.jpg)
From the viewpoint of structural dynamics, this catastrophe was not merely a result of the earth's movement, but a tragic convergence of specific seismic characteristics and vulnerabilities in the built environment, experts from Loughborough University say.
Dr Andre Jesus, Senior Lecturer in Structural Dynamics at Loughborough University, explained: “The primary driver of the destruction was the shallow depth of the rupture - approximately 10–22 km - combined with its strike-slip mechanism along the Boconó–Morón–El Pilar fault system.
“Unlike deeper subduction earthquakes that dissipate energy over distance, these shallow crustal events transferred massive kinetic energy directly into the surface. Crucially, the rupture directed the pulse of seismic waves straight toward the dense urban corridor of La Guaira and Caracas.
“This "directivity effect" meant that buildings in these cities were hit by a concentrated, high-velocity pulse of energy rather than scattered shaking.
“Much of La Guaira and parts of Caracas sit on soft, saturated alluvial soils and reclaimed land. In structural dynamics terms, these soft soils act as an amplifier, increasing the amplitude of seismic waves and lengthening their period.
“This matched the natural frequency of many mid-to-high-rise buildings (5–15 stories). When the ground shakes at the same frequency as a building, the structure sways with increasing intensity, much like pushing a child on a swing at the perfect moment.”
Dr Andre Jesus added that it is due to these forces that meant the buildings in Venezuela were ill-equipped to cope with the force of the shaking.
He said: “The building stock in the affected zone proved ill-equipped to handle these forces. The dominant construction type—reinforced concrete frames with masonry infill—suffered from critical dynamic flaws. Many buildings featured "soft stories" (weak columns relatively to beams/slabs).
“During the quake, these flexible storey levels experienced disproportionately large lateral deformation, leading to column failure and progressive floor collapse (pancake-type).
“Furthermore, older structures built before modern codes lack adequate ductility – the ability to absorb energy via deformation before failure.
“The result was a systemic failure where the dynamic characteristics of the ground motion, amplified by local soil conditions, exceeded the deformation capacity of poorly ductile reinforced concrete systems. The tragedy underscores that in seismic zones, structural safety depends on a combination of strength, ductility, detailing, and system-level configuration to ensure reliable energy dissipation and deformation control.”
Dr Monia Del Pinto, a Lecturer in Sustainable and Resilient Urbanism at Loughborough University, explained how disasters such as the earthquake in Venezuela can impact people’s lives.
She said: “The first and most impactful disruption, after the loss of lives, is through direct damage to buildings, endangering the occupants and ultimately leading to people’s and functions relocation. For example, when residential buildings are affected they become unsafe and people are forced to relocate in temporary shelters or other forms of accommodations.
“This often results in long-term or even permanent displacement, breaking down communities, social bonds, and causing documented long-term impacts on people’s mental health. Secondly, there is the economic and financial impact, linked to loss of livelihoods, loss of belongings, and the rehabilitation and reconstruction costs that people face after the emergency is over.
“Thirdly, the impact descending from large-scale infrastructural damage, affecting the functioning of disaster-affected areas. For example, when roads and rail networks are impacted, the resulting traffic disruptions can have immediate consequences for aid delivery and evacuation, but also long-term consequences, slowing down the physical and economic recovery of an area and directly reverberating on local communities.
“The way post-disaster reconstruction is conducted can also impact people’s sense of agency, as decisions on what, where, and how to rebuild are still too often made in a top-down manner, with little public participation. The resulting spaces – buildings, cities, and their open spaces – might not always reflect a community’s needs, with consequences on collective wellbeing.”