Buildings May Survive an Earthquake but Remain Unusable

The Great California ShakeOutrehearses how people should respond during an earthquake. But what happens when the shaking stops? Bora Gencturk, professor in USC Viterbi's Sonny Astani Department of Civil and Environmental Engineeringand director of the Structures and Materials Research Laboratory, studies how buildings and bridges can be designed to limit damage and remain operational after earthquakes. His research combines studies of cementitious-material degradation with structural-scale testing to determine how conventional and high-performance materials influence the response of reinforced concrete structures to earthquakes and other extreme events.

Devastating earthquakes are often associated with extensive loss of life and buildings reduced to rubble. However, even if a magnitude 7.5 or larger earthquake occurred near Los Angeles, I wouldn't expect widespread collapse to be the region's principal challenge. Since the 1994 Northridge earthquake, California has adopted stricter seismic requirements and undertaken extensive retrofit programs for bridges, hospitals and other structures, although preparedness still varies considerably across the built environment.

Most ordinary buildings are designed to protect life during severe shaking, not necessarily to remain usable afterward. A code-compliant building may still be heavily damaged or beyond repair. Across a city, the simultaneous closure of homes, schools, offices and industrial facilities could disrupt daily life and economic activity even if relatively few buildings collapse.

My research involves developing and testing structural systems that reduce earthquake damage and help buildings and bridges remain in service or reopen more quickly. This work contributes to a broader shift toward performance-based seismic design, establishing how a structure should function after an earthquake, rather than treating collapse prevention as the only objective. Depending on the building or bridge, the intended performance might be repairability, rapid reoccupation or continued operation.

For bridges, we have studied systems that combine damage-resistant, high-performance concrete with shape-memory alloys that can deform during an earthquake and return to their original shape. In concrete buildings, we have used high-performance and fiber-reinforced concretes at structural connections to control cracking in areas where seismic forces are concentrated. For steel buildings, we have tested connections that dissipate seismic energy through friction and slip rather than damaging deformation.

Each approach addresses a different cause of post-earthquake closure: permanent displacement in bridges, damage at concrete building connections, or deformation in steel structures. Limiting these forms of damage could reduce the need for extensive repairs and allow transportation, housing, education and business operations to resume sooner.

It's also important to note that the resilience of individual structures is only part of the problem. Transportation, healthcare, power, water, and buildings form what engineers call a "system of systems": each operates separately, but all depend on one another.

A hospital may withstand the earthquake but only be able to operate on backup power for a limited period. A damaged bridge can prevent firefighters or ambulances from reaching affected communities. A power failure can interrupt wastewater treatment. The loss of one system can therefore prevent several others from operating.

Preparing for a major earthquake requires deciding which functions a structure must retain, how much damage is acceptable and how any loss of function could affect connected infrastructure. Performance-based codes translate these priorities into design objectives, while advances in structural design and materials help limit damage, preserve function and reduce the risk of prolonged regional disruption.

Published on October 13th, 2026

Last updated on October 13th, 2026