.2016.11908151 

[16] 

De Jong, H., & Van Tilborg, A. (2015). The role of memories of disaster. Retrieved 2020, from 

https://cultureanddisaster.eu/handbook/1.3-role-memories-disaster 

[17] 

Chamie, J. (2017, July 13). As Cities Grow, So Do the Numbers of Homeless. Retrieved 2020, from 

https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/cities-grow-so-do-numbers-homeless 

[18] 

Peru: World Bank World Development Indicators. (2017). Retrieved 2020, from 

https://data.worldbank.org/country/peru 

[19] 

Stern, R. (2015, May 04). Masonry structures common in Nepal prone to 'sudden and brittle failure,' 

expert says. Retrieved 2020, from https://phys.org/news/2015-05-masonry-common-nepal-pronesudden.html 

[20] 

Bothara, J., Dizhur, D., & Ingham, J. (2018, February). Masonry building design for earthquakeaffected 

remote areas of Nepal. In 10th Australasian Masonry Conference. Retrieved 2020, from 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323177701_Masonry_building_design_for_earthquakeaffected_remote_areas_of_Nepal 

[21] 

Miyamoto, H. K., & Gilani, A. S. (2012). Urban Earthquake Damage Assessment and Reconstruction: 

2010 Haiti Earthquake. In 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Retrieved 2020, 

from https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/WCEE2012_0328.pdf 

[22] 

Portland releases proposal for retrofitting unreinforced masonry buildings vulnerable during an 

earthquake. (2016, August 17). Retrieved 2020, from 

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/pbem/article/586969 

[23] 

Devine, N. H. (2018). Unreinforced Masonry Buildings - What & Why. Retrieved 2020, from 

https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/codes/changes-to-code/unreinforced-masonry-buildings 

[24] 

Tan, P., Xu, K., Wang, B., Chang, C., Liu, H., & Zhou, F. (2014). Development and performance 

evaluation of an innovative low-cost seismic isolator. Science China Technological Sciences, 

57(10), 2050-2061. doi:10.1007/s11431-014-5662-6 

[25] 

Taniwangsa, W. (1996). Experimental and analytical studies of base isolation applications for low-cost 

housing (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley, May. Retrieved 2020, from 

https://search-proquest-com.proxy.libraries.smu.edu/docview/304305996?pq-origsite=primo 

[26] 

Turer, A., & Özden, B. (2007). Seismic base isolation using low-cost Scrap Tire Pads (STP). Materials 

and Structures, 41(5), 891-908. doi:10.1617/s11527-007-9292-3 

[27] 

Calabrese, A., Losanno, D., Spizzuoco, M., Strano, S., & Terzo, M. (2019). Recycled Rubber Fiber 

Reinforced Bearings (RR-FRBs) as base isolators for residential buildings in developing 

countries: The demonstration building of Pasir Badak, Indonesia. Engineering Structures, 192, 

126-144. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.04.076 

[28] 

Ahmad, S., Ghani, F., & Adil, R. (2009). Seismic friction base isolation performance using demolished 

waste in masonry housing. Construction and Building Materials, 23(1), 146-152. 

doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.01.012 

[29] 

Tsiavos, A., Alexander, N. A., Diambra, A., Ibraim, E., Vardanega, P. J., Gonzalez-Buelga, A., & 

Sextos, A. (2019). A sand-rubber deformable granular layer as a low-cost seismic isolation 


BORTON, SAM

29 

strategy in developing countries: Experimental investigation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake 

Engineering, 125. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105731 

[30] 

Nanda, R. P., Shrikhande, M., & Agarwal, P. (2016). Low-Cost Base-Isolation System for Seismic 

Protection of Rural Buildings. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 21(1), 

04015001. doi:10.1061/(asce)sc.1943-5576.0000254 

[31] 

SAFER Schools for Nepal. (2019). Retrieved 2020, from http://www.safernepal.net/concept.html 

[32] 

Hausler, E. (2010). Building Earthquake-Resistant Houses in Haiti: The Homeowner Driven Model. 

Retrieved 2020, from https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/INOV_a_00047 

[33] 

Bachmann, J. A., Vassiliou, M. F., & Stojadinovic, B. (2019). Rolling and rocking of rigid uplifting 

structures. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 48(14), 1556-1574. 

doi:10.1002/eqe.3213 

[34] 

Routledge, P., Cowan, M., Worner, V., & Palermo, A. (2017). Wigram-Magdala Link Bridge – The First 

New Zealand Bridge with Low-Damage Ductile-Jointed Bridge Piers. In The New Zealand 

Concrete Industry Conference. Retrieved 2020, from 

https://cdn.ymaws.com/concretenz.org.nz/resource/resmgr/docs/conf/2017/26.pdf 

[35] 

UC Research Used in World-First ‘Ferrari’ Overpass. (2016). Retrieved 2020, from 

https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/news/2016/uc-research-used-in-world-first-ferrari-overpass.html 

[36] 

Pollino, M. & Bruneau, M. Controlled Rocking System for Seismic Retrofit of Steel Truss Bridge Piers. 

Retrieved 2020 from https://www.eng.buffalo.edu/~bruneau/4NSBC%20Pollino%20Bruneau.pdf 

[37] 

Luba, F. (2014). By the Numbers: Lions’ Gate Bridge Repairs. Retrieved 2020, from 

https://theprovince.com/news/local-news/by-the-numbers-lions-gate-bridgerepairs#:~:text=When%20it%20was%20completed%20in,from%20its%20opening%20until%2019 

63. 

[38] 

Reyes, S. & Almazán, J. (2019). Vertical Rocking Isolation System using simply supported devices 

with uplift allowed for low-mass industrial structures. Retrieved 2020, from 

https://peer.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/poster.pdf 


BORTON, SAM

Seeking Low-Cost Seismic Protection for Urban Masonry in an Unstable Terrain

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?