Sci Eng Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s11948-012-9424-1
ORIGINAL PAPER
On Ethics and the Earthquake Resistant Interior
Design of Buildings
Yonca Hurol
Received: 20 September 2012 / Accepted: 10 December 2012
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012
Abstract The most common tectonic quality of modern structures, such as frame
systems, is their flexibility; they are open for change. Although this characteristic is
a big advantage in comparison to the inflexible masonry structures of the past, it
might also create some serious problems, such as e.g. the lack of safety in the event
of an earthquake, if the flexibility is not used consciously by architects and interior
designers. This article attempts to define and establish some rules for the interior
design of buildings with reinforced concrete frame systems. The rules for making
subtractions from these structures and extending them by making additions to them
are contained within this article. The main objective of this article is to derive some
ethical values from these rules. Thus, the conclusion of the article focuses on the
derivation of some ethical values for achieving earthquake resistant interior design
of buildings with reinforced concrete frame systems.
Keywords Earthquake resistant design Interior design Flexibility
Structural engineering Reinforced concrete frame
Ethics means being open for change.
Alain Badiou
Introduction
‘‘Recent earthquakes have caused unacceptably high death tolls… reducing such an
unacceptably high loss of life from earthquakes is the most important challenge
facing the global earthquake engineering community…’’ (Comartin et al. 2004).
Y. Hurol (&)
Faculty of Architecture, Eastern Mediterranean University, Via Mersin 10, Room: 118, Magusa,
Kibris, Turkey
e-mail: yonca.al@emu.edu.tr
123
Y. Hurol
Steinbrugge stated in 1982 that the twentieth century death toll due to the 26
earthquakes, which had magnitudes between 6.0 and 8.6, was around 1.5 million.
Since this problem is not caused only by the structural engineers, professional
strategies against earthquakes should include all parties within the design team of
buildings: architects, structural engineers and interior architects.
Architecture relates to time through change and change in architecture is the
basic task of interior design. People need to change their buildings according to their
changing needs. If a building is designed for change, its structure is seen as a
separate level, which is not necessary to change, whilst changing the other parts of
the building (Habraken 1998; Leupen and Bernard 2005). Thus, change does not
affect the earthquake resistance of these buildings negatively. However, if change is
not planned, then it can cause serious earthquake resistance problems, because the
structure is not accepted as a separate ‘‘level’’ and it is manipulated according to the
requirements of the new interior design concept.
This article focuses on buildings, which are not designed for change and
discusses the criteria of the earthquake resistant interior design of such buildings,
which have reinforced concrete frame structures. It is known that reinforced
concrete frame structures with rigid infill walls form a very critical typology in
respect of earthquakes. There are earthquake reports and specifications showing that
many reinforced concrete buildings collapsed due to irregularity problems, which
are a result of bad design, due to bad construction or due to bad interior design (Paz
1994; ITÜ 1999).
The research objective of this article is to formulate the basic rules of achieving
the earthquake resistant interior design of buildings with reinforced concrete frame
structures and to derive some ethical design values for those professions, which are
involved in this building process; viz architects, structural engineers and interior
designers. The issues of legality and bureaucracy, as e.g. in the activities of
professional chambers and municipalities, are not covered by the scope of this
article.
Actually, talking about the rules of structural design for architectural purposes is
a very old approach. Rules were valid for the design of traditional masonry
buildings before modern architecture and before the use of frame structures
(Mainstone 1975). Frampton (2001: p. 5) states that we can only talk about the
tectonics of modern buildings, but buildings with masonry structures can have
‘stereotomics’ (‘stereos’ to solid and ‘tomia’ to cut) but not tectonics. Modern
tectonics has always been seen as the area of freedom in the designing process
because of the existence of frame structures with their elementary nature, lightness
and flexibility of their partition walls (Billington 1983; Leatherbarrow and
Mostafavi 2005). However, after spending a century with these modern frames
and after facing many practical problems, as well as having equally valid success
stories, it is realistic to start thinking about the necessity for some rules, especially
in respect of the issue of earthquake resistant interior design. Freedom should not be
understood as just doing anything without being aware and conscious of what is
being done (Kavas 1996).
Traditional rules were broken only by the greatest masters and on the basis of the
demands of kings and sultans (Aran 2000; Goodwin 1993). However, modern rules
123
On Ethics and the Earthquake Resistant
should be breakable by any designer, as long as the problem created by the broken
rule is compensated for. Thus, the rules defined within this article are not like
unbreakable traditional rules. Rather, they should be seen as breakable rules, if the
designer is working consciously and with awareness. Having such rules is useful,
because they relate theory to practice. This makes theory more pedagogic and
suitable for teaching and using in practical designs.
It is very healthy for architects, interior designers and structural engineers to
discuss the ethics of design in relation to the rules of making changes in a specific
type of building, because change is the basic reality of practical life in buildings and
it involves all related professions as responsible parties within this action.
There is a large volume of literature on the subject of the earthquake problems of
frame structures (Athanassiadou 2008; Ambrose and Vergun 1993, 1995, 1999;
Dowrick 1990; Hu et al. 1996), frames with masonry infill (Ravichandran and
Klingner 2012), strengthening or retrofitting frame structures (Kaushik et al. 2009;
Martinezrueda and Elnashai 1995; Miller and Reaveley 1996; Warner 1996),
experience gained through specific cases of earthquakes (such as ITÜ 1999) and
earthquakes as a city planning problem (Charleson 2009). However, there is a gap in
the literature in respect of earthquake problems due to changes in architecture as a
result of the interior design of a building.
There is also literature on professional ethics in architecture and structural
engineering (Martin and Schinzinger 2005; Pultar 1997, 2000). However, these do
not consider the issue of change in buildings. This article is an original work,
because it works on this gap and it adapts the old idea of rules to the professional
ideology of modern design within the three related professions.
The author of this article is an architect who has taught structures to architecture
and interior architecture students for 28 years. These courses have been taught as
‘‘tectonics’’ courses rather than classical statics, strength, structural analysis courses
during the last 8 years. They are also related to design studios. The author of this
article also teaches design, attends to design juries and has the opportunity of
relating the theory of structures to the design practice of architecture and interior
architecture. Thus, the methodology of collecting and evaluating data to write this
article can be defined as an active observation within a long teaching experience of
structures and design.
The article contains five headings: The nature of interior design from the point of
view of structures, the rules of making subtractions from the existing structure, the
rules of making additions to the existing structure, the methods of compensating for
the broken rules and a discussion on the ethics of designing buildings with
reinforced concrete frames for all related professions.
The Nature of Interior Design from the Point of View of Structures
The architectural design of structures is usually seen as the addition of pieces of
structure to each other. These pieces can be similar to each other, or they can also be
very different from each other. It is possible to have many bays of frames added to
each other to form a 3D frame. It is also possible to add domes and vaults to frames
123
Y. Hurol
(Lin and Stotesbury 1981). However, structural design in interior design, which
creates extension systems (Mornement 2007) cannot only be explained by adding
structures to each other. Since the object of interior design is an existing building, it
becomes possible or necessary to subtract pieces from the existing building
structure. Interior designers usually imagine the subtractions first and then design
the necessary additions.
It has been observed that the problems associated with earthquakes, which arise
in the design projects of interior architecture students, can be categorised into two
groups:
a. Problems due to the subtractions made from the existing building structure,
b. Problems due to the additions made to the existing building structure.
Thus, the rules of earthquake resistant interior design should also contain rules in
respect of subtraction from the existing building structure and rules of addition to
the existing building structure.
On Subtractions from the Existing Building Structure
Observation of the student projects show that there is a large variety of subtraction
problems in interior design. All elements of the buildings can be subtracted by the
students; columns, beams, slabs, stairs, rigid infill walls and light-weight infill walls.
Actually all of these actions are possible, if the technology available is fully
utilised, if there is official permission and if the client is prepared to pay for the cost
of this. Even during the first half of the twentieth century, La Maison de Verre,
which was a masonry building, was elevated with the help of a temporary structure
and a frame structure was built underneath it in order to meet the demands of a
bohemian family (Neumann et al. 2010). Many rules, which are set within this
article, were broken within this project. However, this was done consciously and the
broken rules were compensated for. This approach to change was holistic in its
nature. Not only were one or two columns removed but the construction process was
also seen as a part of design. On the other hand, studio projects in interior design
education do not usually assume conditions as such. Although they are more
realistic in many issues, they might ignore structural problems for the sake of
teaching the art of design. This is part of the professional ideology of design, which
is transferred to students during design education (Stevens 1998).
If there are restrictions in the budget of the project, if there are no special official
permissions and if the technology to be used is limited, then it is possible to list the
rules of subtraction in interior design as follows:
a.
No columns and beams should be subtracted,
Even if the building is not in an earthquake region, subtracting columns will
disturb the structure. There might be other columns sitting on that column. The
beams, which transfer their load to that column, do not have sufficient depth and
reinforcement to carry their new load without that column. If vertical elements of a
123
On Ethics and the Earthquake Resistant
structure are removed, then they have to be replaced somehow as in the case of La
Maison de Verre.
Even if the building is not in an earthquake region, the subtraction of beams will
disturb the formation of the frames, the connection between the frames and the way
slabs are supported. Having continuous frames from one side to the other side of the
buildings is a very important requirement in respect of the issue of earthquake
resistance (Ministry of Public Works and Settlement Government of the Republic of
Turkey 1997).
Such problems can be discussed for each particular structure. However the
general reason for not removing columns and beams from a structure is the rule,
which forms the base of professional ethics: All buildings must be built according to
the professional projects, which were designed for them. The only way of not
following this rule is to prepare another set of professional projects, which will
enable the required change (Martin and Schinzinger 2005; Pultar 1997, 2000).
b.
A slab can be removed as a whole or a small piece of it can be subtracted. In
any case, before deciding to make changes in slabs, it is necessary to get advice
from a structural engineer.
Reinforced concrete slabs have reinforcement in them. If the majority of the
reinforcement in one direction is cut, this causes a radical change to the original
composition of the slab, which is according to the professional projects. On the
other hand, removing many slabs from a building can also change the earthquake
resistance of that building, because slabs work as diaphragms connecting vertical
elements in the structure. The removal of slabs can stop the structure from behaving
as a unit (Dowrick 1990). Unless only small holes in the slabs (e.g. to pass pipes) are
required to be made, the professional advice of a structural engineer is required,
since more reinforcement is required when larger holes are made.
c.
Stairs can be subtracted, if their removal does not weaken the remaining parts of
the existing structure. Before deciding to remove stairs, it is necessary to get
advice from a structural engineer.
Stairs represent sculptural artistic elements for interior designers. Whenever there
is an interior design project, the old stairs are usually removed and new more artistic
ones are added. (Mornement 2007) The stairs designed by interior designers always
have light-weight structures. The major problem in removing the old stairs and
adding the new one arises in relation to the role of the old stairs within the original
structure. For example, if it is located within a staircase tower, then removing the
stairs and leaving a hollow tower, damages the structure of that tower. Thus, it is
again necessary to get advice from a structural engineer before removing stairs.
d.
Rigid infill walls can be removed if this action does not create a soft/weak
storey or twisting instability problems. Before deciding to remove rigid infill
walls, it is necessary to get advice from a structural engineer.
There is a preconception amongst architects, interior designers and laymen that
the removal of the infill walls does not affect the building structure. Thus, they are
usually removed without getting any advice. However, removal of rigid infill walls
123
Y. Hurol
can cause vertical irregularity and plan irregularity problems, which are also known
as soft/weak storey and twisting instability problems (Kirac et al. 2011; Jeong and
Elnashai 2007; Lee and Woo 2002; Negro and Verzeletti 1996; Papia et al. 2003).
Thus, the removal of rigid infill walls requires the advice of a structural engineer.
e.
Light-weight infill walls can be subtracted freely.
It can be said that the only totally free action that the interior designers can
perform is the removal of the light-weight infill walls. Both rigid and light-weight
infill walls can be preferred in an open building design (Habraken 1998; Leupen and
Bernard 2005).
On Additions to the Existing Building Structure
Students of interior design usually feel free to add new structures to the existing
building structure. Linear elements, surfaces or masses can be added to the existing
building structure. These additions can be within the structure, outside the structure
or they can originate from the inside and extend outside. In structural terms,
columns, beams, slabs, stairs and infill walls can be added to the existing
structure. Whatever their form, these structures can be described as extension
systems, because they are added to the existing structure and they are dependent on
it (Mornement 2007).
a.
All these additional structures should be connected only to the joints of the
existing building structure.
These additions have to be connected to the existing structure in order to avoid
separate behaviour of the old and new structures in the event of an earthquake. They
have to be connected to the joints of the existing structure in order to avoid any
disturbing load transfer between them. New beams should be connected to existing
beam column joints. On the other hand, the additional steel columns should transfer
their load to appropriate places in the foundations of the existing structure. If there is
no element to transfer this load, this means that the foundations of the existing
building also require some extensions. Even the addition of light-weight partition
walls require proper connections to the existing structure in order to guarantee their
safety during an earthquake.
b.
The additional structure should have an order so that a second system, which is
connected to the existing building system, can be formed (Ching 1996).
Earthquake specifications support the suggestion of this rule. Many earthquake
specifications contain statements about the formation of frames within a structure.
Planar frames which usually exist in two perpendicular directions should start from
one side of the building and end at the other end of it in order to have a consistent
frame system (Ministry of Public Works and Settlement Government of the
Republic of Turkey 1997). It is known that most of the buildings, which collapse in
earthquakes, have non-continuous frames in them (ITÜ 1999).
123
On Ethics and the Earthquake Resistant
However, structural rules when a change in an existing structure occurs cannot be
the same as the structural rules of constructing a new building. The rules of addition
are different from the rules of an initial design.
c.
Extensions of existing structures should be light-weight structures (Habraken
1998; Leupen and Bernard 2005).
It is not a good idea to add stone walls irregularly onto existing structures. The
additions should not change the centre of gravity of the existing structure so as not
to create a twisting instability problem (Jeong and Elnashai 2007). It is also not a
good idea to add rigid infill walls to the existing structure so as not to create any
vertical irregularity problems such as soft and weak storey problems (Kirac et al.
2011).
Thus, interior architecture structures are different from the structures used in
architecture. Interior design requires light weight structures such as geodesic domes,
bicycle-wheel structures, membranes, suspension structures, steel frames and slabs.
d.
All load-bearing additions to the existing building structure require a new
structural engineering project as well as a new interior design project.
This structural engineering project should consider both the effect of subtractions
from the existing structure and any additions to it. This is the requirement of the
basic code of rules of professional ethics, according to which there should not be
any difference between a building and the professional project, which was designed
for it. Thus, changes in buildings also require professional projects (Habraken
1998).
Ways of Compensating for Broken Rules
Most of the above rules are also valid for non-earthquake regions. The only rules,
which apply to earthquake regions and not to non-earthquake regions, are the ones
about subtraction and addition of rigid infill walls. Rigid infill walls can be freely
subtracted and added in non-earthquake regions, but not in earthquake regions.
Thus, there is a considerable difference between architectural design and interior
design in earthquake and non-earthquake regions. Thus, open building design in
earthquake regions should be based on the use of light-weight infill walls.
According to modern ideology many rules are breakable. Some of the above rules
can also be broken in order to achieve certain design objectives. Actually the rules
form challenging limits to be broken by modern designers and engineers. The only
rule, which is unbreakable, is that which requires the production of a new set of
interior design and structural design projects, if there is to be any change in the
existing, original structure.
In order to break the rules, the rules should be known by the designers. If the
rules are broken, they should be compensated for by taking some structural
precautions. Such precautions combine design creativity and innovation with each
other. Either a new system is designed to compensate for the broken rule (such as
the systems which were designed to carry buildings from one place to another
123
Y. Hurol
place), or rules of a previously invented system are used to compensate for the
broken rule. Thus, breaking a rule necessitates the invention of new additional
systems which have their own rules.
Conclusion
Investigating ethical values, which affect building activity, cannot be completed
without considering the real life process of buildings. Ethics has a lot to do with
time. In fact, the major turning points of building ethics can only be achieved
through considering the real life process of buildings. Analysis of the above text
concerning the rules of earthquake resistant interior design, led the author of this
text to derive and formulate the major statements of ethics, which can be discussed
in order to develop the basic ethical values for building and construction activity,
which also covers the integrated activities of architects, structural engineers and
interior designers. These statements are as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Freedom is the base of ethics. However freedom does not mean doing whatever
one wishes without thinking of others (Kavas 1996). People should be free to
make small changes in their activities without affecting others negatively
(Heidegger 1995).
Ethics is being open for making changes and accepting changes made by others
(Badiou 2002). This statement does not necessarily conflict with the requirement of consistency in respect of ethical behaviour. One can have a very
consistent routine in his/her activities, but still can be open to change in order to
produce a better work (Heidegger 1995).
If the building is designed for change (as an open building or as a piece of time
based architecture), with light-weight infill walls, then the interior design of that
building can be realized without affecting the structural system. In this case it is
possible to complete the interior design only by subtracting and/or adding some
light-weight infill walls.
If the building is not designed for change and if it is necessary to go beyond
removing and adding some light-weight infill walls, then the interior design of
that building should be carried out parallel to a structural engineering project
designed for it.
The rules of earthquake resistant interior design, which are about the physical
building, can be broken by compensating for them by using the rules of another
system,
The rule in respect of the need for a structural engineering project cannot be
broken. In other words, the only way of breaking this rule is to redesign the
initial architectural project so as to be able to make a change.
The hierarchy between these statements, the different phases in the life time of
buildings and the consideration of the co-existence of different professions, which
are involved within the building process, can lead towards the development of
ethical values for the building activity. For the initial architectural design phase, it is
possible to say that:
123
On Ethics and the Earthquake Resistant
a.
It is ethical for architects to design for change whether they are in an earthquake
region or not. Change is needed by everyone. However, designing for change in
earthquake regions is even more necessary.
b. Architects who design for earthquake zones should give preference to using
light-weight infill walls rather than rigid ones.
c. If there is no obligatory law which prohibits the removal and/or addition of the
rigid infill walls freely, then the initial building‘s structural engineer should
design all necessary levels as soft/weak storey type. It should be known that
even the walls of intermediate levels can be removed later.
For the phase of interior design, it can be stated that:
d.
If a building is designed for change, then interior architects should redesign the
interiors of it only by removing and/or adding light-weight infill walls.
e. If a building is not designed for change and if it is necessary to go beyond
removing and/or adding light-weight infill walls, then it is necessary to have a
new structural engineering project for that interior design.
f. All the rules of earthquake resistant interior design, except the rule for the need
for a structural engineering project, can be broken by compensating them with
the rules of another system.
g. The rules of earthquake resistant interior design should be broken in a
systematic way and only for conceptual design purposes. Design alternatives, in
which no rules are broken, should also be presented to the clients besides the
design alternatives, in which one or more rules are broken.
h. The ethical tendency of structural engineers should be either not to break any
rules of earthquake resistant interior design, or to compensate for them in a
healthy way.
Since the importance of images is ever increasing, the activities of the
professions, such as architecture and interior architecture, which create the built
environment, are also expected to increase. On the other hand, because of the
contradiction between the technical and artistic issues of design, the artistic quality
of design might grow and develop, whilst the technical consciousness may decrease.
This could make the ethics of interior design even more critical, as it may start to
become nonsensical.
References
Ambrose, J., & Vergun, D. (1993). Seismic design of buildings. New York: Wiley.
Ambrose, J., & Vergun, D. (1995). Simplified building design for wind and earthquake forces. New York:
Wiley.
Ambrose, J., & Vergun, D. (1999). Design for earthquakes. Canada: Wiley.
Aran, K. (2000). Beyond shelter: Anatolian indigenous buildings. Ankara: Tepe Architectural Culture
Center.
Athanassiadou, C. J. (2008). Seismic performance of R/C plane frames irregular in elevation. Engineering
structures, 30(5), 1250–1261.
123
Y. Hurol
Badiou, A. (2002). Ethics—An essay on the understanding of evil (P. Hallward, Trans.). London, NY
(verso).
Billington, D. P. (1983). The tower and bridge. New York: Basic Book Publishers.
Charleson, A. (2009). Comparison between contemporary architectural form in cities with high versus
low Seismicity. Earthquake Spectra, 25(1), 1–15.
Ching, F. D. K. (1996). Architecture; form, space and order. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Comartin, C., Brzev, S., Naeim, F., et al. (2004). A challenge to earthquake engineering professionals.
Earthquake Spectra, 20(4), 1049–1056.
Dowrick, D. (1990). Earthquake resistant design (2nd ed.). Essex, GB: Wiley.
Frampton, K. (2001). Studies in tectonic culture: The poetics of construction in nineteenth and twentieth
century architecture. In J. Cava (Ed.), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Goodwin, G. (1993). Sinan: Ottoman architecture & its values today. London: Saqi Books.
Habraken, J. (1998). The structure of the ordinary—form and control in the built environment. In J.
Teicher (Ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Heidegger, M. (1995). Being and time (Sein un Zeit) 13th Ed (J. Macquarrie, E. Robinson, Trans.).
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Hu, Y.-X., Liu, S.-C., & Dong, W. (1996). Earthquake engineering. Oxford: E and FN Spon.
İTÜ. (1999). http://www.belgenet.com/deprem/depremitu.html. Used in 7, 2002.
Jeong, S. H., & Elnashai, A. S. (2007). Fragility relationship for torsionally imbalanced buildings using
three dimensional damage characterization. Engineering Structures, 29(9), 2172–2182.
Kaushik, H. B., Rai, D. C., & Jain, S. K. (2009). Effectiveness of some strengthening options for masonry
infilled RC frames with open first storey. Journal of Structural Engineering-ASCE, 135(8), 925–937.
Kavas, Z. O. (1996) The transformation of the concept of freedom in modern philosophy. Unpublished
PhD Thesis. The Middle East Technical University. Ankara.
Kirac, N., Dogan, M., & Ozbasaran, H. (2011). Failure of weak storeys during earthquakes. Engineering
Failure Analysis, 18(2), 572–581.
Leatherbarrow, D., & Mostafavi, M. (2005). Surface architecture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Lee, H. S., & Woo, S. W. (2002). Effect of masonry ınfills on seismic performance of a 3 Storey R/C
frame with non-seismic detailing. Earthquake Engineering Structures, 31(2), 353.
Leupen, B. (2005). Towards time based architecture. In B. Leupen, R. Heijne, & J. van Zwol (Eds.). Time
based architecture. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.
Lin, T. Y., & Stotesbury, S. D. (1981). Structural concepts and systems for architects and engineers. New
York: Wiley.
Mainstone, R. (1975). Developments in structural form. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Martin, M., & Schinzinger, R. (2005). Ethics in engineering (4th ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill Science/
Engineering/Math.
Martinezrueda, J. E., & Elnashai, A. S. (1995). A novel technique for the retrofiting of reinforced concrete
structures. Engineering Structures, 7(5), 359.
Miller, J. T., & Reaveley, L. D. (1996). Historic hotel utah remodel and Upgrade. In G. M. Sabnis, A.
C. Shroff, & L. F. Kahn (Eds.), Seismic rehabilitation of concrete structures. Michigan: ACI.
Ministry of Public Works and Settlement Government of the Republic of Turkey. (1997). Specification
for structures to be built in disaster Areas. Part III. Earthquake disaster prevention (M.
N. Aydınoğlu, Trans.). Issued on: 2.9.1997. Official Gazette No: 23098.
Mornement, A. (2007). Extensions. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd.
Negro, P., & Verzeletti, G. (1996). Effect of infills on the global behavior of R/C frames. Earthquake
Engineering Structures, 25(8), 253.
Neumann, S., Cowan, R., Compain, F. (n.d.) Film called: Pierre Chareu—La Maison de Verre.
Xvid.AC3.Multi-Audio.en.de.fr. www.mvgroup.org (visited on 2010).
Papia, M., Cavaleri, L., & Fossetti, M. (2003). Infilled frames: Developments in the evaluation of the
stiffening effect of infills. Structural Engineering Mechanics, 16(6), 675.
Paz, M. (1994). International handbook of earthquake engineering. New York: Chapman & Hall.
Pultar, M. (1997). A conceptual framework for values in the built environment. In M. Grey (Ed.),
Evolving environmental ideals: Changing ways of life, values and design practices (pp. 261–267).
Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology.
Pultar, M. (2000). The conceptual basis of building ethics. In W. Fox (Ed.), Ethics of the built
environment. London: Routledge.
Ravichandran, S. S., & Klingner, R. E. (2012). Seismic design factors for steel moment frames with
masonry infills- part 1. Earthquake Spectra, 28(3).
123
On Ethics and the Earthquake Resistant
Steinbrugge, K. V. (1982). Earthquakes, volcanos and tsunamis: An anatomy of hazards. New York:
Scandia America Group.
Stevens, G. (1998). Angst in Academia: Universities, the architecture schools and the profession. Journal
of Architectural and Planning Research, 15(2), 152–169.
Warner, J. (1996). Shortcrete in seismic repair and retrofit. In G. M. Sabnis, A. C. Shroff, & L. F. Kahn
(Eds.), Seismic rehabilitation of concrete structures. Michigan: ACI.
123
YONCA HUROL