The Teleco building is V-shaped in plan with one basement level and eight stories above ground. The north wing of the building is perpendicular to the concrete core of the structure, which contains a stairwell, two elevator shafts and mechanical utility r...

Prepared By: Quinn Peck
Occupancy: Commercial
Year Built:
Height: ft
Number of stories: 8
Stories below ground: 1
Size: gsf
Original Code:
Modification: Unknown
Year Modified:
Code of Modification:
Lateral Load System: Shear Wallrete
Other Load System:
Vertical Load System: Unknown
Other Vertical Load System:
Foundation : Other
Other Foundation :
Country: Haiti
State:
City: Port-au-Prince
Street:
Latitude: 18.536
Longitude: -72.3231


 

Teleco Building

Earthquake Information

 

 

Earthquake Date 1/12/2010
Moment Magnitude 7
Epicentral Distance None
Local Intensity MMI
Site Description Most of Port-au-Prince sits in the southwest corner of the Cul de Sac depression and is primarily underlain by Mio-Pliocene sedimentary deposits, relatively stiff soils with low impedance. It has been suggested that the low-lying Mio-Pliocene deposits in central Port-au-Prince may have amplified peak ground acceleration values by an approximate value of 1.8 . (Hough et al., 2011) A 2011 analysis of the site conditions throughout Port-au-Prince indicated that away from the foothills, the soil conditions largely coincide with NEHRP site class C. (Cox et al., 2011)
PGA Lateral None (g)
PGA Vertical None (g)
SaT
Ground motion recording stations
Distance to station None
Station Latitude None
Station Longitude None
Ground Motion Summary The main shock of the 2010 Haiti earthquake occurred along the Enriquillo Fault at a depth of approximately 13 km and a location of 18.457, -72.533. The focal mechanism indicates left-lateral oblique-slip motion on an east-west oriented fault with a fault rupture from east to west. The source zone had a down-dip dimension of approximately 15 km and an along-strike dimension of about 30 km - a source area about one third the size of a typical 7.0 magnitude earthquake. There were no active strong-motion instruments in Haiti so macroseismic observations offer the best estimation of shaking intensity during the main shock. Additionally, local geologic structure heavily influences the degree of ground motion amplification, further obscuring potential ground motion estimates.

 

Damage Information

 

 

Performance summary

The Teleco building saw extensive damage to the structural system as well as non-structural components and contents. The concrete core in the South wing performed better than the masonry core in the North wing.

Damage state description

"The Teleco building suffered its greatest damage on the second (ground) level and third level. Many of the columns on these levels showed 2mm to 5mm wide shear cracks and some flexural hinging was observed as well. Due to the additional stiffness and strength that was provided by the concrete stairwell at the end of the South wing, displacement demands were smaller on the columns in this wing compared to the ones in the North wing, where the stairwell was unreinforced masonry and suffered significant damage (large shear cracks and destroyed masonry units). Most of the unreinforced masonry walls throughout the building suffered significant damage (shear cracks) from in-plane loading, or they collapsed from out-of-plane inertia loading. Because of the end-haunches in most of the girders, columns were generally weaker than the girders, which showed no damage. "Openings in the concrete core wall (4 square openings in a row at each story, for ventilation fans near the elevator core, visible from outside at the point of the V) create a weak plane in the core wall and also tend to be constructed with poorly consolidated concrete. This led to shear failure of the piers in between these openings at Level 3, concentrating seismic drifts in this story. There is also a diagonal crack across the solid portion of the core at this level (visible from the outside), but from limited visual observation from the inside, this crack appears to be only in the mortar faade, not through the concrete structural wall." (Zhang et al., 2011)

Summary of causes of damage

1. The weaker masonry cores in the North wing resulted in greater displacement demands than experienced in the South wing, leading to severe damage in the masonry walls and damage in nearby columns. 2. A row of openings in the concrete core wall created a weak plane that failed in shear, resulting in significant drifts over this elevation. Poorly consolidated concrete in this region may also have contributed to damage. 3. End-haunches in many of the girders created a strong beam/weak column condition and reduced the effective clear height of the columns, concentrating damage in the columns.

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
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
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

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://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171(401)198
Zhang, D., Federico, G., Telleen, K., Schellenberg, A., Fleishman, R., and Maffei, J., 2011. Structural analyses to replicate the observed damage to engineered buildings from the January 2010 Haiti Earthquake, inProceedings, Structures Concress 2011.


http://eqs.eeri.org/resource/1/easpef/v27/iS1/pS137_s1
Hough, S. E., Young, A., Altidor, J. R., Anglade, D., Given, D., Mildor, S., 2011. Site characterization and site response in Port-au-Prince, Haiti,Earthquake Spectra,27, S137S155.


http://eqs.eeri.org/resource/1/easpef/v27/iS1/pS67_s1
Cox, B. R., Bachhuber, J., Rathje, E., Wood, C. M., Kottke, A., Green, R., and Olson, S., 2011. Shear-wave-velocity and geology-based seismic microzonation of Port-au-Prince, Haiti,Earthquake Spectra27, S67S92.


United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2010a.USGS ShakeMap: Haiti Region,http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/global/shake/2010rja6/ (16 July 2012).


United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2010b.USGS Peak Ground Accel. Map (in %g): Haiti Region,http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/global/shake/2010rja6/#Peak_Ground_Acceleration (16 July 2012).


Telleen, K. "January 12, 2010 Haiti Earthquake: Post-earthquake reconnaissance." Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Oakland, California. 25 June 2012.