Which design approach best reduces earthquake damage to buildings?

• A. Higher residential density.
• B. Strong, ductile construction with redundancy.
• C. Increasing foundations near water.
• D. Shorter buildings only.

Answer: (B)

The key idea is making a building behave like a flexible, well-supported system during shaking rather than a brittle object that breaks. Strong, ductile construction with redundancy does that by two complementary means: ductility lets the structure bend and absorb energy without sudden, catastrophic failure, so members yield and continue to carry load instead of snapping. Redundancy provides multiple load paths, so if one element yields or fails, other parts can keep supporting the building. Together, these features keep the structure standing and occupants safer when strong ground motion occurs.

The other ideas don’t specifically improve how a building responds to earthquake forces. Merely increasing density doesn’t guarantee better performance unless each building is designed with ductility and redundancy. Foundations near water can increase risk through soil problems like liquefaction, not reduce it. Shorter buildings aren’t inherently safer in earthquakes—the essential factor is how the structure behaves under shake, not just its height.