Historic and Traditional Structures During The 2010 Chile Earthquake: Observations, Codes, and Conservation Strategies

Historic and Traditional Structures during
the 2010 Chile Earthquake: Observations,

Codes, and Conservation Strategies
Dina D’Ayala,a) M.EERI, and Gianmario Benzonib)
The Maule, Chile, earthquake of February 2010 affected the Central Valley
stretching from north of Santiago to the Rio Bío-Bío in the south. The architec-
tural heritage suffered considerable losses, with some buildings seriously
damaged or partially collapsed even in Santiago and Valparaíso, areas less
affected by the earthquake. Exposing the vulnerability of Chilean architectural
heritage, this event has renewed the debate about the national attitude towards
architectural preservation and conservation engineering. From the survey con-
ducted by the authors, it emerged that many retrofit and repair techniques imple-
mented following prior earthquakes in Chile resulted in ineffective performance
in the February 2010 earthquake. Safety and preservation requirements that are
regulated in countries with similar historic heritage are presented as viable alter-
natives to past approaches and are compared with the Chilean pre-code for
earthen buildings, currently under development, which appears to embrace mod-
ern preservation philosophies. Suitable remedial strategies conclude the paper.
[DOI: 10.1193/1.4000030]
INTRODUCTION
The architectural heritage of Chile is managed and overseen by the Consejo Nacional de
la Cultura y las Artes (CNCA) and cared for by the Centro Nacional de Conservacion and
Restauration. In the aftermath of the 27 February 2010 earthquake, the Consejo de Monu-
mentos Nacionales and the Conferencia Episcopal de Chile issued preliminary assessments
of the conditions of churches and monuments at a national level. The initial list of severely
damaged sites includes the Iglesia de La Providencia in Santiago and the World Heritage sites
of La Matriz Church and the Port marketplace in Valparaíso. The most extensive damage
occurred in the Colchagua Valley (O’Higgins Region), where entire historic villages were
severely damaged and scheduled for demolition. As stressed by the Executive Secretary of
the Consejo de Monumentos Nacionales (CMN), a generalized call for demolition of the
architectural heritage damaged in the earthquake seemed to be the immediate reaction
from people living in the small traditional communities and from the Governmental Author-
ity of the Santiago Metropolitan Area. This approach stands in contrast with the ICOMOS
charters (Venice 1964, Cracow 2000) and with the attitude exhibited, for example, by the
communities of Bam (Fallahi 2008, Ghafory-Ashtiany and Hosseini 2008) or L’Aquila
(Binda et al. 2011, D’Ayala and Paganoni 2011), which have seen their historic centers
a)
University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, United Kingdom
b)
University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive. La Jolla, Ca 92093-0085
S425
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 28, No. S1, pages S425–S451, June 2012; © 2012, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
S426 D. D'AYALA AND G. BENZONI
evacuated while they await funds and strategies for repair and reconstruction. According to
Montes and Giesen (2010), a physical, as well as a cultural background, could explain this
attitude, that is, the identification of deadly buildings with adobe and masonry constructions
in the collective memory of the Chilean people. It must be noted that new adobe construction
has been banned in Chile since 1960, and a national preservation policy is currently missing,
although a proposal for a national Code is currently being worked at, as discussed later in this
paper. However, the preference for demolition rather than repair has not always been pre-
valent in Chile. In fact, in the sites visited, where historic structures experienced damage
during previous earthquakes, a record of repairs and strengthening, unfortunately not always
successful, was observed.
The damage survey of heritage structures included in this paper was carried out in
Santiago and Valparaíso, the villages of the Colchagua Valley (O’Higgins Region), and
in the cities of Curicó and Talca, both located in the Maule Region. As the majority of
damaged heritage buildings were religious buildings (75%, according to Nelsen 2010),
the authors’ survey focused on churches. The church typologies encountered during the sur-
vey are reviewed, and their seismic performance is compared with similar structures in Italy
and Peru and with current guidelines for heritage preservation and repair issued in these two
countries (MCH&A 2007 and MTCV&C 2000). The selection of these regions, used as
comparison, is motivated by their high content of historic heritage with similar seismic
performance.
The other large class of historic buildings severely damaged during this event is tradi-
tional adobe residential construction. The typology of these buildings is common to wealthy
as well as vernacular cases, using very similar plan layout, material, and construction details.
Their performance and the various parameters affecting it will be presented and compared
with the performance of the larger-scale religious buildings.
MACROSEISMIC INTENSITY AND OVERVIEW

Following the Mw 8.8 earthquake of 27 February 2010, the Earthquake Engineering Field
Investigation Team (EEFIT) conducted a reconnaissance mission. Most of the structures and
sites reported herein were surveyed during this mission (EEFIT 2011). Figure 1a shows the
locations of the sites mentioned in the following sections and the 1998 European Macroseis-
mic Scale (EMS98) Intensity (Grünthal 1998) assigned during the survey. The intensities
were assigned by the rapid counting out of the proportion of damaged buildings within a
500 m radius of the main square in small villages, and by looking at the level of damage
of different structural typologies where available.
Although the intensity scale used by seismologists in Chile is the Medvedev-Sponheuer-
Karnik Scale (MSK, see Figure 1b), the authors used the EMS-98 scale because it has asso-
ciated damage grades and because it was also used by the Chilean authority to classify
damage to historic buildings. For the above-mentioned scales and for the MMI scale, grades
5 to 9 largely coincide, as shown in Musson et al. (2010)
The macroseismic intensity map of Figure 1b, produced by Astroza et al. (2010) and
based on a larger number of observations, shows that in Valparaíso and Santiago, the shaking
intensity was 6.5, in the Colchagua Valley (O’Higgins Region) comprised between 6.5 and 8,
HISTORIC AND TRADITIONAL STRUCTURES DURING THE 2010 CHILE EARTHQUAKE S427
Figure 1. (a) Locations and EMS intensities of the visited sites, (b) Macroseismic MSK intensity
and isoseismic levels as proposed by Astroza. (Astroza et al. 2010; V Region-Valparaíso, RM-
Santiago Metropolitan, VI Region-O’Higgins, VII Region-Maule, VIII Region-Bío-Bío, IX
Region-Araucania).
and between 6 and 9 in the Maule region. The MSK values, only for the specific sites of
interest, are presented in Table 1 and are compared with EMS-98 estimates (carried out by the
authors, on the basis of their observations) and strong motion peak ground accelerations
obtained from reports of the University of Chile (Boroschek et. al. 2010a, 2010b). Because
the Bío-Bío region was not visited by the authors, there was no direct observation of damage
to historic buildings, so this has not been included in the table. The values of spectral accel-
eration at T ¼ 0 (effective ground acceleration A0 ), as defined by the NCh433 Chilean seis-
mic code (INN 1996), are also reported. All sites visited are in either zone II or III of the
national zonation, with A0 ¼ 0.3 g and 0.4 g, respectively. More detailed considerations
about the Chilean seismic code and its applicability to historic buildings are presented in
a later section.
In the aftermath of the earthquake, the Consejo de Monumentos Nacionales (CMN), call-
ing on the help of governmental, private institutions, technical bodies, and universities, sur-
veyed the buildings categorized as National Monuments and Zonas Tipicas (designated
conservation areas representing typical historic construction), in the five regions affected
Table 1. Surveyed sites and intensities
Epicenter Seismic
Distance EMS PGA (g) PGA (g) Zone
City/Town (km) Region MSK ’98 Horizontal Vertical A0 (g)
Santiago Centro 330 Metropolitana 6.5 7 0.218–0.309 0.182 II–0.3
Santiago, La Providencia 330 Metropolitana 6.5 7 0.139–0.104 0.08 II–0.3
Valparaíso UTFSM 334 Valparaíso 6.5 6.5 0.224–0.226 0.146 III–0.4
Valparaíso Almendral 334 Valparaíso 6.5 7.5 0.137–0.304 0.079 III–0.4
Peralillo 196 O’Higgins 8 9 – – III–0.4
Pumanque 175 O’Higgins 8 8.5 – – III–0.4
Lolol 165 O’Higgins 7 8 – – III–0.4
Hualañé 133 Maule 7 8 0.389–0.461 0.390 III–0.4
Licantén 123 Maule 8 8 – III–0.4
Curicó 171 Maule 7.5 8 0.470–0.409 0.198 II–0.3
Curepto 111 Maule 8 9 – – III–0.4
Talca 111 Maule 8 8 0.477–0.424 0.244 III–0.4
Constitución 70 Maule 9 9 0.552–0.640 0.352 III–0.4
Cauquenes 38 Maule 8 9 – – III–0.4
Pelluhue 18 Maule 7 8 – – III–0.4
by the earthquake. Using a single form to collect data on structural typology and finishes,
their damage was graded using the EMS-98 (Grünthal 1998). The results are summarized by
the Consejo de Monumentos Nacionales (2010a) and are reported in Table 2.
The Maule region (with Talca as a capital) was the worst affected, with the largest per-
centage (57%) and absolute number of severely damaged buildings with respect to the other
geographic areas. A more detailed statistic about the Maule region (Consejo de Monumentos
Nacionales, 2010b) indicates that 45% of the national monument suffered severe damage
Table 2. Distribution of damage levels to National Monuments and Zonas Tipicas by

region
Santiago Valparaíso O’Higgins Maule Bío-Bío

Region Damage RM V VI VII VIII
Not Surveyed 145 61% 21 18% 11 23% 1 2% 10 28%
Undamaged (EMS-98 16 6% 34 29% 3 6% 8 20% 7 20%
DG0 –DG1)
Minor (EMS-98 DG2) 36 15% 26 22% 3 6% 3 7% 6 17%
Medium (EMS-98 DG3) 31 13% 21 18% 9 18% 5 12% 3 8%
Major (EMS-98 DG4) 13 5% 14 12% 23 47% 24 57% 9 25%
Collapsed (EMS-98 DG5) 0 0 1 0.8% 0 0 1 2% 0 0
Total 241 117 49 42 35

while 36% only minor damages. In particular, in the provinces of Talca and Curicó, 53% and
60% of the monumental buildings experienced severe damages, respectively. The Zonas
Tipicas (conservation areas) of the region were severely damaged in 75% of the cases.
A preliminary assessment of the damage to all churches in Chile indicated that of the total
437 churches with damage, 19% were classified as collapsed or scheduled for demolition;
24% with serious damage, probably repairable; 25% with considerable damage, certainly
repairable; and 32% with repairable light damage, according to a classification made by
the Conferencia Episcopale to identify extent of interventions and costs, with no direct indi-
cation to the structural or nonstructural nature of the damage. The total estimated repair cost
is in the order of US$290 million (Chilean pesos 140 billion; Conferencia Episcopal de
Chile 2010).
In Santiago, a relatively large number of important historic and heritage buildings
were damaged by the earthquake (Area Metropolitana). Of the 174 churches and chapels
surveyed in Santiago by the authorities, 2 were scheduled for demolition; 43 (25%) have
been assigned serious damage, probably repairable; 41 (23%) had considerable damage,
certainly repairable; while the remaining 51% were classified as having minor repairable
damage (Conferencia Episcopal de Chile 2010). It should be noted that although the statistics
from the Conferencia Episcopal use the same damage grades as the EMS-98 (see Table 2),
they also provide indications on reparability and costs.
FIELD OBSERVATIONS BY TYPOLOGY

To analyze the observed damage and grade the performance of different heritage build-
ings in different locations, they have been grouped by typology, outlining common stylistic
and construction features that affect their seismic response. This also aids in rating the per-
formance of strengthening techniques and in comparing them with similar buildings in other
countries. The four typologies considered are:
• Churches of the colonial baroque and neo-baroque style, built with walls of massive
masonry and/or adobe and internal timber columns and vaulting. The examples that
are analyzed are located in Valparaíso, Santiago, and Curicó.
• Slender and airy neo-Gothic churches, from Valparaíso and Talca.
• Patio-centered “haciendas” and convents, surveyed in Santiago.
• Churches and houses of the Zonas Tipicas del Valle de Colchagua, which, although
they are different in layout, are similar in construction materials and quality.
All historic buildings in Chile have experienced strong shaking at some point, and, as far
as can be extracted from their history, all have been more or less extensively reconstructed or
strengthened following damaging events. Table 3 shows the seismic events that, based on
location and magnitude, are known to have produced damage in the regions of interest in the
2010 earthquake or to specific buildings analyzed herein.
CHURCHES OF THE BAROQUE AND NEO-BAROQUE STYLE

The typology of the cathedral is common to most countries in Latin America: a three-aisle
Latin cross plan, with lateral chapels and an imposing baroque facade, with two bell towers
positioned at the junction with the lateral walls. This typology was introduced by the
Table 3. Chilean seismic events of the past 200 years that affected the areas and buildings
described in this paper
Estimated or
Instrumental Locations of the Survey Known
Date Magnitude Epicenter Region to be Affected
11-19-1822 8.5 Santiago-Valparaíso Valparaíso, Santiago
02-20-1835 8.2 Concepcion Cauquenes, Talca
08-13-1868 9.0 Arica Valparaíso
00-00-1890 8 Talca Talca and Curicó
08-17-1906 8.2 Valparaíso Valparaíso, Santiago, Talca, Curepto
12-01-1928 7.6 Talca Santiago, Colchagua, Curicó, Talca
01-24-1939 7.8 Chillan Valparaíso, Santiago, Colchagua,
Talca, Cauquenes
04-06-1943 8.2 Illapel-Salamanca Valparaíso
05-22-1960 9.5 Valdivia Talca
03-28-1965 7.4 La Ligua Valparaíso, Santiago
07-09-1971 7.5 Valparaíso Valparaíso, Santiago
03-03-1985 8.0 Valparaíso Valparaíso, Santiago, Curicó, Talca
02-27-2010 8.8 Maule Valparaíso, Area Metropolitana,
Colchagua, Maule
Sources: ONEMI, SSNuch, RESISTE, UDEC, NEIC/USGS and CERESIS as collated by Sismo24.CL at
http://www.sismo24.cl/
Counter-Reformation in Europe and exported to Latin America by the Jesuits. Examples can
be found in Cusco, Mexico City, Quito, Lima, and Santiago (Figure 2).
Regional and local variations are present and are related to the construction materials,
rather than to style or decoration. Indeed, the baroque style created in masonry stone and
brickwork in Europe is reinterpreted by using the locally available materials, traditions,
and skills of Latin America, sometimes, however, ignoring the engineering savvy of the native
cultures. In Peru and in Chile, it is common to see the internal columns and vaulted structures
that cover the aisles made of timber ribs clad in cane and mud or plaster, while the lateral walls
might be of either adobe or brickwork, with a stone plinth. The facade is usually built of fired
bricks and then plastered or, more rarely, clad in stone (Proaño et al. 2007). The difference in
materials between the facade, the longitudinal walls, and the internal timber structure makes
the connections among structural parts the critical links to ensure the global integrity and the
transmission of lateral acceleration among the parts. A typical damage mechanism commonly
observed is the detachment of the facade from the rest of the church and the failure of the
bell towers. Detachment of the facade was observed by the authors in Santiago, both in the
Cathedral and the Maria Santissima Sanctuary (Figure 3). The closest record available for
these two locations is Santiago, Centro, with a horizontal PGA of 0.218–0.309g.
The facade detachment is a failure mechanism extensively documented in Italy, in both
the 1997 Umbria Marche (D’Ayala 1999) and 2009 L’Aquila earthquakes (Binda et al.
2010). In the cases observed by the authors in Chile and Peru, the out of plane movement
Figure 2. (a) Lima (Peru) Cathedral; (b) Santiago Cathedral.
of the facade is affected by the presence of the two towers, sometimes integral components of
the facade and made of the same material, in other cases made of timber and simply supported
above the roof level. The localized failure of the bell towers was observed in nearly 70% of
the churches surveyed in Santiago by the authors.
The facade of the Iglesia de San Francisco del Baron in Valparaíso and of the Iglesia de
Nuestra Señora de la Divina Providencia in Santiago, designed by the architect Edoardo
Provasoli, at the end of the nineteenth century, show only one tower set atop the pediment.
(Figure 4) The first was declared a national monument in 1983, the second in 1989. The
facades are strikingly similar, built of fired brickwork, with a neo-classic tripartite vaulted
portico and a massive bell tower. Both churches have ties connecting the pillars of the facade
Figure 3. (a) Cracks in the plaster at the intersection between the vault and the main facade
of Santiago Cathedral; (b) cracks at the apex of the arch in the Church of Maria Santissima
Sanctuary. The damage level can be classified as DG2 (minor repairable) in case (a) and
DG3 (structural repairable) in case (b).
porticoes with the role of absorbing the trust of the brick vaults above. The main bodies of
the two churches are however rather different: the Iglesia de la Providencia is a single nave
built of massive brickwork with a base thickness of 1.6 m, while the San Francisco church
has three aisles with timber internal columns and vaults and adobe lateral walls. Moreover,
while the Providencia is built on flat land, the San Francisco church is at the top of a hill
Figure 4. (a) San Francisco, Valparaíso; (b) Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de la Providencia,
Santiago, loss of the dome above the tower; (c) Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de la Providencia, failure
of the arch keystones in the portico arcades.
overlooking the Pacific coast. The church of San Francisco showed a crack pattern pre-exist-
ing the February 2010 earthquake; however, this did not appear to have worsened (Indirli et
al. 2010). The Iglesia de la Providencia lost the top of the tower and experienced damage
consisting of the disconnection between the apse and the back wall, and between the facade
and the side walls. The keystones of the vaults forming the front portico dropped, notwith-
standing the presence of transverse anchors (see Figure 4c). No evidence of pullout of the
anchors from the masonry could be observed. Apart from the loss of the bell tower roof, the
damage could be classified at level DG2–DG3 (minor repairable to structural repairable
damage) of the EMS-98 (Grünthal 1998).
Due to the presence of the tower, the system can be modeled as a two-degrees-of-freedom
oscillator with a substantial vertical variation of mass and stiffness. A numerical analysis of
the San Francisco del Baron structure, reported by Indirli and Minchel (2010), shows that the
out-of-plane mechanism involving the whole facade had frequencies ranging between 2.06 Hz
and 4.5 Hz, while the frequencies of the vibration of the bell tower were in the range of 7.3 Hz
to 7.6 Hz. The record of Federico Santa Maria Technical University (UTFSM) in Valparaíso
(see Table 1), which is the closest station to the church (1,000 m), indicated a peak ground
acceleration of 0.224 g in the longitudinal direction, normal to the facade.
For the Iglesia de la Providencia, the record of the instrument in the Edificio Camara
Chilena de la Construccion is the nearest (300 m apart). According to Borosheck et al.
(2010a) the peak ground acceleration at the basement of this building in the north direction
(perpendicular to the facade) was 0.139 g, substantially smaller than the previous case.
While a complete dynamic characterization of the two structures is beyond the scope of this
paper due to limited information on structural details, it is worth considering that for the Iglesia
de la Providencia, the portion of the bell tower that collapsed was made of a light timber frame.
NEO-GOTHIC CHURCHES
Although similar, in terms of materials and facade layout, to the previous two examples,
the Church of San Francisco in Curicó, which had been declared national monument in 1986,
is one of the earliest examples of the neo-Gothic style in Chile. As a consequence of the 2010
event, the church, built in fired brickwork in the year 1880, completely lost the tower and a
substantial portion of the facade portico, as is visible in Figure 5. The facade is simply front-
ing the church, with no connections to the longitudinal walls and no presence of ties or
anchors at the spring of the arches of the portico. The acceleration recorded at the hospital
in Curicó, approximately 700 m from the church, was 0.470 g (see Table 1). The damage to
the church is level DG4. At the end of 2010, plans for its reconstruction were solicited by the
Ministry of Public Works.
An interesting correlation between shaking and damage can be observed in relation to the
church of the Doce Apostoles in Valparaíso (Figure 6), adjacent to the National Congress. It
was built between 1869 and 1880 by Teodoro Burchard, also the architect of the Basilica del
Salvador, and underwent important reconstruction following the 1906 earthquake (see
Table 3). The record of Valparaíso Almendral station (Table 1) is set at 1.3 km from the
church and recorded 0.304 g in the east–west direction corresponding to the transverse direc-
tion of the church, while the other component is substantially smaller. Directional effects are
clearly evident in the damage pattern of the church, with in-plane cracks in the facade and
Figure 5. Church of San Francisco in Curicó: (a) Before and (b) after the event of February 2010.
Figure 6. Church of the Doce Apostoles in Valparaíso, damage to the facade and external
buttresses.
horizontal cracks in the external buttresses of the longitudinal walls, indicating shear failure.
On the EMS98 scale, this damage would be classified as DG3.
Besides Curicó, the city of Talca was one of the worst affected by the Maule earthquake.
Up to 75% of the city had been destroyed by the event of 1928 (see Table 3) so that much of
the heritage and religious buildings are from the twentieth century. The original cathedral,
built in the baroque style with two towers, was severely damaged in 1928 (Figure 7a) and,
Figure 7. Cathedral of Talca: (a) The old cathedral damaged by the 1928 earthquake and (b) the
new cathedral built in confined masonry and detail of combined bending and shear failure of the
external buttresses.
soon after, was demolished (see Table 3). The new building was initiated in 1939 and com-
pleted in 1954. Built in confined masonry and, with a style vaguely reminiscent of the early
church basilicas, it presents a structural arrangement similar to the Doce Apostoles, with three
naves with slender proportions and ogival arches. The bell tower is a separate building.
Although the masonry panels sustained a few cracks, the damage is essentially moderate
(DG2–DG3). Some of the external confining columns of the main nave show combined
bending and shear failures at the level of the roof of the aisles, where a substantial change
in lateral stiffness of the structure and mass concentration occur. A contract for its repair for
a value of US$750,000 (Chilean pesos 367 million) was signed in January 2011 by the
bishopric of Talca.
PATIO-CENTERED BUILDINGS
The convent buildings and the haciendas show substantial similarities, set around one or
two squared central patios (courtyards), typically one or a maximum of two stories high, with
rooms opening on the patio and separated by spine walls. Rooms are constant in depth and
variable in width, depending on their function, with a pitched roof, made of timber rafters
connected with collar beams, spanning from the perimeter external wall to the patio facade.
The walls are made of a plinth (sobrecimiento) of stone or fired brickwork, over which solid
adobe walls 600 mm thick and 3 m to 5 m high sit. Their slenderness (h/t) ranges between
5 and 8.3, covering the full range of the Getty’s Guidelines classification of slenderness
(Tolles et al. 2002) (Figure 8). The rooms are usually sheltered by porticoes of timber
posts supporting a timber canopy. The posts are set off the ground on stone plinths and
the cross section is spiraled to prevent warping and increase the buckling load. This structural
arrangement is also found in vernacular historic buildings with similar construction details
and materials. In Santiago, the former Convent of the Dominicans, now hosting the Centro
Nacional de Conservación and Restauración and the hacienda Lo Contador—which was built
initially in 1799 and expanded in 1840 and 1866 and today hosts the 116 years old Faculty of
Architecture of the Universidad Pontificia de Chile—were surveyed in some detail.
The first building (Figure 8a) had been restored and strengthened in the five years prior to
the 2010 earthquake. The strategy was to improve the weather-tightness and resilience of the
adobe walls by plastering them using a 10 mm-thick layer of lime-based mortar held by
chicken-wire mesh. However, the bonding between the plaster and the adobe was poor
and most internal and external walls completely lost the newly applied plaster during the
earthquake. This created substantial disruption to the current service of the facility and
damaged some equipment. Nonstructural damage to the adobe was visible. The annex church
of Recoleta Dominica (Figure 9), built in brickwork with mud mortar had suffered important
damage in the 1985 earthquake (see Table 3). The defacing strengthening and repatching
carried out using concrete admixture and concrete ring beams are visible in the masonry
fabric. A detailed survey of the structure was not possible, but signs of major damage
were not detected after the 2010 event. The closest recording station is Santiago, Centro
(PGA ¼ 0.218 − 0.309 g), some 1.5 km away.
The Architectural Faculty building suffered more serious damage, with numerous
through-depth cracks in the perimeter and spine walls and one partial collapse. The School,
first established in 1894, is hosted in Lo Contador hacienda buildings, partially re-adapted
Figure 8. (a) Convent of the Dominicans in Santiago, showing loss of plaster and superficial
cracks, damage DG2; (b) Lo Contador main entrance building, showing terracotta tiles replace-
ment in the weeks following the earthquake. Damage DG2 to DG3.
Figure 9. Church of Recoleta Dominica.

and extended for institutional use. The most severe damage was observed on adobe walls
that, having been damaged during the 1985 earthquake (Table 3), had been repaired using
epoxy resins and concrete mixtures with moderate steel reinforcement, or had been strength-
ened by way of shotcreting. Although some areas had been cordoned off, and helmets had
been distributed to staff, the majority of the rooms were open and with full student occu-
pancy. One part of one end wall had collapsed. The estimated damage level was DG2–DG3.
The closest recording station is Santiago, La Providencia, (PGA ¼ 0.139 − 0.109 g) at 1 km
distance.
BUILDINGS OF THE ZONA TIPICAS OF THE VALLE DE COLCHAGUA

The Zonas Tipicas and villages of the Valle de Colchagua represent the culture and life-
style of the traditional Chilean countryside, embodied in their churches and vernacular
houses. Churches in the rural areas show similar styles to the urban areas, but a higher varia-
bility of material and structural solutions including alterations, repairs, and additions.
The vernacular dwellings are similar in layout and material to the more wealthy hacien-
das, but they tend to extend on only two sides of a patio. In some cases they also have a
portico or sheltered veranda on the front. This portico has a crucial role in stabilizing the
facade against out-of-plane failure. Structural types and damage surveyed in four villages
are presented and compared.
Peralillo had three major historic buildings: the church, almost 100 years old; the Casona
y Parque; and the Old School, listed as a National Monument. The last two were built in
adobe infilled timber frames. The Church was in adobe with timber columns encased in
concrete to simulate Doric neoclassical columns, and an upper structure with a vault
and roof in timber. The church had successfully survived the 1960 and the 1985 earthquakes
(see table 3), but according to the technical Office of the Corporacion del Patrimonio de
Colchagua, the damage from the 27 February 2010 earthquake was too extensive to warrant
restoration, and it was completely demolished, without retaining the facade, which had a
unique style and was still standing. Figure 10 shows the church after the earthquake and
after the demolition.
The parish of Lolol was established in 1824, while the current parish church (Figure 11)
was first erected in 1915 and consecrated in 1916. The church is built in adobe with a base
in brickwork and fired bricks around the circular windows and around the two doors opening
on each side wall. The church suffered substantial damage in 1985 and was retrofitted with
a thick shotcreting with wired mesh, both internally and externally, but apparently without
metal ties between the two. Failure seems to have been initiated around the openings, which
were framed with brickwork set in cement mortar, at the interface with the adobe walls.
Figure 11a and 11c show the failure of the side wall and of portions of the timber structure.
The Council technical office is hopeful that the church can be restored.
The center of Curepto has been a Zona Tipica since 1990, and it is estimated that 50% of
the houses have been severely damaged. Curepto was initially settled around the mid-
seventeenth century, while a parish was established here in 1783. The parish church of
Curepto, Nuestra Señora del Rosario, was first built in 1835 by the whole community during
10 years (Figure 12). The church was damaged in 1985 and substantially retrofitted including
Figure 10. The Peralillo Church (a) after the earthquake and (b) after demolition.
cross ties and a thick shotcreting plaster poorly reinforced. The walls with the cross ties
resisted the shocks but where ties were missing the shotcreted layer exploded and the internal
adobe wall collapsed.
The vernacular residential buildings in this region are mostly built in adobe and timber.
Typically the walls are adobe, or quincha, or what is best known in this region as adobillo, a
frame made of vertical and diagonal timber posts filled in with adobe blocks (Figure 13).
In some cases, the posts are also connected with horizontal timber elements. Most buildings
are one story high and covered with gable roofs made of timber framing, with wood plates
at the top of the adobe walls. The roof fabric is made of cane and mud covered with
clay tiles.
Very often, houses have a front porch shading the facade. The porches are raised on a
plinth and made of timber elements connected with scarf joints and timber pins between posts
and beams and between beams and rafter, designed to resist tensile and shear actions
(Figure 14). In a lesser number of cases, the adobe gable walls have been replaced with
confined brick masonry. The rationale for this is that, even if the adobe facade detaches
and partially falls, the ridge beam will be supported by the more stable gable walls, and
hence roof collapse will be prevented. In many observed cases, this arrangement proved
Figure 11. The parish Church of Lolol: (a) Failure of the side walls around the lateral door;
(b) view of the internal structure of the nave in timber; (c) detail of the timber cladding
above the arches; (d) detail of the shotcreting of the external sidewalls introduced as repair
after the 1985 earthquake.
to be effective. Severe damage was also observed in Pumanque to adobe houses confined
with lightweight timber, as documented in Figure 15. Damage level was DG4 (heavy struc-
tural damage).
The two small villages of Lolol and Zuniga are considered to embody the historic criollo
life of the end of the nineteenth century. The whole village of Lolol is listed as a Zona Tipica,
and many of its buildings are national monuments due to the good state of conservation of
both residential and public buildings, built in the traditional adobe and timber style with
timber porches. The Consejo de Monumentos Nacionales (CMN) carried out an assessment
in the area and concluded that 100% of the buildings had been damaged (Bahamondez 2010).
Specifically, the district office counted 1,175 houses as damaged and inhabitable. Of these,
959 are in rural areas and 216 in the urban center, affecting 3,475 people. During the survey,
it was noted that many of the buildings had suffered some minor structural damage, such as
vertical cracks and detachment among orthogonal walls, but had nonetheless been scheduled
for demolition (Figure 16).
Figure 12. The parish Church in Curepto: Loss of the facade plaster and partial collapse of the
south nave. The anchoring system is visible on the facade at the ceiling level.
NATIONAL CODES AND CONSERVATION STRATEGIES

The Chilean seismic code (NCh433 1996) divides the national territory into three seismic
zones, basically dividing the country in three strips from east to west. The maximum effective
ground accelerations (A0 ) for zones I, II, and III are 0.2 g, 0.3 g and 0.4 g, respectively. Four
types of soils are distinguished, as well as four building categories defined by an importance
factor ranging from 0.6 to 1.2.
The code allows a static approach, for buildings not exceeding five stories, or else a
spectral modal analysis. In NCh433, there is no specific factor to be applied to the historic
or monumental building category, except that buildings whose “content is of great value and
those which frequently receive a great number of people” should have an importance factor
I ¼ 1.2, or in other words, the effective acceleration values should be increased by 20%.
Figure 13. House in Peralillo with adobillo structure that survived the earthquake with modest
damage: Fall of tiles, loss of plaster at the base, and typical vertical cracks pattern, evidence of
out-of-plane shaking.
Figure 14. Pumanque: (a) Traditional vernacular house with porch that did not suffer any
damage. (b) Details of the scarf joints and connections between post beams and rafters.
Figure 15. (a) Adobe house confined with lightweight timber; (b) damage to row of houses on
the main street.
Structures made of unreinforced brick or adobe are not mentioned at all, and hence a response
modification factor R ¼ 2 should be used, but structures made of timber can have R ¼ 5.5.
Many of the traditional adobe houses have a system of timber frames filled with adobe, and
many of the visited churches have an internal structure made of timber trusses and posts
within an external envelop of adobe or brickwork. Montez and Giesen (2010) observe
that the lack of provision for these building typologies creates two options when applied
to a historic structure: to leave the building untouched or to adapt the structure to the present
code, introducing reinforced concrete or steel elements.
A comparison with the requirement of the Peruvian codes (MTCV&C 2003) is especially
fitting, as the seismic hazard is generated by the same seismogenetic fault, and the traditional
and historic construction have very similar origins and methods. The Peruvian code divides
the national territory in three zones that, similarly to Chile, are associated with increasing
Figure 16. (a) and (b): Buildings with damage level DG2 to DG3, repairable, have been sched-
uled for demolition (green circle). (c) On the wall it can be read: “Our heritage is our children not
our houses,” damage level DG3.
maximum peak ground acceleration (Z) from 0.15 g to 0.4 g from eastern to western regions.
Four soil types are considered (parameter S) and four building categories are classified by an
importance factor U varying from 1.0 to 1.5. The code requires a spectral analysis or a time-
history analysis to be enforced in the case of special buildings. The maximum relative story
drift must not exceed the fraction of the story height equal to 1.0% and 0.5% for wood and
masonry structures, respectively.
The Peruvian code provides separate norms for structures in adobe (MTCV&C 2000)
although there are no specific provisions for historic structures. The equivalent static
horizontal action is calculated as the product of a soil factor S, occupancy or use factor
U, seismic zone coefficient C and total weight P. The maximum multiplier of the total weight
is 0.312, for public buildings on intermediate soil in zone 3. This value is intermediate
between extreme values contained with the Chilean code. No response modification factors
are proposed. The number of floors is limited to one in zone 3 and to two for the other zones.
Requirements are included in terms of material characteristics, possible reinforcement, over-
all structural organization, as well as the protection of the structure from humidity.
The Italian code was recently modified in order to specifically allow the assessment and
the retrofit of historic unreinforced masonry and timber buildings, within the framework
of performance-based design. It is clear that the expected design acceleration might be
substantially different, due to the difference between the geographical setting and seismic
hazard. However, given that many of the architects designing monumental or religious
buildings in the last two centuries in Chile came from Italy, it is relevant to consider
the provisions for assessment and strengthening that the current Italian seismic code pre-
scribes for historic buildings with similar layout and construction techniques as the ones
reported in this paper.
The Italian Guidelines for the preservation of historical and architectural heritage
(MCH&A 2007) are based on the attempt to balance seismic-safety requirements with pre-
servation. Three different limit states are introduced: SLV (ultimate limit state), SLD (service
limit state), and SLA as limit state associated to damage to artistic contents. The levels of
seismic protection are defined by the probability of exceedance during the reference period of
the structure. Three levels of seismic safety assessment are proposed based on the scale of the
intervention: qualitative assessment of the vulnerability of the cultural heritage at regional
level; assessment with simplified models for the design of local repair or interventions; and
full structural assessment for the design of seismic upgrade that involve the overall structural
system. The comparison between the seismic action and the seismic capacity of the building
introduces the definition of an index of seismic safety I s , with a different meaning depending
whether the analysis is at a regional or a single-building level. In the first case, the safety
index is intended to determine a list of priorities and scheduling of interventions. In the sec-
ond case, the index does not impose a specific level of upgrading but guarantees that any
structural intervention will result in an improvement of the current seismic capacity of the
building. Interventions are classified as seismic upgrading that requires the achievement of a
specified safety level; seismic improvement requiring the achievement of a safety level
higher than the current one, but not specified a priori; and local intervention aimed at improv-
ing the seismic behavior of specific structural parts. Particular emphasis is placed in the
guidelines on the criteria for seismic improvement and techniques of intervention. The
main objective is the conservation not only of the material, but also of the assessed structural
behavior when judged appropriate to the building preservation. Preference should be given to
repair rather than replacement. The novelty of the Italian Guidelines is the conscious effort to
include the ICOMOS principles of conservation and preservation, as distilled in the Athens
and Cracow Charters, within a probabilistic performance based seismic assessment approach,
in this way allowing the retrofit designer to follow the same conceptual framework set for
new structures, but using decision criteria aimed at limiting intervention and enhancing
preservation.
A similar approach seems also to be the basis of the new regulations for earthen buildings
of historic significance, which the Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo of Chile, had started
drafting in 2008, and has fast-tracked for approval after the 2010 earthquake. The specifica-
tions are currently drafted in the document NTM002 (2010) and are intended to provide the
minimum requirements for structural repair and strengthening interventions. During this pre-
paratory phase, foreign codes like the above-mentioned Italian code, the guidelines for adobe
structures of the Getty Institute (Tolles et al. 2002), the New Zealand Standard (NZS4297
1998), as well as the Peruvian code for structure in adobe (MTCV&C 2000), were taken into
consideration. Three criteria for the design of interventions are proposed: a design based on
the achievement of the necessary strength to sustain seismic forces; a displacement-based
design; and a hybrid approach based on the harmonization of the other two methodologies.
A preliminary phase of detailed information collecting is required. Data required include
historic information, records of previous interventions, characteristics of materials, and sur-
veys of damage and structural pathologies. A structural analysis of the building in its current
condition is then advised. The requirements of this analysis are still quite generic in the
current draft of the code and will probably be detailed in the future. At the moment, an elastic
or kinematic analysis is indicated as sufficient to evaluate the structural behavior and the level
of stresses experienced by the structural components. The analysis is also intended to validate
the current design and to verify the compliance to basic geometrical proportions. Inter-
ventions differentiate between repair and strengthening actions, but the goal of restoration
of the overall structural integrity is common to both approaches. Attention is paid to the use
of materials compatible to the existing ones, as well as to the importance of the connections.
An element of critical importance is the proposed requirement of a plan of periodic main-
tenance.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Heritage buildings in Chile are mainly built of timber and masonry made of either stone-
work or adobe, with a minority of cases in fired brickwork. The survey reported in this paper,
although having clearly highlighted some of the deficiencies of the historic building typol-
ogies surveyed, is not sufficiently exhaustive to formulate detailed predictions of the
response of these buildings in future earthquakes of different intensity, nor to provide specific
recommendations for the strengthening of a variety of different typologies. However, a gen-
eral observation is that many buildings had been repaired or strengthened to prevent local
failures after previous earthquakes, but without considering the overall integrity, with typi-
cally only modest effectiveness in such interventions.
Although the current stage of development of the Chilean pre-code NTM002 provides
only generic criteria for strengthening interventions, it already stresses the importance of
restoring the overall structural integrity. Several failure mechanisms largely observed during
this survey are also addressed, and the influence of specifications included in the Peruvian
and Italian code are visible.
For instance, the need to improve the out-of-plane behavior of adobe walls by either
reducing their free length of inflection or by adding tensile capacity to control the cracking
phenomena at the corners is largely acknowledged. To this end, the Peruvian code recom-
mends the introduction of buttresses, timber columns, and collar beams, or vertical reinforce-
ment inside walls by cane or timber. These strengthening provisions are part of the traditional
lexicon of adobe construction in much of Latin America, as reported by the Fundación
Altiplano (2010). Composite construction of adobe and timber, observed in many of the
surveyed buildings, represent an attempt to satisfy this requirement. If the timbers are reg-
ularly spaced and braced, they also have a confining effect. In the authors’ opinion, these
provisions could be usefully adopted by the Chilean pre-code.
The suggestions of the Peruvian code are particularly suitable to the traditional buildings
visited in the Valle de Colchagua. The churches visited had all been damaged in past earth-
quakes and strengthened to different extents in recent years. The most common intervention
had been the shotcreting of longitudinal adobe walls, although this was not always imple-
mented in conjunction with wire mesh and through thickness ties. In general, shotcreting
has not been sufficient to prevent cracking and partial collapse of the adobe walls. Current
research on geosynthetic mesh is aimed at providing a more effective alternative than wire
mesh for confinement (Torrealva et al. 2008).
The general lateral stability of churches is the main issue, due to substantial differences in
the lateral flexibility of internal timber colonnades and external longitudinal adobe walls.
This behavior is also common to churches of similar typology in Peru that were affected
by the 2007 Pisco earthquake (Cancino 2010). The lateral stability could be enhanced by
bracing roof structures and by providing better transverse connections between the columns
and walls. On the visited sites, it was noted that many of the columns did not have founda-
tions or plinths, but were simply sitting on the ground. Possible improvements in behavior
could be achieved by the addition of a foundation system and the connection of the long-
itudinal and transverse roof structure to both the columns and the adobe walls. Use of timber
wall-plates anchored to the walls by means of timber pegs should help redistribute the load of
the roof structures, avoiding concentration of stresses and hence unfavorable localization of
vertical cracks.
The building stock of the villages of the Valle de Colchagua is mainly made of one-story
adobe houses, with a few exceptions. Many of the historic buildings are made of a succession
of rooms in line with a courtyard at the back and a porch at the front. Roofs have ridge
beams spanning between end walls and rafters spanning from ridge beams to longitudinal
walls. Older buildings are built in line along the main street and sometimes share the end
walls. The stability and three-dimensional box behavior of the buildings is enhanced by the
porticos and the connections between rafters and wall plates that effectively restrain out-of-
plane mechanisms in the adobe wall. Where the portico elements and the rafter had properly
scarfed joints (Figure 14b), able to resist shear and tension, the building usually survived with
modest permanent drift. Where these were deteriorated or nonexistent, damage was consider-
able, up to collapse. In more recent buildings, or buildings that had been repaired after
previous earthquakes, the end walls were made of brickwork or confined masonry, and these
usually performed very well with modest cracks limited to the adobe longitudinal wall, and
without roof failure.
Adobe buildings in general need demanding maintenance routines to prevent rotting from
water penetration and pulverization due to termite attacks. In many cases the completely
collapsed buildings suffered from the loss of integrity of the adobe or timber so that
their bearing and lateral capacity was significantly compromised before the earthquake.
Some of the buildings inspected in Lolol and other small villages, although not irreparably
damaged, had been listed for demolition at the time of the visit, and much of this had already
been carried on in Peralillo and other small centers. The reasons given were that due to the
poor conservation condition and lack of resources, people did not feel safe in continuing to
inhabit them. A plan of periodic maintenance proposed by the Chilean pre-code appears of
critical importance.
As mentioned above, the Italian Code has a specific chapter on strengthening, organized
according to the aim of the intervention and the action effect it is meant to prevent or enhance.
On the basis of the past 50 years of collective experience and observations of effectiveness
of strengthening provisions, the use of concrete in historic masonry buildings, especially in
stone masonry, is discouraged, since it creates excessive added weight and stiffness. Instead,
to enhance the effectiveness of connections between walls and diaphragms, steel ties and
anchors are recommended, as their effectiveness has been proven for the past 200 years.
The use of grouting and repointing in mortar joints to enhance the integrity of masonry
is also recommended. These interventions cannot be readily adopted for adobe structures
without adequate research and testing as the application to these structures entails changes
in stiffness and ductility. However, some of the recommendations might be applicable to
buildings in Santiago and Valparaíso with characteristics closer to that of the Italian heritage.
In Santiago, only a minority of the visited buildings had been retrofitted in any evident
way. Apart from the detachment of plaster and formation of cracks not threatening the overall
structural integrity, the most common structural failures observed were the connections of the
bell towers to the facades. Although these can be considered as local failures, they can lead to
considerable damage and threats to life. Moreover they can also trigger the detachment of the
facade from the lateral walls.
Strengthening solutions will depend on specific cases due to material variations and
connections. Unique configurations should be further studied in order to propose feasible
strengthening approaches. In the case of masonry towers generally continuous with the
facade structure, vertical ties could be inserted within the masonry.
In the aftermath of the earthquake, besides the new impetus in drafting the NTM002
document, numerous initiatives to promote safer repair and preservation of adobe heritage
buildings were undertaken. Among those, the Centro Nacional de Conservacion and Restau-
ration has produced a manual, Cartilla Patrimonio en Tierra (2010), which provides basic
concepts on performance of adobe vernacular buildings and advice on use to ensure safety in
the aftermath of a seismic event for damaged buildings. A more comprehensive and tech-
nically oriented publication has been prepared by the Fundación Altiplano for the Plan de
Recuperación de Patrimonio de Arquitectura Tradicional en Tierra for the O’Higgins
Region (Fundación Altiplano 2010), to be implemented in the period 2010–2012. The book-
let classifies the different types of traditional earthen construction and their structural per-
formance and identifies methodologies for conservation and repair, following the general
international guidelines according to ICOMOS. It then provides a set of criteria to evaluate
types and levels of damage and correlates these to possible inherent construction defects or
previous deficient interventions. Finally, it outlines both traditional repair methods and novel
strengthening techniques.
The reconstruction process of some of the major national monuments and landmarks has
started. Money has been allocated and the bidding by design firms and contractors is
ongoing. In many cases, the progress is still at the stage of idea submissions, though in
some other cases the process has gone farther. The proposed national guidelines will create
a framework of conservation criteria and seismic standards.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. Monica Behamondez for valuable insight into
Chilean national conservation policies and access to related documentation, to Ing. Erika
Vicente and Prof. Daniel Torrealva for supplying and providing useful discussion of the
Chilean pre-code document. Dr. D’Ayala also acknowledges the financial support of the
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) for the reconnaissance
mission.
REFERENCES
Astroza, M., Cabezas, F., Moroni, M., Massone, L., Ruiz, S., Parra, E., Cordero, F., and
Mottadelli, A., 2010. Intensidades Sismicas en el Area de Daños del Terremoto del 27 de
Febrero de 2010, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, http://www.eqclearinghouse.org/
20100227-chile/wpcontent/uploads/2010/04/Informe-de-Intensidades-M.-Astroza-y-otros.pdf
(in Spanish).
Bahamondez, M., 2010. Personal communication.
Boroschek, R., Soto, P., and Leon, R., 2010a. Red Local de Registros Edificio Camara Chilena
de la Construccion. Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Ciencias Fisicas y Matermaticas,
Departamento de Ingegneria Civil, Informe Renadic 10/03 Rev. 2. http://www.cec.uchile.
cl/~dicesco/Instrumentacion_archivos/CAM1003.pdf (in Spanish).
Boroschek, R., Soto, P., and Leon, R., 2010b. Registros del Terremoto del Maule Mw = 8.8 27 de
Febrero de 2010, Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Ciencias Fisicas y Matermaticas,
Departamento de Ingegneria Civil, Informe Renadic 10/05 Rev. 2 (in Spanish).
Binda, L., Chesi, C., and Parisi, M. A., 2010. Seismic damage to churches: Observations from the
L’Aquila, Italy, earthquake and considerations on a case-study, Advanced Materials Research
133–134, 641–646.
Binda, L., Modena, C., Casarin, E., Lorenzoni, F., Cantini, L., and Munda, S., 2011. Emergency
actions and investigations on cultural heritage after the L’Aquila earthquake: the case of the
Spanish Fortress, Bull Earthquake Eng, doi:10.1007/s10518-010-9217-3.
Cancino, C., 2010. Damage assessment of historic earthen sites after the 2007 earthquake in Peru,
Advanced Materials Research 133–134, 665–670.
Centro Nacional de Conservacion and Restauration, 2010. Cartilla Patrimonio En Tierra, Sismo
2010, Consejo de Monumentos Nacionales, Gobierno de Chile, http://www.monumentos.cl/
common/asp/pagAtachadorVisualizador.asp?argCryptedData=GP1TkTXdhRJAS2Wp3v88h
PrvIf1sGGIyandargModo=andargOrigen=BDandargFlagYaGrabados=andargArchivoId=
15525, downloaded 10/03/2011 (in Spanish).
Conferencia Episcopal de Chile, 2010. Magnitud de los Daños en Templos y Otros Recintos
Católicos, No. 11535, http://www.iglesia.cl/breves_new/archivos/20100325_catastro.pdf
(in Spanish).
Consejo de Monumentos Nacionales, 2010a. Monumentos Historicos Immuebles y Zonas Tipicas
según daño por Región, http://www.monumentos.cl/OpenDocs/asp/pagDefault.asp?boton=
Doc51andargInstanciaId=51andargCarpetaId=305andargTreeNodosAbiertos=(0)(305)andarg
TreeNodoSel=305andargTreeNodoActual=305andargRegistroId=3823 (in Spanish).
Consejo de Monumentos Nacionales, 2010b. Catastro Sismo 27 de Febrero 2010, VII Region
del Maule, Informe Preliminar al 19 de Marzo, http://www.monumentos.cl/common/
asp/pagAtachadorVisualizador.asp?argCryptedData=GP1TkTXdhRJAS2Wp3v88hMZKq04
Wd3qgandargModo=andargOrigen=BDandargFlagYaGrabados=andargArchivoId=11873
(in Spanish).
Cracow Charter, 2000. Signed by representatives of conservation institutions, Proc Int. Conf. on
Conservation, Krakow 2000, Krakow, 191–193.
Cuadra, C. H., Saito, T., Zavala, A., and Diaz, M. A., 2010. The challenges of protect historical
adobe constructions in Peru, 14th European Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Ohrid,
Macedonia.
D’Ayala, D. F., 1999. Correlation of seismic damage between classes of buildings: churches
and houses, Seismic Damage to Masonry Buildings (A. Bernardini, ed.), Balkema, Rotterdam,
41–58.
D’Ayala, D. F., and Paganoni, S., 2011. Assessment and analysis of damage in L’Aquila historic
city center after 6th April 2009, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 9, 81–104.
D. M. LL. PP., 2008, Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni, 14 Gennaio, Roma (in Italian).
Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team (EEFIT), 2011. The Mw 8.8 Maule Chile Earth-
quake of 27 February 2010: A Preliminary Field Report by EEFIT, http://www.istructe.org/
webtest/files/75/75e4cc0c-34d9-4f40-b797-c80f40370e1a.pdf.
Fallahi, A., 2008. Bam earthquake reconstruction assessment: An interdisciplinary analytical
study on the risk preparedness of Bam and its cultural landscape: A World Heritage property
in danger, Structural Survey 26, 387–399.
Fundación Altiplano, 2010. Guia Practica para Talleres de Capacitación de Restauración en
Adobe, http://fundacionaltiplano.cl/archivo/publicaciones/ (in Spanish).
Ghafory-Ashtiany, M., and Hosseini, M., 2008. Post-Bam earthquake: Recovery and reconstruc-
tion, Natural Hazards 44, 229–241.
Grünthal, G. (ed.), 1998. European Macroseismic Scale 1998, European Seismological Commis-
sion, Luxembourg.
Indirli, M., and Sotero Apablaza, M., 2010. Heritage in Valparaíso (Chile): The “Mar Vasto” pro-
ject, Revista Ingeniería de Construcción 25, 21–62, doi: 10.4067/S0718-50732010000100002.
Instituto Nacional de Normalización (INN), 1996. Earthquake resistant design of buildings,
Official Chilean Code NCh433.Of96.
Ministerio de Transportes, Comunicaciones, Vivienda y Construcción, (MTCV&C), 2003.
Norma Tecnica de Edification E.030 Diseño Sismo resistente, Lima, Peru (in Spanish).
Ministerio de Transportes, Comunicaciones, Vivienda y Construcción, (MTCV&C) 2000. Norma

Tecnica de Edificacion E.080 Adobe, Lima, Peru (in Spanish).
Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo, 2010. Anteproyecto de Norma NTM 002, Proyecto de Inter-
vencion Estructural de la Construcciones Patrimoniales de Tierra.
Ministry for Cultural Heritage and Activities, (MCH&A) 2007. Guidelines for the Evaluation and
Mitigation of Seismic Risk to Cultural Heritage, Gangemi (Editor), Rome.
Montes, C. A., and Giesen, C. G., 2010. Recommendations for the conservation of earthen archi-
tectural heritage in Chile, Advanced Materials Research 133–134, 1125–1130.
Musson, R. M. W., Grünthal, G., and Stucchi, M., 2010. The comparison of macroseismic inten-
sity scales, J Seismol 14, 413–428.
Nelsen, A., 2010. Chile earthquake takes heavy toll on historical sites, The Christian Science
Monitor, 31 March 2010, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2010/0331/Chile-
earthquake-takes-heavy-toll-on-historical-sites.
New Zealand Standard (NZS 4297), 1998. Engineering Design of Earth Buildings.
Proaño, R., Scaletti, H., Zavala, C., Olarte, J., Quiroz, L., Castro Cuba, M., Lazares, F., and
Rodriguez, M., 2007. Seismic vulnerability of Lima Cathedral, Peru, Conferencia Internacional
en Ingenieria Sismica, Lima, Peru.
Rojas, F., Lew, M., and Naeim, F., 2010. An overview of building codes and standards in Chile at
the time of the 27 February 2010 offshore Maule, Chile, earthquake, The Structural Design of
Tall and Special Buildings 19, 853–865. doi: 10.1002/tal.676.
Saragoni, G. R., Lew, M., Naeim, F., Carpenter, L. D., Youssef, N. F., Rojas, F., and Adaros,
M. S., 2010. Accelerographic measurements of the 27 February 2010 offshore Maule, Chile,
earthquake. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 19, 866–875, doi: 10.1002/
tal.673.
The Christian Science Monitor, 2010. Chile earthquake takes heavy toll on historical sites, The
Christian Science Monitor, 31 March 2010, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/
2010/0331/Chile-earthquake-takes-heavy-toll-on-historical-sites.
Tolles, E. L., Kimbro, E. E., and Ginell, W., 2002. Planning and Engineering Guidelines for the
Seismic Retrofitting of Historic Adobe Structures, The Getty Conservation Institute, Getty
Publications, Los Angeles.
Torrealva, D., Cerrón, C., and Espinoza, Y., 2008. Shear and out-of-plane bending strength of
adobe walls externally reinforced with polypropylene grids, The 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
Venice Charter, 1964. International charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments
and sites, Proc., 2nd Int. Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments,
Venice, Italy.
(Received 23 March 2011; accepted 19 April 2012)

Historic and Traditional Structures During The 2010 Chile Earthquake: Observations, Codes, and Conservation Strategies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Historic and Traditional Structures During The 2010 Chile Earthquake: Observations, Codes, and Conservation Strategies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Historic and Traditional Structures during

the 2010 Chile Earthquake: Observations,

MACROSEISMIC INTENSITY AND OVERVIEW

Table 1. Surveyed sites and intensities

Table 2. Distribution of damage levels to National Monuments and Zonas Tipicas by

Santiago Valparaíso O’Higgins Maule Bío-Bío

Total 241 117 49 42 35

FIELD OBSERVATIONS BY TYPOLOGY

CHURCHES OF THE BAROQUE AND NEO-BAROQUE STYLE

Figure 2. (a) Lima (Peru) Cathedral; (b) Santiago Cathedral.

Figure 9. Church of Recoleta Dominica.

BUILDINGS OF THE ZONA TIPICAS OF THE VALLE DE COLCHAGUA

NATIONAL CODES AND CONSERVATION STRATEGIES

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Ministerio de Transportes, Comunicaciones, Vivienda y Construcción, (MTCV&C) 2000. Norma

You might also like