Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned fromthe 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, March 1-4, 2012, Tokyo, JapanAN INITIATIVE TO PRESERVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE 2010
MAULE, CHILE, EARTHQUAKE:
FOLLOWING THE ROADMAP LAID OUT BY SHIGA AND SHIBATA

Santiago PUJOL1
1

Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University,
West Lafayette IN, USA, spujol@purdue.edu

ABSTRACT: Earthquakes affecting urban areas generate large amounts of invaluable
information about the seismic vulnerability of the built environment. It is difficult toconceive scenarios in which the same amount and quality of information can be produced
through numerical or experimental work. Yet, of all the information generated by anearthquake, only a fraction is collected, and even less reaches practitioners and researchers.
The reasons for this information “loss” vary from legal matters that prevent release of
information about private property to matters having to do with how we collect, organize,
and publish the information. The steady progress that has been made in computer andinformation technologies in the past decades has created unprecedented opportunities toimprove the ways in which we collect, organize, and publish information collected in thefield. This note describes a data repository created using the latest in computer andinformation technology to catalog and disseminate data about the response of reinforced
concrete building structures to the Maule, Chile, Earthquake of 2010.
Keywords: Maule Chile Earthquake, Database, Ground Motion Records, Drawings, Crack
Maps.

INTRODUCTION
Hardy Cross said that all designs are based primarily on experience (Cross, 1932). His statement
continues to be true generations later as earthquakes continue to challenge our preconceptions. It istherefore crucial to document our experience (i.e. observations made after earthquakes). Today, the typesof media available for this purpose go far beyond printed journals and allow us to combine data in a wide
range of formats varying from video to drawings.
PRECEDENTS
Many researchers have documented damage caused by earthquakes and the properties of the affectedstructures systematically. But two previous works stand out in the first anniversary of the Tohoku
Earthquake of 11 March, 2011: one because it was seminal and because it dealt with structures in the1734Tohoku region (which are obviously relevant to understand the disaster of 11 March 2011), and the otherbecause it inspired and provided invaluable information for the database described here. The first is thework that was done by Professor’s Shiga and Shibata at Tohoku University after the Miyagi Ken Oki
earthquake of 1978 (Shibata, 2010) and served to vet an ingenious and pragmatic method for screening
reinforced concrete building structures (Shiga, 1976). The second work was conducted by Riddell et al.
(Riddell et al., 1987). In both cases the researchers focused on quantitative information with a clear idea
in mind: systematic examination of the possible correlation between structural properties or vulnerability
indices and observed damage may reveal trends that can be interpreted to improve design and evaluation
procedures.
The work by Riddell et al. was done after the 1985 Valparaiso, Chile, Earthquake. They compiled a
database describing buildings and damage in Viña del Mar and Valparaiso. The database included
layouts of floor plans and structural systems and ratios of total cross-sectional areas of structural elements
to floor areas. Information for a total of 178 buildings was documented. The data were published inreports printed by the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign and helped to identify the benefits ofstructural stiffness and strength on seismic response (Sozen, 1989).
The works of Shiga, Shibata, and Riddell inspired the creation of the repository described here which was
designed to classify and preserve data from the Maule Earthquake of 2010.
MAULE EARTHQUAKE OF 2010
Similar to the earthquakes that affected the Tohoku region in 1978 and 2011, the earthquakes of 1985 and2011 in Chile generated large amounts of data and opportunities to compare the responses of structures totwo different strong ground motions.
In general, the damage caused by the Maule Earthquake to reinforced concrete building structures
was limited, but there were exceptions. In Concepción, for example, a fifteen-story building collapsed
and approximately 7% of buildings with ten or more stories were scheduled for demolition after theearthquake. Understanding the causes of these failures is imperative. And that should be done on thebasis of tangible evidence (from as large a number of structures as possible). In this paper, thedevelopment of a database conceived to classify, store, and disseminate this evidence is described.
FIELDS AND ORGANIZATION
Motivated by the need to understand the implications of the failures observed in Chile, a number oforganizations1 deployed reconnaissance teams to the Maule region. These teams collected:i.
structural drawingsii.
crack mapsiii.
photographsiv.
material propertiesv.
soil reports
The database described here was designed to allow its users to:i.
explore photographic evidence of damage caused by the Maule Earthquake .
ii.
explore geotechnical and ground motion information about the Maule Earthquakeiii.
associate photographs and performance data with building information (ranging from locationand number of stories to – where available – seismic vulnerability indices such as the ratio ofwall area to total floor area)iv.
associate damage information and information on recorded ground motion
1

See acknowledgments

1735

v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.

correlate level of damage and structural properties
explore and export data in a variety of formats including text, kmz and kml (for use with theGoogle Earth software), and shp (for use with ESRI software).
download full-resolution photographs (one at a time or in groups)
search for entries associated with tags from a list of key terms
download drawings (where available), mathematical models, and reports for selected building
structurescompare damage caused by the 2010 Maule Earthquake and the 1985 Valparaiso Earthquake(where applicable)
sort and select relevant information using multiple filters
if available, associate drawings, crack maps, and photographs

Establishing a group of arguments that is sufficient to describe a building structure and its performance
during an earthquake is, to say the least, challenging (EERI, 2003). But much has been done towards thedefinition of a manageable set of arguments describing a wide range of building structures (GEM 2011).
In the case of Chile, the vast majority of engineered buildings have reinforced concrete structures. The
developed database concentrates on such structures, which allowed for a dramatic reduction in thenumber of arguments needed to describe each structure.
A total of 121 “fields” or “terms”2 were identified to describe the ground motion, the structure, and the
response of the structure to the ground motion. They range from peak ground velocity to ratio of total
cross-sectional area of walls to typical floor area (see appendix). The arguments selected are unlikely to
be a complete list of relevant parameters. Rather, they are a compromise between the need for detailed
information and the resources available today for data collection. It is hoped that the publication of thislist of parameters will generate the debate that should take place within the profession to arrive at a better
solution.
The data are organized in five tables. In each table, information (numerical values or paths to binary files)
is stored in text (ASCII) format. This format was chosen to ensure longevity: ASCII format has proven to
be one of the most commonly used and lasting formats for character encoding. Entries are separated bycommas to allow the use of spaces within each entry. A “parser” extracts data from the tables and storesit in the database (which is managed using an open-source system called MySQL3).
Tables:Buildings Data Table: Contains information on the geometric and structural properties of the buildings.
Earthquake Damage Data Table: Contains information on the damage caused in each building by aparticular earthquake. This information includes: photos, crack maps (where available), a damage
ranking,4 and information on the usability of the structure after the earthquake.
Earthquake Information Table: This table describes the location and time of each of the earthquakes
considered (Valparaiso, Chile, 1985 and Maule, Chile, 2010 in the case of the described database) and,for larger databases, should be expanded to include detailed information about magnitude and the seismic
source.
Station Data Table: This table stores the records obtained at strong-motion stations operating in Chile in1985 and 2010. Key information is given for each station including type of soil –if known-, peak
A field refers to an entry in the database. Entries store different types of data ranging from numbers to groups of files in binary format.
http://www.mysql.com/
4 See Fields 75 and 76 in Appendix
2
3

1736

ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), network, coordinates, location within housing
structure –if applicable,- and orientation.
Data Sources Table: This table lists the sources (references and individuals) who provided theinformation in the database.
The directory structure used to archive the data is shown in Figure 1. The directory structure shown in
Figure 1 provides essential information about each file (metadata) and follows the following format:
Numerical-analysis files<building ID><source ID>
Drawings<building ID><source ID>
General files<building ID><source ID>
Ground motion records
Maule.Chile.2010<station ID><source ID>
Valparaiso.Chile.1985<station ID><source ID>
PhotosMaule.Chile.2010<building ID><source ID>
Valparaiso.Chile.1985<building ID><source ID>

Fig. 1 Directory Structure

1737

CREDITS
A key to the success of a central data repository is to provide adequate credit to the contributors of
information. This is being done by:-embedding the name of the author in file names and file “headers.”-including a field in the database to specify sources-providing readily available and complete citation information

INFORMATION ABOUT THE FILES IN THE DATABASE: “METADATA”
The bulk of the data consists of photographs (more than 20,000). To make this information accessible,
each photograph was described with keywords (also called tags). The tags used in this process are listed
in Table 1. This list is also a compromise. Tagging of photos, at this point, has not been automated andis, therefore, costly and time consuming.
Tags (or keywords) were inserted into the “headers” of the photographic files. The tags are displayed in
the system by a “photo gallery” (Figure 2) that also allows the user to locate the points where photographs
were taken using interactive maps (Figure 3).
Table 1 Tags (Keywords)
Keyword Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Keyword (or Tag)
Building
Building Elevation
Surroundings
Nonstructural
Reinforced Concrete
Precast Concrete
Steel
Wood
Masonry
Coupling Beam
Truss
Column
Wall
Slab
Beam
StairsBoundary Zone
Tie
Bar Splice
Discontinuous Bar
Wall Buckling
Bar Buckling
Bar Fracture1738

In addition, and to ensure correct use of the information in the database, the headers of all
photographic files were also modified to include name of photographer, building name, building
coordinates, address, and earthquake name/date. A customized “processor” was written for this purpose.
The processor uses the location of the file in the directory structure described to determine information
about the building (name, ID, address, and coordinates) and the photographer. The specifics about thephotographer are stored in the sources spreadsheet. Any standard file browser can be used to accessphoto headers after download.

Fig. 2 Photo Gallery

Fig. 3 Interactive Map

Information on files other than photographs is added to the database based on the location of each file inthe directory structure (which defines building name, source, and type of file)1739

RELEASE AND CONTENTS
It is expected that the database will include more than 20,000 photographs and information for more than
200 buildings. A flexible web-based interface allowing for on-line study of these photographs inaddition to maps, photographs, drawings, earthquake records, and other documents was created and will
be made public at http://nees.org/resources/databases and a separate website to be maintained by NIST.
Detailed structural drawings were obtained for 13 structures. General drawings showing the layout ofstructural walls and essential dimensions were obtained for 121 structures.
Input files for numericalsimulation were obtained for 6 structures. Detailed crack maps were obtained for 7 structures.
At least from Concepción, more information was obtained for damaged structures than for undamaged
structures. Understandably, the structures with damage attracted the attention of more researchers thantheir undamaged counterparts. Nevertheless, it seems information from the latter would have enriched
the database as it can be used to test hypotheses about the causes of the failures.
CONCLUSIONSThe profession needs to coordinate efforts to surpass legal and logistical challenges associated withthe collection of information about buildings. This note describes a system that was inspired by theworks of Shiga, Shibata, and Riddell. It was used to classify and preserve information collected during
and after the Maule, Chile, Earthquake of 2010.
The system will be made public at
nees.org/resources/databases and will allow its users to explore more than 20,000 photographs andquantitative information for over 200 buildings. It is hoped that the system will spark new research onbuilding performance and initiatives to prepare better repositories for future earthquakes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The supervision and assistance of Applied Technology Council, and the guidance of Ayse Hortacsu,
Eduardo Miranda, Farzad Naeim, and Keith Porter, are gratefully acknowledged. This project was madepossible thanks to the initiative of Jeff Dragovich, Steven McCabe, and Eric Letvin at the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the contributions of data from:
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI)National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Applied Technology Council (ATC)L.A. Tall-Building Council (LATBC)
Purdue University
Penn State University
NSF RAPID-Program Team (Led by J. Moehle and F. Medina)
Degenkolb Consulting Structural Engineers
Chilean Researcher Patricio Bonelli
BFP Engineers Inc.
The code behind the interface that allows easy exploration of the database and all matters related to thecomputer- and information-technology aspects of the project were skillfully produced and managed by
employees of Purdue’s Rosen Center for Advanced Computing under the dedicated guidance of Ann
Christine Catlin.

1740

The help from NEEScomm, HUBzero, Julio Ramirez, and Michael McLennan is also gratefully
acknowledged.
APPENDIXThe following is a list of fields (or attributes) that have been identified as relevant parameters to organize
and classify field observations on the response of reinforced concrete building structures to strong groundmotion.
Field numbers identified with an asterisk are deemed essential.
Italicized fields are related to a single earthquake.

Field
NumberField / Attribute
Definition of Field/Attribute*Notes about Field/Attribute

1*

General Building and Site Information
Structure ID
Unique identification number assigned to the building

2

Building Name
Name displayed on building façade or building drawings

3

Owner Information
Information about the owner of the building

4Date or Range of Original Construction
Year or decade (if year unknown) when the construction of the building was completed(e.g. 1985 or 1980s)

5

Occupancy
The purpose for which the building was being used at the time of the earthquake(s).
List of occupancy categories used (adopted from ATC-38).
8. Government
9. Hospital
10. Hotel
11. Manufacturing
12. Office
13. Restaurant
14. Retail

1. Apartment
2. Auto Repair
3. Church
4. Dwelling
5. Data Center
6. Garage
7. Gas Station

1741

19. Other
20. Unknown
21. Mixed

15. School
16. Theater
17. Utility
18. Warehouse*Note: Occupancy classification is based on photos, drawings, or reports (whenavailable). Visual evidence is used to classify building occupancy (e.g. buildings withmany balconies are classified as apartment or hotel; buildings with kitchens andbedrooms shown in architectural plans are classified as apartments).
6Development ID
Unique identification number assigned to a group of buildings
complex or business park with multiple buildings)

7(i.e. an apartment

Development Name
Name displayed at entrance to complex or on building drawings.
Coordinates*
Approximate GPS (UTM) coordinates and elevation of the centroid of a building roof aplan (as portrayed by areal images).

8*

Latitude [decimal degrees]
Geographic coordinate specifying location relative to The Equator.

9*

Longitude [decimal degrees]
Geographic coordinate specifying location relative to The Prime (or Greenwich)
Meridian.

10

Elevation [m]Approximate vertical distance to mean sea level.

11*
12*
13*
14*
15

Address
Street Name (required only if no coordinates are available)
Street Number (required only if no coordinates are available)
City Name
Postal Code (required only if no City name is available)
Soil Type Class at Building Site
Site classification as described in Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-10 (Type A, B, C, D, or F)

16

Soil Type Class (Chilean Standard) at Building Site
Soil type identified in forensic reports or design documents (if available) and describedusing the Chilean Standard (NCh433-96).

1742

17

Building Site Description
Geologic description of the site on which the building is located as reported by the source
specified in the next field.

18

Source of Site Description
The source of the geologic site description provided in the previous field (e.g. geologic
map)

19

Closest Ground Motion Recording Station ID
The unique identification number assigned to the strong ground motion recording stationthat is closest (in terms of straight-line distance) to the building

20

Distance to Closest Recording Station [km]Straight-line distance from the building to the closest strong ground motion recording
station21*

Building Information on Height and Shape
Total Number of Stories above Ground*Note: based on drawings, or photos and reports (if drawings are not available). Parking
level is counted if it is above ground.

22

Number of Stories below Ground*Note: based on drawings, or reports (if drawings are not available)

23
24
25
26

Total Floor Area (summation of total horizontal areas of all floors and basements) [m^2]
Total Height above Ground [m]First-Story Height [m]Reference Story
The first story with a total height above ground exceeding half the inter-story height or(for buildings with podiums) first story above podium.
*Notes:“Podium” refers to stories above ground with a larger plan than the stories above them.
For buildings listed in SRS reports No. 532 and 534 (published by The University of
Illinois at Urbana Champaign), the reference story coincides with the level reported inthose reports as being “the critical story.”

27
28

Number of Stories above Reference Story + 1
Total Floor Area for Reference Story and Stories above [m^2]Summation of floor area in the reference story and floor areas of all stories above thereference story.

1743

29

Total Height above Reference Story + Height of Reference Story [m]Total vertical distance from base of reference story to roof.
Directions (Definitions)*Note: the longitudinal direction of a building is defined here as the direction of thelonger side of a rectangle encompassing the entire building plan and the transverse
direction is the direction of the shorter side of said rectangle. For buildings listed in SRS
reports No. 532 and 534 (published by The University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign),
the direction reported here as “the longitudinal direction” coincides with the direction
labeled “Y” in the reports. The direction reported here as “the transverse direction”
coincides with the direction labeled “X” in the reports.

30

Approximate Azimuth of Longitudinal Building Direction [decimal degrees]
The clockwise angle that the longitudinal direction of the building makes with North
direction

31

Approximate Azimuth of Transverse Building Direction [decimal degrees]
The clockwise angle that the transverse direction of the building makes with North
direction

32

Typical Plan Shape (R: rectangular, L: L shape, T: T shape, O: Other)
Approximate shape of the building in a plan view
*Note: based on drawings, or aerial images (when drawings not available)

33

Building Aspect Ratio in Longitudinal Direction (above Base of Reference Story)
The ratio of field 29 to field 47

34

Building Aspect Ratio in Transverse Direction (above Base of Reference Story)
The ratio of field 29 to field 48

35

Building Structural Properties
Vertical Force-Resisting System
The structural system of the building resisting vertical loads
Vertical Force-Resisting System classification used (adopted from ATC-38):
1. Steel Moment Frame
2. Steel Braced Frame
3. Steel Light Frame
4. Steel Frame w/ Concrete
Shear Walls

5. Steel Frame w/ Infill
Masonry Shear Walls
6. Concrete Moment Frame
7. Concrete Shear Walls
8. Concrete Moment Frame andShear Walls1744

13. Precast Concrete Frame w/
Concrete Shear Walls
14. Precast Concrete Frame
15. Wood Light Frame
16. Commercial or Long-Span
Wood Frame
17. Other

9. Concrete Frame w/ Infill
Masonry Shear Walls
10. Reinforced Masonry
Bearing Wall
11. Unreinforced Masonry
Bearing Wall
12. Precast/Tiltup Concrete
Shear Walls

Italicized building types are additions or changes to the ATC-38 list.
*Note: based on drawings, or photos and reports (when drawings not available). For
buildings in SRS Reports No. 532 and 534, the entry reported here coincides with what
the reports labeled “framing system.”
36

Lateral Force-Resisting System
The structural system of the building expected to resist lateral loads
Lateral Force-Resisting System classification used (adopted from ATC-38):
1. Steel Moment Frame
2. Steel Braced Frame
3. Steel Light Frame
4. Steel Frame w/ Concrete
Shear Walls
5. Steel Frame w/ Infill
Masonry Shear Walls
6. Concrete Moment Frame
7. Concrete Shear Walls
8. Concrete Moment Frame andShear Walls
9. Concrete Frame w/ Infill
Masonry Shear Walls

10. Reinforced Masonry
Bearing Wall
11. Unreinforced Masonry
Bearing Wall
12. Precast/Tiltup Concrete
Shear Walls
13. Precast Concrete Frame w/
Concrete Shear Walls
14. Precast Concrete Frame
15. Wood Light Frame
16. Commercial or Long-Span
Wood Frame
17. Other

Italicized building types are additions or changes to the ATC-38 list.
*Note: based on drawings, or photos and reports (when drawings not available). For
buildings in SRS Reports No. 532 and 534, the entry reported here coincides with what
the reports labeled “framing system.”
37

Foundation TypeThe structural system that transmits loads from the building to the soil
*Note: based on drawings, or reports (when drawings not available). For buildings in
SRS Reports No. 532 and 534 the foundation type was taken directly from the reports.

38

Most Common Type of Partition
Type of non-structural walls separating rooms in a building
List of partitions used (adopted from ATC-38):

1745

1. Gypsum Board
2. Plaster
3. Wood Lath
4. URM
5. Metal
6. Concrete Infill
7. Brick
8. Marble
9. Masonry
10. Other*Note: For buildings in SRS Reports No. 532 and 534 the partition type was taken
directly from the reports.
39

Nominal Concrete Strength [MPa]The specified compressive strength of concrete cubes or cylinder cast using the same
concrete mix that was used to construct the building

40

Nominal Yield Stress of Steel [MPa]The specified nominal tensile yield stress of samples cut from the same heat(s) of steel
that was (were) used to make the reinforcing steel in the building

41

Measured First-Mode Period of Vibration, Longitudinal Direction [s]The period of vibration of a building primarily in its longitudinal direction as
measured using accelerometers

42

Measured First-Mode Period of Vibration, Transverse Direction [s]The period of vibration of a building primarily in its transverse direction as measured
using accelerometers(for larger database Add comment column to explain type of measurement)

43

Calculated Initial First-Mode Period of Vibration, Longitudinal Direction [s]The period of vibration primarily in the longitudinal direction computed using a
numerical model of the building

44

Calculated Initial First-Mode Period of Vibration, Transverse Direction [s]The period of vibration primarily in the transverse direction computed using a
numerical model of the building
Add comment column to explain assumptions, calculation methodology

45

General Drawings
Structural and/or architectural drawings in digital format

46

Drawing of Typical Floor (above Base of Reference Story)1746

A structural, or architectural (when structural not available) plan view of the reference
story in a building
Typical Floor Dimensions above Reference Story [m]47Longitudinal Dimension
Length of longer side of rectangle encompassing the floor plan of the majority of thestories above the reference story

48

Transverse Dimension
Length of shorter side of rectangle encompassing the floor plan of the majority of thestories above the reference story

49

Typical Floor Area above Reference Story [m]Area of floor plan of the majority of the stories above the reference story

Total Cross-Sectional Wall Area (Ignoring Flanges) for the Reference Story [m^2]50

Longitudinal Direction
Summation of cross-sectional areas of wall segments oriented in the longitudinal
direction of the building (as defined by field 30) in the reference story

51

Transverse Direction
Summation of cross-sectional areas of wall segments oriented in the transverse
direction of the building (as defined by field 31) in the reference story

52

Total Cross-Sectional Column Area for the Reference Story [m^2]Summation of cross-sectional areas of columns in the reference story

Ratio of Total Cross-Sectional Wall Area for Reference Story to Typical Floor Area
53

Longitudinal Direction
Ratio of field 50 to field 49

54

Transverse Direction
Ratio of field 51 to field 49

Ratio of Total Cross-Sectional Wall Area for Reference Story to Total Floor Area ofReference Story and Stories above

1747

55

Longitudinal Direction
Ratio of field 50 to field 28

56

Transverse Direction
Ratio of field 51 to field 28
Aspect Ratio of Dominant Walls
Ratio of Total Wall Height above Base of Reference Story to Wall Length for longest
wall in Reference Story

57
58
59

Longitudinal Direction
Transverse Direction
Ratio of Total Cross-Sectional Column Area for Reference Story to Typical Floor Area
above Reference Story
Ratio of field 52 to 49

60

Ratio of Total Cross-Sectional Column Area for Reference Story to Total Floor Area
of Reference Story and Stories above
Ratio of field 52 to 28

61

Flags
Reinforcement Lap Splices at Base of Structure (0: none, 1: staggered, 2: notstaggered)*Note: based on structural drawings
Base of structure is the base of the first story (e.g. if all the splices in a wall arelocated in the second story, then “0: none” is reported; if more than 50% the splices
are in the first story and the rest are in second story, then “1: staggered” is reported;
if all the splices are in the first story but they were not located at the same level in allbars then “1:staggered” is reported; if all the lap splices are in the first story and they
are not staggered then “2: not staggered” is reported)*Note: Lap splices are splices made by overlapping reinforcing bars.
Discontinuities in Elevation
62 Abrupt and significant changes in wall cross section or Discontinuous Flanges in
Walls (0: none, 1: present)

The word “reentrant” has been used before to describe discontinuities in slabs andplan views. But the original meaning of the word is not tied to horizontal objects.
Here, it is used to refer to a discontinuity in a wall where the length of the wallchanges abruptly becoming larger above the corner than below the corner. See
Figure A1 for an example of a reentrant corner. In buildings with basements
reentrant corners can be located at ground level and are reported in the same way asreentrant corners above ground level are. A discontinuous flange refers to flanges or

1748

enlarged boundary elements that are present in one story but not in the story above or
the story below.
*Note: based on structural drawings

Fig. A1 Example of a reentrant corner63

Discontinuous Walls (0: none, 1: present)
Walls are reported to be discontinuous if they are present in a story but not in the story
below or the story above. Walls present in the basements but not in stories above
ground are not reported as discontinuous walls. Walls present in the first story but
not in the basements, are reported as discontinuous walls.
*Note: based on structural drawings

64

Walls with T sections (0: none, 1: present)
Structural walls with cross sections resembling the letter T*Note: based on structural drawings

65

Walls with L sections (0: none, 1: present)
Structural walls with cross sections resembling the letter L*Note: based on structural drawings

66

Confining Reinforcement in Boundary Elements (0: none, 1: present)
Confining reinforcement is hoop reinforcement placed in boundary elements ofstructural walls. Buildings having confining reinforcement in the boundary elementsof some walls, but not others are classified as having confining reinforcement “1:present.”*Note: based on structural drawings

1749

67

Building Documentation
General Files
Geotechnical Reports, Construction Records, Damage Reports,
similar files

68*

Photographs (format: JPG)

69

Main Building Photograph (format: JPG)

Videos,or

Photograph selected to provide as wide a view of the building as possible.
70

Input Files for Structural Analysis Software (each input file is to be associated with acomment containing information on software name and version).
These are files used by structural engineers for numerical analysis of the building
response.
Earthquake Information

71*

Earthquake Name (e.g. Maule.Chile.2010 & Valparaiso.Chile.1985)
Name given by a geological agency to the earthquake

72*

Earthquake Date (UTC)
Date and approximate time of occurrence of the earthquake (in Coordinated Universal
Time)

73

Information about Earthquake Damage**
Was the building open or closed to public when first inspected? (0: Open, 1: Closed)

74

Tag assigned by local authorities (0: Green, or 1: Yellow –indicating no danger
to occupants, 2: Red –indicating danger to occupants)

75

Were clear structural failures or severe damage documented in the available
photographs or reports? (0: No, 1: Yes)
There is no universal definition of structural failure or severe structural damage. The
following guidelines were used to label buildings with the flag 1 (yes) in thiscategory:
Reinforcing bars buckled
Cracks in concrete exceeded 0.5 in (approximately 1cm) in width
Because the adopted definition of damage is not universal, a photograph showing
what was deemed to be signs of failure or severe damage is provided in the next field.

76

Photo showing an example of what was deemed to be severe structural damage (ifapplicable)

77

Was damage to nonstructural elements documented in the available photographs orreports? (0: No, 1: Yes)

1750

Nonstructural elements are all the building components not part of the vertical andlateral load resisting systems.
78

Photo showing an example of what was deemed to be damage toelements (if applicable)

nonstructural

Ground Motion Recording Station Information
79*

Station ID
Unique identification number assigned to the strong ground motion recording station(accelerometer).

80
81
82
83*

Recording Station Name1
Recording Station Code1
Recording Station Location1 2
Latitude of Recording Station1 [decimal degrees]
Refer to field 8 for a definition of Latitude.

84*

Longitude of Recording Station1 [decimal degrees]
Refer to field 9 for a definition of Latitude.

85
86

Name of Network Maintaining the Station
Instrument Location (in the structure housing it)1
This entry refers to the story in which the instrument was placed.

87

Structure TypeType of building housing the instrument (accelerometer)

88
89
90

Instrument Type1
Recording Station Site Description1
Azimuth of Instrument, Direction 11[decimal degrees]
Refer to field 30 for a definition of Azimuth.
Note: recording stations usually report accelerations in two perpendicular horizontal
directions and the vertical direction. The horizontal directions do not always
coincide with the geographic North or East directions.

91

Azimuth of Instrument, Direction 21 [decimal degrees]
Refer to field 30 for a definition of Azimuth.

92

Maximum Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration1 [g]Absolute maximum of absolute peak recordings in directions 1 and 2 (defined in 90,
91)

1751

93

Peak Ground Acceleration in Direction 11 [g]Absolute maximum recording in direction 1 (defined in 90)

94

Peak Ground Acceleration in Direction 21 [g]Absolute maximum recording in direction 2 (defined in 91)

95

Peak Ground Acceleration in Vertical Direction1 [g]Absolute maximum recording in vertical direction

96

Maximum Horizontal Peak Ground Velocity1 [m/s]Absolute maximum reported peak ground velocity in directions 1 and 2 (defined in 90,
91)

97

Peak Ground Velocity in Direction 11[m/s]Absolute maximum of time integrals of recordings in direction 1 (defined in 90)

98

Peak Ground Velocity in Direction 21 [m/s]Absolute maximum of time integral of recordings in direction 2 (defined in 91)

99

Ground Acceleration Records from Recording Station1
Text files containing sequence of accelerations measured at a fixed sampling rate
1

As reported by entity issuing the record
In the case of Chile, this coincides with the name of the city or area where theinstrument was located
2

100*
101*
102
103
104*
105

106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115

Credits and Comments
Full Name(s) of Person(s) Entering Information into Database
Full Name(s) of Person(s) contributing Information (Investigators)
Investigator Organization (University, Organization, or Company)
Reconnaissance Organization (if applicable) (e.g. EERI, ASCE, etc.)
Full Citation(s) for any Reports Used
Comments (include information on retrofit)
Additional Fields for Future, Expanded Database
Roof TypeWas the structure retrofitted before the earthquake?
Earthquake ID
Earthquake Time (UTC)
Earthquake Time (local)
Earthquake Day of Week (Local)
Earthquake Magnitude
Causative Fault Name
Earthquake Fault Rupture Spatial Characteristics
Damped Elastic Spectral Acceleration
Spectral acceleration at a period of 0.3s.

1752

116
117
118
119
120
121

Spectral acceleration at a period of 1s.
Spectral acceleration at a period of 3s.
Reinforcing Steel Production Standard
National Design Standard used for Building
Data about Owner
Presence of Captive Columns

Notes






* : Required field**: at least one field under this category must be provided
First Story: first story in which more than half the story height is above ground level
Units: SI
Italicized fields are related to a single earthquake.

REFERENCES
Cross, H., Morgan, N. D. (1932). Continuous Frames of Reinforced Concrete. J. Wiley & Sons, inc.,343 p.
Riddell R., Wood S., De la Llera, J. C. (1987). “The 1985 Chile Earthquake: Structural Characteristics
and Damage Statistics for The Building Inventory in Viña del Mal,” SRS Report 534, U. of Illinois,
Urbana, Illinois, 265 p.
Shibata, A. (2010). Dynamic Analysis of Earthquake Resistant Structures, Tohoku University Press,
Sendai, pp. 329-332.
Shiga, T. (1976). Vibration of Structures, Kyoritu Shuppan Co. (in Japanese)
Sozen, M. (1989). “Earthquake Response of Buildings with Robust Walls,” Fifth Chilean Conferenceon Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile.

1753