The template school buildings footprint is approximately 23.4m x 7.4m with 2.35m balcony overhangs. Typically, these school buildings have 1 to 4 stories. The lateral load resisting system consists of reinforced concrete moment resisting frames along the...

Prepared By: Miguel Robles
Occupancy: Education
Year Built:
Height: 6.7 m
Number of stories: 2
Stories below ground: 0
Size: 416 sqm
Original Code: 1977 Peruvian
Modification: none
Year Modified:
Code of Modification:
Lateral Load System: Other
Other Load System: Moment Frames - Longitudinal direction Confined Masonry - Transverse direction
Vertical Load System: Other
Other Vertical Load System: Slabs, beams, columns and bearing walls
Foundation : Spread Footings
Other Foundation :
Country: Peru
State: Moquegua
City: Moquegua
Street: Mariano Lino Urquieta and Tacna
Latitude: -17.196947
Longitude: -70.932488


 

Peru School Buildings

Earthquake Information

 

 

Earthquake Date 37065
Moment Magnitude 8.4
Epicentral Distance 306.7
Local Intensity VII MMI
Site Description Quaternary deposits in Moquegua are dominated by alluvial-type deposits, composed mainly of sandy gravels. These deposits contain a large amount of boulders, reflecting a high-energy depositional environment. Bedrock outcrops are mainly late tertiary sedimentary rocks of the Moquegua formation. This formation is composed of conglomerates, sandstones, and tuffs (Rodriguez-Marek et al., 2001).
PGA Lateral 0.3 (g)
PGA Vertical 0.16 (g)
SaT
Ground motion recording stations Moquegua
Distance to station 0.7
Station Latitude -17.19
Station Longitude -70.93
Ground Motion Summary The earthquake struck near the coast of south-central Peru along the subduction zone between the Nazca and South American plates. Most of the relative plate displacement is accommodated by slip on the easterly dipping thrust-fault, the interface of this subduction zone. The epicenter of this earthquake (16.27S, 73.64W) was located off the Pacific coast near the town of Atico with a focal depth of 33.0 km. The earthquake occurred as a fault rupture with an along-strike length of 200-300 km, a width of about 100 km, and an average displacement of several meters. The strong motion instrument located in Moquegua recorded peak ground accelerations of 0.22g north-south, 0.30g east-west and 0.16g vertical (Dewey, 2001).

 

Damage Information

 

 

Performance summary

The Template School buildings designed with the 1977 code performed poorly. Most of the damage could be attributed to configuration problems such as soft stories or short-column effects. The new buildings designed according to the 1997 code performed very well (Fierro, 2001).

Damage state description

Most of the damaged buildings presented shear failures in captive columns. Some had soft/weak stories causing shear failures in columns. Masonry infill attached to frames was damaged.

Summary of causes of damage

1. Masonry infill with window openings were attached to the frames creating captive columns. 2. The infill walls also created soft/weak stories in some of the damaged school buildings. 3. Inadequate separation between frames and masonry infill allowed for damage to the infill walls.

Observed Design and Construction Characteristics

 

Construction Quality

MaterialsNotesContribution to Damage
Concrete
Reinforcing steel

ExecutionNotesContribution to Damage
Conveyance/placement of concrete
Rebar
Field variance with design documents
OtherNotesContribution to Damage
Other Factors Construction Quality

Configuration

Plan IrregularitiesNotesContribution to Damage
Torsion Unintended eccentricity due to infill walls
Perimeter boundary
Diaphragm
Out-of-plane offsets in lateral resisting system
Non-orthogonal systems

Vertical IrregularitiesNotesContribution to Damage
Soft story
Weak story
Geometric variablility of lateral resisting system
In-plane discontinuity of lateral resisting system
Mass distribution Overhang present in the first story
Setback
Change in stiffness

OtherNotesContribution to Damage
Other Factors Configuration

Lateral Load Resisting System‐General

StrengthNotesContribution to Damage
Overall lack of strength

StiffnessNotesContribution to Damage
Extreme Flexibility

Load PathNotesContribution to Damage
Collectors/Struts
Anchorage of nonstructural elements
Out-of-plane capacity of walls
Diaphragm chords
Diaphragm openings

OtherNotesContribution to Damage
Other Factors Lateral Load Resisting System-General

Lateral Load Resisting System‐Frames

ColumnsNotesContribution to Damage
Shear strength
Flexural strength
Axial load ratio
Vertical load columns drift capacity
Interference of frame action by infill

BeamsNotesContribution to Damage
Strength relative to columns
Shear controlled behavior
Continuity of longitudinal reinforcing
Loss of vertical capacity
Interference of frame action by infill beams

JointsNotesContribution to Damage
Interior
Exterior
Corner

OtherNotesContribution to Damage
Other Factors Lateral Load Resisting System-Frames

Lateral Load Resisting System‐Shear Walls

ShearNotesContribution to Damage
Diagonal tension/compression
Sliding Shear
Flexure/shear

FlexureNotesContribution to Damage
Compression zone buckling capacity
Discontinuity of wall
Boundary reinforcing fracture/buckling
Boundary Reinforcing at openings

OtherNotesContribution to Damage
Other Factors Lateral Load Resisting System-Shear Walls

Lateral Load Resisting System‐Infills

InfillsNotesContribution to Damage
Unreinforced
Interference with frame action
Out of plane
Attachment to framing

OtherNotesContribution to Damage
Other Factors Lateral Load Resisting Systems-Infills Partial height

Lateral Load Resisting System‐Other

FoundationsNotesContribution to Damage
Liquefaction
Pounding
Surface Rupture

OtherNotesContribution to Damage
Pile/Pier tension capacity

MiscellaneousNotesContribution to Damage
Spread footing capacity
Other Factors Lateral Load Resisting Systems-Other-Foundations

OtherNotesContribution to Damage
Other Factors Lateral Load Resisting Systems-Other-Misc

Repair and Retrofit Information

 

Type of Retrofit or Repair

Unknown

Other Retrofit or Repair

Performance Level

Unknown

Hazard Level

Unknown

Retrofit or Repair Code

Unknown

Other Retrofit or Repair Code

Lateral Analysis

Unknown

Other Lateral Analysis

Design Strategy

Retrofit Summary

References

 

http://eqs.eeri.org/resource/1/easpef/v19/iS1/p1_s1?isAuthorized=no
Dewey, J., Silvia, W., Tavera, H., 2003. "Seismicity and Tectonics. Southern Peru Earthquake of 23 June 2001 Reconnaissance Report". Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 19, no. S1, pp. 1-10.


http://db.concretecoalition.org/static/data/6-references/PERU001_Reference_01.pdf
Fierro, E., 2001. "Initial Report on 23 June 2001 Arequipa, Peru Earthquake", Parts I and II. Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates Inc.


http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282009%2923%3A1%285%29
Irfanoglu, A., 2009. Performance of Template School Buildings during Earthquakes in Turkey and Peru. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, 2009.


http://db.concretecoalition.org/static/data/6-references/PERU001_Reference_02.pdf
Muoz, A., Quiun, D., Tinman, M., 2004. "Repair and Seismic Retrofitting of Hospital and School Buildings in Peru". 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August 2004, Vancouver, Canada.


http://eqs.eeri.org/resource/1/easpef/v19/iS1/p11_s1?isAuthorized=no
Rodriguez-Marek, A. et al., 2003. "Ground Motion and Site Response". Southern Peru Earthquake of 23 June 2001 Reconnaissance Report, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 19, no. S1, pp. 11-34.


The Universidad Nacional de Ingenieria and the Centro Peruano Japones de Investigaciones Sismicas y Mitigacion de Desastres (CISMID).


"Peru". 16.26 S and 73.64 W. Google Earth/USGS, 2012.