Journal Menu
By: Amanpreet, Shruti H. Kapur, and Geni Tedo.
1. Student, Department of Architecture and Planning, CT Institute of Architecture and Planning, CT Group of Institutions, Fatehpur, Partappura, Punjab, India
2. Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture and Planning, CT Institute of Architecture and Planning, CT Group of Institutions, Fatehpur, Partappura, Punjab, India
3. Student, Department of Architecture and Planning, CT Institute of Architecture and Planning, CT Group of Institutions, Fatehpur, Partappura, Punjab, India
Indian temple architecture has long been admired for its aesthetic perfection, ritual symbolism, and constructional ingenuity. Less celebrated – but equally remarkable – is its inherent seismic wisdom. Drawing upon textual canons (Vāstu Vidyā), geometric discipline (square and mandala-based layouts), and refined masonry craft, historic temples across India exhibit a suite of architectural and structural features that collectively enhance earthquake performance. This paper synthesizes evidence from classical treatises and modern earthquake-engineering guidance to explain how proportion, symmetry, massing, and detailing converge to create robust temples. Key patterns include: (i) plan regularity and near-bilateral symmetry that limit torsion; (ii) pyramidal/tapered massing of the śikhara or gopuram, which reduces inertial demand with height; (iii) high “structural plan density” through closely spaced, massive vertical supports that shorten load paths; and (iv) joinery techniques – dry-set stone, iron clamps, interlocking corner stones, and horizontal binders – that improve integrity under lateral shaking. Case snapshots from Odisha and Rajasthan illustrate how corbelled domes, stepped/terraced roofs, and ring-by-ring vaulting develop self-stable forms and shift thrusts safely into thick enclosure walls or surrounding colonnades. Read alongside contemporary standards (e.g., IS 1893) and field observations from damaging earthquakes, these time-tested strategies anticipate many modern “good practice” principles: regular configurations, redundancy, continuous load paths, and capacity where demand concentrates. While temples are not uniform and some elements (e.g., tall mandapas, freestanding pillars, or heavy superstructures over weak stories) can be vulnerable, the broader repertoire offers a rich library of resilient typologies. The essay concludes with design lessons for conservation and new construction in seismic regions – advocating proportion-driven planning, deliberate mass reduction with height, ductile connections in masonry, and sensitive integration of modern reinforcement – so that the living tradition of India’s temples continues to inspire safer buildings today.
Keywords: Seismic design, symmetry and proportion, corbelled dome, gopuram, earthquake resilience
Citation:
Refrences:
- Murty CVR. IITK-BMTPC Earthquake Tips. Kanpur: Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur & Building Materials and Technology Promotion Council; 2015. p. 1–32.
- Kramrisch S. The Hindu Temple. Vols. 1–2. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass; 1976.
- Langenbach R. A rich heritage lost? Observations on the effects of the Bhuj earthquake. Seismol Res Lett. 2002;73(2):119–30. doi:10.1785/gssrl.73.2.119.
- Mark R. Experiments in Gothic Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1982.
- Hardy A. Indian Temple Architecture: Form and Transformation. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications; 1995.
- Hardy A. The Temple Architecture of India. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2007.
- Mainstone RJ. Structure of Gothic Cathedrals: A Study of Medieval Vault Construction. Aldershot: Ashgate; 1999.
- Bureau of Indian Standards. IS 1893 (Part 1): Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures: General provisions and buildings. New Delhi: BIS; 2016.
- Varma AH, Rai DC. Seismic performance of Indian heritage structures: Lessons for modern construction. J Struct Eng (India). 2010;37(4):235–46.
- Ishiyama Y. Why structures of wooden buildings in Japan have survived for a long time against earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 1982;7(9):111–8.