This article was downloaded by: [Chulalongkorn University]

On: 13 August 2015, At: 06:02

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Performance of Structures in the Mw

6.1 Mae Lao Earthquake in Thailand on
May 5, 2014 and Implications for Future
Construction
a

Panitan Lukkunaprasit , Anat Ruangrassamee , Tirawat Boonyatee ,

a

Chatpan Chintanapakdee , Kruawun Jankaew , Nuttawut

c

Thanasisathit & Tayakorn Chandrangsu

a

Department of Civil Engineering, Chulalongkorn University,

Bangkok, Thailand
b

Click for updates

Department of Geology, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok,

Thailand
c

Department of Civil Engineering, King Mongkuts University of

Technology North Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
d

Department of Public Works and Town & Country Planning, Ministry

of Interior, Bangkok, Thailand
Published online: 12 Aug 2015.

To cite this article: Panitan Lukkunaprasit, Anat Ruangrassamee, Tirawat Boonyatee,

Chatpan Chintanapakdee, Kruawun Jankaew, Nuttawut Thanasisathit & Tayakorn Chandrangsu
(2015): Performance of Structures in the Mw 6.1 Mae Lao Earthquake in Thailand on May
5, 2014 and Implications for Future Construction, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/13632469.2015.1051636
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2015.1051636

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or

howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising

out of the use of the Content.

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 00:124, 2015

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1363-2469 print / 1559-808X online
DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2015.1051636

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

Performance of Structures in the Mw 6.1 Mae Lao

Earthquake in Thailand on May 5, 2014 and
Implications for Future Construction
PANITAN LUKKUNAPRASIT1 , ANAT RUANGRASSAMEE1 ,
TIRAWAT BOONYATEE1 , CHATPAN CHINTANAPAKDEE1 ,
KRUAWUN JANKAEW2 , NUTTAWUT THANASISATHIT3 ,
and TAYAKORN CHANDRANGSU4
1

Department of Civil Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

Department of Geology, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
3
Department of Civil Engineering, King Mongkuts University of Technology
North Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
4
Department of Public Works and Town & Country Planning, Ministry of Interior,
Bangkok, Thailand
2

An Mw 6.1 earthquake struck northern Thailand on the 5th of May 2014. The epicenter was located
near Mae Lao district in Chiang Rai province. The earthquake caused unprecedented damage to
structures, the most damaging earthquake ever in recorded Thai history. Five hundred and ninety-four
buildings out of 10,863 were damaged to the extent that they were unsafe for occupancy. This article
presents a reconnaissance investigation of damage to buildings and bridges in the two districtsPhan
and Mae Laowhich suffered the most damage. Attention is paid to the performance of buildings with
similar configurations and structural design, but with different layout of unreinforced masonry infills
as non-structural components.
Keywords Reconnaissance; Moderate Earthquake; Reinforced Concrete; Buildings; Performance;
Masonry; Non-Seismic Design

1. Introduction
On May 5, 2014 at 11:08:43 UTC a strong earthquake struck Chiang Rai province in northern Thailand. It was reported to have a local magnitude ML of 6.3 with the epicenter at
Latitude 19.748 N, Longitude 99.692 E by the Seismological Bureau, Thai Meteorological
Department (TMD) with a depth of 7 km [Thai Meteorological Department, 2014], while
the USGS reported Mw 6.1 at Latitude 19.656 N, Longitude 99.670 E at a depth of 6 km
[US Geological Survey, 2014]. USGS ShakeMap indicates an Instrumental Intensity of VII
(moderate damage) at the epicenter. It was the biggest instrumentally recorded earthquake
ever in Thailand. Shaking from the main shock was felt by people in many provinces,
including Chiang Rai, Lampang, Lamphun, Chiang Mai, Nan, Phayao, Nong Khai, and
Loei, and in high-rise buildings in Bangkok. The most severe damage to structures was witnessed in Mae Lao and Phan districts. Less damage occurred in nearby districts including
Received 27 October 2014; accepted 11 May 2015.
Address correspondence to Anat Ruangrassamee, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Chulalongkorn University, Phayathai Road, Pathumwan, Bangkok 10330, Thailand. E-mail: anat.r@chula.ac.th
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ueqe.

P. Lukkunaprasit et al.

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

FIGURE 1 Epicenters and surrounding areas.

Mae Suai and Muang of the Chiang Rai Province. The location of the epicenter was south of
Mae Lao district. Figure 1 shows the topographic map of the areas surrounding the reported
epicenters with fault segments depicted.
The earthquake caused unprecedented devastation. A total of 10,369 private buildings were reported to have suffered various degrees of damage, with 475 of them being
unsafe for occupancy, 2180 potentially repairable, and 7,714 safe for occupancy with minor
damage [DPT, 2014]. Out of 494 public buildings (including temples), the corresponding

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

Performance of Structures in the Mw 6.1 Mae Lao Earthquake

FIGURE 2 Locations of surveyed structures. (Details are in Table 1.)

figures were 119, 196, and 179 for the three categories, respectively. In this event, one
person was killed by a collapsed masonry panel.
While numerous reports exist for high seismicity regions, there is relatively little information for events around Mw 6, especially in a region where most buildings have not been
designed for earthquake resistance like Thailand. This article presents damage to buildings,
bridges, and other structures mainly in the Mae Lao and Phan districts, most of which are
of non-seismic design. Performance of non-engineered buildings is also covered. Locations
of structures presented in this article are shown in Fig. 2. Detailed locations and damage
levels of surveyed structures are summarized in Table 1. The damage levels were classified
based on performance levels defined in ASCE41-13 [2014]. Preliminary analyses were conducted on two structures to gain insight into the cause of damage to the structures. Lessons
learned and implications for future construction are addressed, which should be valuable
for countries of similar seismicity and socio-economic settings.
2. Seismicity in the Area and Observed Ground Motions
Phan district and its vicinity had been seismically quiescent until an earthquake of Mw
5.2 hit the district on September 11, 1994. The epicenter of the 1994 earthquake was
at 19.586 N, 99.526 E located on Mae Suai Fault Segment of the Phayao Fault Zone
[Earthquaketrack, 2014]. The 1994 Phan earthquake caused minor to moderate damage
to more than 50 buildings including schools and hospitals. Structural damage included
shear cracks in short columns as well as boundary columns of reinforced concrete (RC)
frames infilled with unreinforced masonry panels, and flexural cracks in soft story columns.
However, no building collapsed or was even on the verge of collapse.
There were no earthquakes with a magnitude larger than 4 in the area of Phayao Fault
Zone between September 11, 1994 and May 5, 2014 earthquakes. Phayao Fault Zone is
90 km long and is composed of 20 fault segments, namely: (1) Mae Tak; (2) Doi Kun
Mae Suk; (3) Sai Ngern; (4) Ban Rong; (5) Pa Faek; (6) Pang Daeng; (7) Pa Boon Nak;
(8) Phayao; (9) Phan; (10) Wang Nuea; (11) Haui Mae Toom; (12) Haui Ton Pueng;
(13) Wang Tong; (14) Huai Sai; (15) Wiang Kalong; (16) Wiang Pa Pao; (17) Mae Korn;
(18) Mae Lao; (19) Mae Suai; and (20) Mae Jaydee. The location of the May 5, 2014 earthquake epicenter was just north of the Phan Fault Segment, an oblique slip + normal fault

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16, 17
18
19, 20, 22
23, 24
25
26
27
28
29

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Residential building
Residential building
Residential building
Residential building
Residential building
Residential building
School buildings
School buildings
School buildings
School buildings
School buildings
Hospitals
Bridges
Residential buildings
Slopes and river banks
Slopes and river banks
Embankments
Transformer
Power supply facilities

Structure type

Longitude
99 4124.35E
99 4123.23E
99 4130.60E

99 4327.03E
99 3838.62E
99 4726.01E
99 4439.00E
99 4436.12E
99 4431.90E
99 4220.29E
99 4417.89E
99 4958.80E
99 416.15E
99 3952.30E
99 444.79E
99 416.38E

99 4350.07E

Latitude
19 4545.41N
19 4546.03N
19 459.29N

19 4450.59N
19 4446.56N
19 3411.71N
19 345.42N
19 3243.41N
19 326.00N
19 4444.96N
19 4555.81N
19 559.97N
19 4119.07N
19 4437.73N
19 4247.89N
19 4247.89N

19 4510.66N

Note: Damage levels are classified according to ASCE41-13 [2014].

Figure No.

ID

TABLE 1 Locations of observed sites and damage levels

collapse
severe
severe
moderate
collapse
collapse
moderate
severe
severe
severe
severe
very light
light
light

Structural damage

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

collapse

severe
collapse
collapse
collapse
moderate
severe
severe
severe
severe
very light

light

Masonry damage

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

Performance of Structures in the Mw 6.1 Mae Lao Earthquake

with a Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) of Mw 6.7, deduced from surface rupture
length interpreted from the satellite image [DMR, 2009].
Department of Mineral Resources [DMR, 2009] published results from active fault
trenching along Phayao Fault Zone in the area close to the epicenter. There were four
trenches in this area. Ban Pang Moong trench, in Mae Korn Fault Segment, was reported
to be an oblique slip with reverse fault which had the last movement about 8,000 years
ago with horizontal movement (interpreted from offset stream) of about 0.156 mm/yr. Ban
Haui San Yao trench of Mae Lao Fault Segment was concluded to be an oblique slip with
normal fault with 2 movements, one dating back more than 5,300 years and the other about
5,300 years. The horizontal movement is reported to be 0.110 mm/yr. Ban Pa Jorh trench of
Phan Fault Segment is reported to be an oblique slip with normal fault containing one fault
movement about 5,200 years ago with a horizontal movement of about 0.175 mm/yr. Ban
Pa Neng trench of the Wang Tong Segment is reported to be an oblique slip with normal
fault which experienced 2 movements about 5,000 and 4,000 years back. The reported
horizontal movement is 0.342 mm/yr.
Seven TMD stations could detect strong motions of the main shock. Figures 3 and
4 show the ground acceleration and spectral acceleration, respectively, at Phayao Station
(epicentral distance about 40 km). The ground condition in the area is classified as Class
D according to ASCE 7-10 [2010] based on shear wave velocity tests [DMR, 2011]. The
peak ground acceleration was about 0.07 g.
Comparison of observed accelerations to attenuation models by Sadigh et al. [1997],
Boore et al. [1997], Abrahamson and Silva [1997], and Idriss [1993] is shown in Fig. 5.
The attenuation models by Sadigh et al. and Idriss fit the observed data reasonably well.
The peak ground acceleration at 10 km from the epicenter is predicted to be about 0.2
0.3 g from the attenuation relations.

3. Building Codes and Local Design and Construction Practice

Buildings designed as per different standards perform differently under the same action.
Therefore, an attempt is made to identify if the building surveyed was designed for seismic
action. The Ministerial Regulation No. 49 [Ministry of Interior, 1997] under the Building
Control Act [Ministry of Interior, 1979] concerning seismic resistance design of buildings
has been promulgated just only since 1997. It was based on the 1985 Uniform Building
Code, with Zone II designated for 10 seismic prone provinces in Thailand, including
Chiang Rai. Public and essential buildings of any height are required by the regulation

FIGURE 3 Strong motion acceleration at Phayao Station.

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

P. Lukkunaprasit et al.

FIGURE 4 Acceleration response spectrum for Phayao Station (5% damping ratio).

FIGURE 5 Attenuation of peak ground accelerations.

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

Performance of Structures in the Mw 6.1 Mae Lao Earthquake

to be seismic resistant against a peak ground acceleration of up to 0.15 g (g is the acceleration due to gravity) on rock site. However, private buildings not taller than 15 m are
not required to have any seismic resistance design. Consequently, a large building stock
contains inadequate seismic resistant structures. Therefore, unless specifically noted, the
buildings reported herein fall into this category.
Most of the residential houses are two stories high, featuring a soft story with small
reinforced concrete (RC) columns. Typical widths of columns are 150 mm and 200mm
for two and three story buildings, respectively, with light transverse reinforcement, typically 6 mm diameter round bars spaced approximately at 150200 mm. Unreinforced infill
masonry (URM) panels, generally 100-mm thick (including 1520 mm cement plastering
on each face), are extensively used as non-structural partitions, with a small number of
dowel bars (if any) connecting the panels and the boundary RC frames. Often the dowel
bars are not provided. The ultimate compressive strength of concrete in buildings is normally in the order of 18 MPa (or much less for non-engineered buildings). Reinforcing bars
usually have specified yield strengths of 240 MPa for plain bars and 300 MPa for deformed
ones. Generally, bricks, cement blocks (for infill panels) and mortar are of unknown quality since they are used as non-structural elements. Low-rise residential/commercial RC
buildings (23 stories high) are generally constructed without involvement of engineers.

4. Observed Performance of Buildings

4.1. Residential Buildings
A common feature of traditional Thai houses in rural areas is the elevated first floor above
ground to avoid blocking flow in the event of flooding. These non-engineered buildings are
customarily built without engineering drawings. As such, only important features affecting
structural performance are discussed. These buildings are often supported by small nonductile concrete columns at the ground level with open space, creating a soft story system
which is vulnerable to damage. Those non-engineered residential buildings have been built
on small non-ductile columns with cross section size of 150 150 mm. Figure 6 shows one
such building with the first floor sitting on the pan-caked ground floor columns. This house
was located at about 10 m from a surface crack caused by the earthquake which can be seen
in the foreground. Figure 7 depicts a typical wooden house elevated on RC columns and
spread footings, located about 40 m from the building in Fig. 6. Some flexural cracks developed in the columns which were of poor quality. The building was leaning to one side, and
the owner put up shoring, out of common sense, to prevent it from collapse. However,
he used timber planks instead of timber posts (obviously because of lack of resources
due to poverty). Furthermore, some braces were wrongly placed against the flimsy timber walls (see Fig. 7a). Thus, dissemination of basic technical knowledge is important to
better prepare laymen for damage reduction in future earthquakes.
In many cases, part of the open space is utilized for occupancy or for other purposes,
usually with the utilized space enclosed by URM partitions. Such an enclosed space is
relatively rigid in comparison with the RC frames, and can create torsional irregularity if
placed away from the center of mass. An example is shown in Fig. 8a. The newly built
one-story RC elevated house exhibited several types of damage. The 200 mm 200 mm
columns at the ground level were severely damaged. The masonry walls at the ground level
attracted a large seismic force and were mostly destroyed (Fig. 8b). The beam-column
joints at corner columns witnessed joint distress (Fig. 8c). Severe shear failure with vertical
bar buckling occurred due to the well-known short column effects where the masonry panel
did not fill all the way through the column height (Fig. 8d).

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

P. Lukkunaprasit et al.

FIGURE 6 A collapsed house in Mae Lao district, Chiang Rai province. The elevated first
floor collapsed down to the ground.

FIGURE 7 Typical timber house near surface crack in Mae Lao district swayed due to
permanent displacement: (a) shoring was attempted but not properly applied and (b) crack
in low quality precast column.

Besides the traditional elevated house, many new single story houses are built with
the first floor resting on ground (Fig. 9). Columns are customarily made of precast concrete
with a small cross section of 120 mm 120 mm, usually not meeting proper standards even
for gravity load requirement. These non-engineered columns have very little reinforcement
and are not suitable for seismic-prone areas. Although the columns are not very strong, the
steel roof and cement tiles are rather lightweight. The masonry walls using hollow cement

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

Performance of Structures in the Mw 6.1 Mae Lao Earthquake

FIGURE 8 (a) An elevated one-story reinforced concrete house in Dong-mada subdistrict, Mae Lao district; (b) eccentrically placed URM infills and failure; (c) flexure failure
of un-braced columns and damage in beam-column corner joint; and (d) shear failure in
short columns.

FIGURE 9 (a) A one-story house in Dong-mada sub-district, Mae Lao district built on
ground using precast concrete columns and steel roof truss; (b) partial out-of-plane collapse
of masonry wall due to lack of anchorage to the columns.

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

10

P. Lukkunaprasit et al.

FIGURE 10 (a) A three-story RC building in Mae Lao district with soft first story and torsional irregularity; (b) shear failure of ground floor columns (courtesy of Police Lieutenant
Colonel Anandech Yavichai).

blocks are popular. The prevailing damage on this type of house is partial out-of-plane collapse of masonry walls due to lacking of anchorage between the wall and column (Fig. 9).
This failure mode caused the only fatality in Thailand for this earthquake event as the
earthquake occurred during the day time. If it had occurred during night time, many more
fatalities might have resulted as the walls would have collapsed onto sleeping residents.
Two- to three-story RC residential buildings mostly have non-seismically designed
columns/beams and open space on the ground floor. Two of the collapsed buildings are
shown in Figs. 10 and 11. The two-story building with an extended portion on top in
Fig. 10a was about 3 km from the epicenter reported by TMD. Besides the soft-story
structural irregularity, the building also had torsional irregularity due to the presence of
URM partitions at one end of the structure on the ground floor (left-hand side in Fig. 10a).
The building was severely damaged and was on the verge of collapse on the day of the
main shock with shear failure in the unrestrained interior columns. The perimeter columns,
which were partially restrained by URM panels, also exhibited severe shear failure in the
short column portions adjacent to the cement block louvers (see Fig. 10b). It is noteworthy
that all occupants managed to evacuate safely. On the next day after strong aftershocks (in
the order of Mw 5.0), the building totally collapsed.
To ascertain the cause of collapse of the three-story RC building in Fig. 11a, a simplified analysis was conducted with one bay of the structure modeled as a 2-D moment
frame, as shown in Fig. 11d. The dimensions were estimated as close as possible to the
actual condition. The frame was subjected to base excitation with a peak ground acceleration of 0.20 g. The ground floor columns were 200 mm 200 mm reinforced with six
12-mm diameter longitudinal bars and 6-mm diameter ties spaced at 200 mm. The beams
were rectangular in cross section, 200 mm wide and 400 mm deep. Field evidence revealed
that the columns failed at column ends without development of ductile failure modes (see
Fig. 11c). The building was not designed nor detailed for seismicresistance. Hence, its

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

Performance of Structures in the Mw 6.1 Mae Lao Earthquake

11

FIGURE 11 (a) Collapse of a three-story RC building with a soft first story under construction in Mae Lao district; (b) collapse of the first story; (c) failure of column; and (d)
2-D structural model.
members could be put in the force-controlled category according to ASCE41-13 [ASCE,
2014]. Following the seismic evaluation standard ASCE41-13, a demand-to-capacity ratio
of 5.5 was obtained for flexural response and the corresponding value for shear response
was 1.4 in the most critical column. Thus, the column was obviously not adequate for
the seismic demand. Note that the simplified analysis did not consider any torsional effect
which actually existed in the building and, obviously, would increase the seismic demand
on the members. In fact, for a newly designed building, a column size of 300 mm 300 mm
with a longitudinal reinforcement ratio no less than 1% and 9 mm diameter ties at 150 mm
spacing in the critical zones near beam-column joints is needed for the building to safely
meet the seismic demand with limited ductility.
4.2. School Buildings
School buildings in Thailand typically have a long rectangular floor plan with single-bay
frames of 610 m span in the transverse direction and multi-bay frames of 44.5 m spans
in the longitudinal direction. Most schools have 24 stories where the ground floor has a
large open space, creating a soft-story system. Unfortunately, many recently built school
buildings (including the ones reported in this article) have not been constructed with proper
seismic design even though the regulations call for design for a peak ground acceleration
of about 0.15 g. Consequently, several buildings with a soft story system coupled with
torsional irregularities suffered significant damage, as evident in Fig. 12 which shows a
building in Wat Muang Nga kindergarten school in Phan district that suffered moderate

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

12

P. Lukkunaprasit et al.

FIGURE 12 (a) A three-story RC school building (Building 2) with a soft first story coupled with torsional irregularity at Wat Muang Nga kindergarten school in Phan district,
Chiang Rai province; (b) damage in soft story columns; (c) corner column most severely
damaged; (d) Building 1 with URM infilled RC frames at center of one side; and (e)
Building 3 with well distributed URM panels.

structural damage.The three-story RC building (labeled Building 2) has an open space on

the ground floor, except the two end bays to the north (left side of Fig. 12a) of the building
which accommodate a staircase and a restroom with URM partitions. Due to torsional
deformation, the column farthest from the stairwell was under the most critical seismic
demand, resulting in crushing and splitting cracks at the bottom (see Fig. 12c). Altogether,
14 columns were damaged to varying degrees, mainly in flexural mode.
It is interesting to note that two other RC buildings nearby, labeled as Buildings 1 and
3 in Figs. 12d and 12e, respectively, exhibited much better performance with minor nonstructural damage in URM infills. All buildings have approximately the same height and the
same span lengths between columns in both orthogonal directions. The structural designs
of the main structural components are basically similar. Building 1, adjacent to Building
2 with RC precast slabs connecting the two, has a stiff stairwell at the center on one side

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

Performance of Structures in the Mw 6.1 Mae Lao Earthquake

13

FIGURE 13 (a) A four-story RC school building with a soft first story at Ban Don Tan
school in Phan district, Chiang Rai province; (b) URM infill in the end bay to the right; (c)
damage condition of URM infill at stairwell; and (d) shear failure in column.
of the longitudinal direction. In addition, several rooms with URM partitions exist on the
ground floor. Building 3, opposite to the others, has well-distributed URM panels all around
on the ground floor. Obviously, the contribution of well configured URM infills in Buildings
1 and 3 greatly reduce the adverse effect of soft story and torsional irregularities.
The two RC school buildings in Figs. 13 and 14, located about 3 km apart in Phan district, were constructed using the same structural design in general, i.e., same dimensions,
member sizes, and reinforcement. The difference is that the first one- Ban Don Tan school
essentially has an open space with one end frame filled with a URM panel on the ground
floor (Fig. 13b), whereas the other one Tesaban 1 schooldoes not have such an infill
(Fig. 14b). Instead, the open space is utilized for different functions using light aluminum
framed partitions. The RC frames with infills at the stairwell, placed near the opposite end,
are practically the same. It should be noted that the stairwell, which is relatively stiffer than
the individual frames, is located way off the center of mass of the structure, resulting in a
severe torsional irregularity in the second building whereas the URM infill at the end bay
of the first building contributes significantly to reducing the torsional irregularity. Contrast
in performance is evident. The contribution of the URM infill panel mentioned led to less
seismic demand on the components in the first building. Consequently, the RC frames and
the URM infill panels of the stairwell remained much less damaged than the second building in general (compare Fig. 13c with Fig. 14c). However, the two boundary columns of
the URM infill panel on ground floor were severely damaged by the strut force exerted by
the large infill panel which is 10m long (Fig. 13d). These columns, being 300 mm wide
500 mm deep with 9 mm diameter tie bars at 200 mm spacing, failed in shear as a result of

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

14

P. Lukkunaprasit et al.

FIGURE 14 (a) A four-story RC school building with a soft first story together with torsional irregularity at Tesaban 1 school in Phan district, Chiang Rai province; (b) open end
bay to the right; (c) damage condition of URM infill at stairwell; and (d) severe damage of
corner column.
short column effect following corner crushing of the infill. On the other hand, 8 columns in
the second building suffered moderate to severe damage, and one corner column (Fig. 14d)
was stressed beyond Life Safety Performance Level.
Only one of the four major RC buildings at Phan Pittayakom school, the main school
of the Phan district, was damaged due to this earthquake event. The reason is that the
other buildings are shorter, three-stories or less, and the floors are made of timber planks
instead of concrete slab, so the seismic force would be much less than that in the damaged
building which is four stories tall with RC slabs. The damaged building (Fig. 15) essentially
exhibited a soft first story with short column effect due to the fact that the 3 m ground floor
columns were practically restrained by URM infill at the lower 1 m, and by the aluminum
framing for fixed window panes at the top. Whereas the URM infilled RC framing of the
two stairwells provided significant lateral force resistance in the transverse directions by
virtue of the orientation of the stiff components in that direction, the lateral force resistance
in the longitudinal direction had to rely solely on the RC columns. Consequently, almost
all ground floor columns, 300mm 450 mm in cross section with 6mm round bar ties
spaced at 270 mm, severely failed in shear. Clearly, they were stressed beyond Life Safety
Performance Level (Fig. 15b). The building was subsequently demolished.
Two buildings at Mae Lao Witayakom School, the main school of Mae Lao district,
were heavily damaged (Fig. 16). These buildings did not have soft first story because the

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

Performance of Structures in the Mw 6.1 Mae Lao Earthquake

15

FIGURE 15 (a) A four-story RC school building at Phan Pittayakom school in Phan

district, Chiang Rai province; and (b) typical shear failure of ground floor columns.

FIGURE 16 (a), (b) Two of the damaged three-story RC school buildings at Mae Lao
Wittayakom school in Mae Lao district, Chiang Rai province.
space at the ground level was used for offices and classrooms with URM infills as partitions.
Similar to the Phan Pittayakom school, columns partially restrained by URM infills over
part of the column height suffered shear failure caused by the short column effect. One
beam-column joint of an end RC frame with URM infill panel was so severely damaged
in shear caused by the huge strut force from the URM panel that the column was almost
pulled out of the joint (Fig. 17a). Joint failure due to poorly constructed cold joint was also
observed at some beam-column joints (Fig. 17b).
It is noteworthy in passing that our field observations on contribution of masonry
infill to the performance of RC frames are in agreement with previous findings of several researchers. As Fardis and Panagiotakos [1997] said, . . . with very few exceptions,
the presence of infills is beneficial for the global seismic response and performance of the
structure. Pujol and Fick [2010], based on their full-scale test of a 3-story RC building with
infills and some field evidence, suggested that masonry infill walls might be potentially
beneficial, especially for regions where masonry is widely used. However, the possibility of shear failure in columns and beam-column joints should be carefully considered in
design. An appropriate measure should be taken to avoid such brittle shear failure, e.g.,
by employing the scheme proposed by Srechai and Lukkunaprasit [2013] whereby URM

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

16

P. Lukkunaprasit et al.

FIGURE 17 (a) Shear failure of beam-column joint induced by strut force from URM
panel; and (b) failure at poorly constructed joint.
panels are separated from the boundary columns and steel brackets are provided to transfer
the interactive forces between the URM panel and the boundary beams.
Table 2 summarizes the structural details of the schools whose drawings are available, including observed damage classified according to ASCE41-13. It is seen that the
volumetric ratio of tie reinforcement is less than 1%.
4.3. Hospitals
Two main hospitals in Phan and Mae Lao districts have remained operational after the
earthquake incident, although there was panic and the patients had to be evacuated right
after the main shock. All buildings are 12 stories high and are built without any seismic resistance provision except the newest building in Phan hospital which has been
constructed to replace the one severely damaged by the 1994 Phan earthquake. The new
building, with proper seismic resistance provisions, performed satisfactorily without any
damage. For other buildings, the structural components were not damaged except for the
separation joints between the corridors and the main buildings. Since only small gaps of
about 15 mm were generally provided, pounding between the corridors and the connecting
buildings occurred, causing damage such as that shown in Fig. 18. However, the damage
was only moderate at worst and very much localized without affecting the integrity of the
structures.

5. Observed Damage of Bridges

5.1. Pounding
Pounding damage was found in several bridges in Chiang Rai province. Figure 19 shows
contact damage caused by pounding between a bridge cross beam and a pedestrian stair.
The relative displacement between the cross beam in the bridge transverse direction and
the stair was larger than a gap of 20 mm provided. Hence, there was damage to concrete
surface. Figure 20 shows the damage caused by pounding between adjacent spans of a
bridge crossing the Mae Lao river. The bridge has three 10-m long spans on the approach

Performance of Structures in the Mw 6.1 Mae Lao Earthquake

17

TABLE 2 Structural details of schools surveyed

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

Details
Number of Floors
Roof Type
Beam Span
(Longitudinal) [m]
Beam Span (Transverse)
[m]
First Floor Area [m2 ]
Total Floor Area [m2 ]
First Floor Column Area
[m2 ]
Masonry Wall Area
(Longitudinal) [m2 ]
Masonry Wall Area
(Transverse) [m2 ]
Thickness of masonry
[m]
First Floor Column Average Main
Reinforcement Ratio
[%]
First Floor Column Average Tie
Volumetric
Reinforcement Ratio
[%]
RC Damage
Masonry Wall Damage

Fig. 12

Fig. 13

Fig. 14

Fig. 15

3
Steel
6

4
Steel
9.4

4
Steel
9.4

4
Wood
10.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

476
1397
2.3

402
1883
3.2

402
1883
3.2

955.8
3648
5.2

7.2

7.2

17.1

26.8

26.8

38.0

0.100.12

0.100.12

0.100.12

0.15

3.38

2.16

2.16

2.34

0.3

0.6

0.6

0.18

Moderate
Moderate

Severe
Severe

Severe
Severe

Severe
Severe

FIGURE 18 Pounding damage at Mae Lao hospital.

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

18

P. Lukkunaprasit et al.

FIGURE 19 Pounding of a pier and a staircase.

FIGURE 20 Pounding of bridge girders of a bridge crossing the Mae Lao river.
side and the inner spans have a span length of 20 m, as shown in Fig. 21. A finite element
model of the 10-m-span and 20-m-span segments was developed to determine the relative
movement between the girders. The ground motion shown in Fig. 3 was scaled to have
an estimated maximum ground acceleration of 0.20 g. The relative movement of 35 mm
is predicted from the analysis. Since the gap between girders is usually about 2030 mm,
pounding occurs between two adjacent girders. Since seat widths of about 200300 mm are
provided, unseating is not likely to occur considering the relative displacement alone. But

Performance of Structures in the Mw 6.1 Mae Lao Earthquake

19

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

FIGURE 21 Plan and elevation of the bridge crossing the Mae Lao river.

FIGURE 22 Damage to shear key block.

it is important to note that damage to columns or foundations can also lead to unseating of
superstructures.
5.2. Shear Dowels
The shear dowels are usually provided between a girder and a crossbeam to limit the movement of the girder. The girder end treated as a longitudinally fixed support is provided with
shear dowels anchored to diaphragm beams. Since the force transferred from the girder
is larger than the resistance of the shear dowel block, the damage occurs, as shown in
Fig. 22. Hence, sufficient reinforcement and confinement shall be provided to the shear
dowel block.

6. Geotechnical Aspect
6.1. Liquefaction
Liquefaction was widely witnessed in the hardest hit districts. However, no severe damage to buildings was caused by liquefaction. Liquefaction was observed along the Rong
Than canal, a branch of the Mae Lao river in Phan district. Typical soils in this area are

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

20

P. Lukkunaprasit et al.

of a light grey, silty fine to coarse grain, loose to medium dense sand at depths of 28 m
below the ground surface. The water table in this area is at around 1 m below the ground
surface. Based on four boring logs in nearby areas, the uncorrected SPT values of the sand
layers ranges from 431 blows/ft. The content of fine particles (F200) ranges between
830%. Under a maximum ground acceleration of 0.200.25 g, the excess pore water ratio
of 0.10.4 can be estimated according to the study by Teachavorasinskun et al. [2009].
In other words, partial liquefaction can occur in this area.
Liquefaction was found in Sai Kao subdistrict, of Phan district, where a small village
was populated along the Rong Than canal. The water table in the canal was relatively close
to the ground surface, therefore, a high ground water table could be expected. From the field
survey, traces of liquefaction were observed in various areas. Sand boil from water wells
was also observed (Fig. 23). In the same area, there was a two-story house which lightly
settled due to liquefied ground (Fig. 24). Traces of sand were found beside the house where
settlement occurred, leading to cracks in walls and slabs.

FIGURE 23 Muddy sand after bursting from a water well.

FIGURE 24 (a) Trace of liquefaction outside a house and (b) crack on building slab and
wall due to liquefaction-induce subsidence.

Performance of Structures in the Mw 6.1 Mae Lao Earthquake

21

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

6.2. Slopes and River Banks

Slopes along roads and rivers were also affected by the earthquake. Slope failures due to
lateral acceleration occurred in some areas in Phan and Mae Lao districts. As most of failed
slopes were man-made, they may be less consolidated than natural ground. It is also noted
that failed slopes are relatively high (height > 5 m) and steep (slope > 45 ). Small cracks
were also observed in steep slopes along rivers and canals (Fig. 25). A bearing failure
of a river bank was observed in Phan district (Fig. 26). Traces of sand were found along
the shoreline of the river bank. Hence the failure may be due to the lateral spreading of
the underlying sand layer. Cracks across roads were also observed in areas close to the
epicenter.
Besides the slope failure and liquefaction, damage was observed in the approach of
bridges (Fig. 27). Dynamic lateral earth pressure and the difference in dynamic response of
the bridge and embankment were considered as the causes of pounding between the bridge
and approach slab.

7. Power Supply Facilities

Power outage occurred for a couple of hours in the Mae Lao district. It is normal practice in Thailand that the transformers supplying electricity to households are placed on

FIGURE 25 Slope failure.

FIGURE 26 A river bank failed by lateral spreading of underlying sand layer: (a) Settled
area; (b) Trace of sand on the free face.

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

22

P. Lukkunaprasit et al.

FIGURE 27 Failures at approach embankments.

FIGURE 28 (a) Un-anchored transformer, Mae Lao district, Chiang Rai; and (b) toppled
transformer (Courtesy of Mr. Assadakorn Ragsapainai).
cross-beams sitting on electricity poles without any anchorage to the supporting beams.
Some transformers almost toppled (Fig. 28a) and some actually fell down to the ground
(Fig. 28b).
The substation building, a two-story RC building in the Mae Lao district, was intact.
However, some instrument cabinets were displaced horizontally by about 20 mm. A huge
high voltage transformer outdoor, placed on grade without anchorage to the ground slab
was also displaced by about 60 mm (Fig. 29). This is a good indication of the severity of
the ground shaking.

8. Concluding Remarks
As always, the Mae Lao earthquake has brought about valuable lessons as well as clues
for rehabilitation and future design. Although several lessons have been well recognized
in a high seismicity region, they do re-iterate the fact that a poor structural system is also
vulnerable to damage under moderate hazard. Thus, buildings featuring poor structural
systems, such as soft stories with small columns, torsional irregularity, and short columns

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

Performance of Structures in the Mw 6.1 Mae Lao Earthquake

23

FIGURE 29 (a) The high voltage transformer at Mae Lao substation; and (b) evidence of
horizontal displacement due to ground shaking.
are prone to be severely damaged. As reported in other events, poor detailing and substandard construction further aggravate the problem (e.g., Scawthorn, 2000; Kawashima
et al., 2010). Because such weak systems are abundant in poor villages, there is a need to
retrofit them for safe occupancy which poses a big challenge with regard to effective and
affordable retrofit of these buildings.
Field evidence from this event has again confirmed the beneficial effect of URM infill
in RC frames in enhancing performance of RC buildings, with which the collapse of some
buildings might have been deferred, thereby allowing safe evacuation. However, the possibility of shear failure in columns and beam-column joints should be carefully considered
in design.
Bridges in surveyed areas were not designed for seismic resistance. Damage mainly
occurred at movement joints of superstructures. It is a general practice to provide shear
dowels to allow limited movement between a pier and a girder supported by rubber bearings. The shear dowel could limit the relative displacement of the girders. However, the
shear dowel blocks needs to be improved to have a sufficient capacity for transferring shear
forces. Further study is needed to understand the interaction of the girder, rubber bearings,
and shear dowels under seismic actions.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to Department of Public Works and
Town & Country Planning, Department of Rural Roads, and Department of Highways for
coordination and support in the reconnaissance survey.

Funding
The prompt financial support from Chulalongkorn University is highly acknowledged.

References
Abrahamson, N. A. and Silva, W. J. [1997] Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for
shallow crustal earthquake, Seismological Research Letters 68(1), 94127.
ASCE [2010] ASCE/SEI 7 Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.

Downloaded by [Chulalongkorn University] at 06:02 13 August 2015

24

P. Lukkunaprasit et al.

ASCE [2014] ASCE/SEI 41-13 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
Boore, D., Joyner, W., and Fumal, T. [1997] Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra
and peak acceleration from western north American earthquakes: A summary of recent work,
Seismological Research Letters 68(1), 128153.
DMR [2009] Recurrence interval study in active faults area in Chiang Rai, Chiang Mai and Phayao
provinces (Mae Chan and Phayao fault zones), Environmental Geology Division, Dept. of
Mineral Resources, Ratchatewi, Bangkok (in Thai).
DMR [2011] Shear wave velocity in northern Thailand, Dept. of Mineral Resources, Ratchatewi,
Bangkok (in Thai).
DPT [2014] Internal report of the coordination center of the building damage assessment team for
the Chiang Rai earthquake incidents, Dept. of Public Works and Town & Country Planning (in
Thai).
Earthquaketrack [2014], Retrieved July 22, 2014, from http://earthquaketrack.com/quakes/1994-0911-01-32-03-utc-5-2-33
Fardis, M. N. and Panagiotakos, T. B. [1997] Seismic design and response of bare and
masonry-infilled reinforced concrete buildings part II: infilled structures, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering 1(3), 475503.
Idriss, I. M. [1993] Procedures for selecting earthquake ground motions at rock sites. Report No.
NIST GCR 93-625, Report to National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg,
Maryland, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California, Davis, California.
Kawashima, K., Aydan, O., Aoki, T., Kisimoto, I., Konagai, K., Matsui, T., Sakuta, J., Takahashi,
N., Teodori, S., and Yashima, A. [2010] Reconnaissance investigation on the damage of the
2009 LAquila, central Italy earthquake, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 14(6), 817841.
Ministry of Interior [1979] Building Control Act (in Thai), Bangkok, Thailand.
Ministry of Interior [1997] Ministerial Regulation No. 49 under the Building Control Act 1979 (in
Thai), Bangkok, Thailand.
Pujol, S. and Fick, D. [2010] The test of a full-scale three-story RC structure with masonry infill
walls, Engineering Structures 32, 31123121.
Sadigh, K., Chang, C. Y., Egan, J. A., Makdisi, F., and Youngs, R. R. [1997] Attenuation relationships for shallow crustal earthquakes based on California strong motion data, Seismological
Research Letters 68(1), 180189.
Scawthorn, C. R., Ed. [2000] The Marmara, Turkey earthquake of August 17, 1999: Reconnaissance
Report, Technical Report MCEER-00- 0001, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York.
Srechai, J. and Lukkunaprasit, P. [2013] An innovative scheme for retrofitting masonry-infilled nonductile reinforced concrete frames, The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering 6(4),
277288.
Teachavorasinskun, S., Pattararattanakul, P., and Pongvithayapranu, P. [2009] Liquefaction susceptibility in the northern provinces of Thailand, American Journal of Engineering and Applied
Sciences 2(1), 194201.
Thai Meteorological Department [2014] Seismological Bureau, Thai Meteorological Department,
Thailand, Retrieved July 22, 2014, from http://www.seismology.tmd.go.th
US Geological Survey [2014] United States Geological Survey, Virginia, United States, Retrieved
August 8, 2014, from http://comcat.cr.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/usb000qack#summary