Citation: Moehle, J.P. and Mahin, S.A., (1991 ).

Observations of the behaviour of reinforced concrete buildings during earthquakes , Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures Inelastic Response and Design , American Concrete Institute, SP-127.

Keywords: Seismic response, reinforced concrete, earthquake reconnaissance, building design

SUMMARY
Provide brief summary of the paper including research question being addressed, methodology, results and main conclusions (maximum 100 words) This literature presents general observations on the performance of reinforced concrete buildings in past earthquakes. Although subjective and sometimes ambiguous, performance observations are useful for structural engineers to appreciate the potential factors influencing structural behaviour, even if they can only be discerned at a conceptual level. Based on the observations in this paper, it can be seen that buildings with simple geometry and well defined load paths generally performed well while buildings with irregularities or complex geometries tended to have issues. It is concluded that despite the many advancements in the field, advanced computer models are no substitute for simple, continuous, and redundant structural systems.

METHODOLOGY
Give a brief summary of how the author(s) conducted the research on the topic including research framework (analytical/ survey/experimental etc.), how the problem was formulated, method and accuracy of the data, reproducibility of the results (maximum 150 words) The paper surveys a collection of past earthquake reconnaissance reports ranging from the 1957 Mexico City earthquake to the 1989 Armenia earthquake. Based on the reconnaissance observations, common trends of poorly-performing and well-performing concrete structures are detected from these previous studies. The observations are categorized into topics relating to the structural concept (observations about continuity, regularity, stiffness, proximity to adjacent buildings, mass, redundancy, and previous shaking exposure) and proportioning and detailing (locations of inelastic deformation, determination of member actions, transverse reinforcement, anchorage and connections, and construction). The observations are general and high-level, because the exact behaviour or failure mechanism of such structures cannot always be discerned as most observations tend to occur post-event or post-collapse.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Provide a critical analysis of the results and discussion components of the paper including the primary outcomes, assessment of the data analysis (interpretation) and relevance to the research question ( maximum 200 words) The primary motivation behind this paper is to improve upon the seismic design of buildings, by considering the performance of past building designs in earthquakes. An issue that arises from such observations is that the differences between building codes, typical practice, standards, and construction quality are not easily accounted for. Additionally, statements like Generous supply and appropriate placement of transverse reinforcement in concrete beams, columns, and walls have proven to be desirable, are a useful observation to direct further detailed study, but are not so useful to the designer who is left wondering if supplying the minimum code-mandated reinforcement is adequate. Conversely, the observations relating to the structural concept are generally linked to conceptually well-understood phenomenon, where such detail is not necessary.

CONTRIBUTION AND FUTURE RESEARCH

How does this paper contribute to knowledge development in earthquake engineering or to engineering practice? What are the limitations of the study? What future research directions are identified? Is this paper helpful for your own graduate studies/research? If so, how? (Maximum 150 words) Observations on the performance of different structural concepts are highly relevant to the profession. As demonstrated in previous earthquakes, buildings may satisfy all code requirements yet still have undesirable behaviour or performance. Compiling these observations serves as a useful conceptual check. As more earthquakes occur, an effort should be made to reconcile the observations in this paper with observations on the performance of newer buildings, which would presumably have better detailing and stricter requirements for irregularities. Perhaps with newer construction, the observed issues related to structural detailing would become less apparent. The authors do make a very relevant point, however, that the special detailing for inelastic action is of little use if the global inelastic behaviour is not well understood or considered. The paper is a useful reference to keep in mind when assessing or designing a structure, especially when design constraints necessitate irregularities, or when analysis assumptions need to be made.