A Chronology of 

Middle Missouri Plains 

Village Sites

By Craig M. Johnson

with contributions by

Stanley A. Ahler, Herbert Haas, and Georges Bonani

Smithsonian Institution

Scholarly Press

Smithsonian Institution

Scholarly Press

smithsonian contributions to museum conservation • number 4

Unexpected—

Earthquake 2011

Lessons to Be Learned

Edited by

A. Elena Charola, 

Corine Wegener, and Robert J. Koestler
SERIES PUBLICATIONS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

Emphasis upon publication as a means of “diffusing knowledge” was 

expressed by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian. In his formal plan 

for the Institution, Joseph Henry outlined a program that included 

the following statement: “It is proposed to publish a series of reports, 

giving an account of the new discoveries in science, and of the changes 

made from year to year in all branches of knowledge.” This theme of 

basic research has been adhered to through the years by thousands of 

titles issued in series publications under the Smithsonian imprint, commencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and 

continuing with the following active series: 

Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology

Smithsonian Contributions to Botany

Smithsonian Contributions to History and Technology

Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences

Smithsonian Contributions to Museum Conservation 

Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology

Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology

In these series, the Institution publishes small papers and full-scale 

monographs that report on the research and collections of its various 

museums and bureaus. The Smithsonian Contributions Series are 

distributed via mailing lists to libraries, universities, and similar institutions throughout the world. 

Manuscripts submitted for series publication are received by the 

Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press from authors with direct affiliation with the various Smithsonian museums or bureaus and are subject 

to peer review and review for compliance with manuscript preparation 

guidelines. General requirements for manuscript preparation are on the 

inside back cover of printed volumes. For detailed submissions requirements and to review the “Manuscript Preparation and Style Guide for 

Authors,” visit the Submissions page at www.scholarlypress.si.edu.
smithsonian contributions to museum conservation • number 4

Unexpected—

Earthquake 2011

Lessons to Be Learned

Edited by

A. Elena Charola, 

Corine Wegener, 

and Robert J. Koestler

WASHINGTON D.C.

2014
ABSTRACT

Charola, A. Elena, Corine Wegener, and Robert J. Koestler, editors. Unexpected—Earthquake 2011: Lessons to Be Learned. 

Smithsonian Contributions to Museum Conservation, number 4, viii + 105 pages, 86 figures, 3 tables, 2014.—This volume 

brings together nine reports and six short communications that describe damage and other problems caused for the Smithsonian Institution by the earthquake that occurred in the Washington, D.C., area on 23 August 2011. The first chapter is a 

summary of the presentation by Secretary G. Wayne Clough to the Smithsonian community nearly a month after the event, 

and the second gives an overview of the impact that the earthquake had on buildings and collections. The third chapter 

describes in detail both damages to and post-seismic stabilization of the Hempstead House, listed as a historic site on Smithsonian property in Maryland. The fourth chapter describes some of the damage to and subsequent conservation of fossils 

in the National Museum of Natural History; the next two chapters describe damages suffered by the Botany–Horticulture 

Library and the fluid collection located in this same building. The short communications report whether damage was 

suffered in six other Smithsonian museums. Chapter eight deals with the Smithsonian’s Museum Support Center, describing damage suffered by collections in the pods of this center as well as the structure overall and, in particular, its roof, in 

which many previously undiscovered leaks were subsequently exposed (over offices and laboratories) by Hurricane Irene. 

The final chapter brings together recommendations for measures to be implemented based on the experience gained. An 

epilogue on the need for preparedness for unexpected emergencies and a bibliography close the volume.

Cover images (from left): Damages to Botany–Horticulture library stacks (see Juneau and Everly, Figure 1); damaged 

Smithsonian Castle towers and chimneys being stabilized (Clough, Figure 13); toppled ceramic artifacts in anthropology 

collections at the Museum Support Center (Homiak, Figure 8).

Published by SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION SCHOLARLY PRESS

P.O. Box 37012, MRC 957, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012

www.scholarlypress.si.edu

Compilation copyright © 2014 Smithsonian Institution

Essays by S. Park, S. Jabo, A. Juneau and R. Everly, S. Peurach, N. Apostolides, L. Putney, S. Lake and K. Towler, J. Estoque, B. Young, C. Fry, J. Homiak, and the epilogue by C. Wegener are in the public domain. The rights to all other text 

and images in this publication, including cover and interior designs, are owned either by the Smithsonian Institution, by 

contributing authors, or by third parties. Fair use of materials is permitted for personal, educational, or noncommercial 

purposes. Users must cite author and source of content, must not alter or modify copyrighted content, and must comply 

with all other terms or restrictions that may be applicable. Users are responsible for securing permission from a rights 

holder for any other use.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Unexpected – earthquake 2011 : lessons to be learned / edited by A. Elena Charola, Corine Wegener, and Robert J. 

Koestler.

 pages cm. — (Smithsonian contributions to museum conservation ; number 4)

Includes bibliographical references.

1. Smithsonian Institution—History—21st century. 2. Earthquakes—Washington Region—History—21st 

century. 3. Hurricanes—Washington Region—History—21st century. 4. Museums—Collection management—

Washington Region. 5. Museum conservation methods—Washington Region. 6. Earthquake damage—Washington 

Region. 7. Hurricane damage—Washington Region. 8. Museum buildings—Washington Region—Earthquake 

effects. 9. Museum buildings—Washington Region—Hurricane effects. I. Charola, A. Elena. II. Wegener, Corine 

A. III. Koestler, Robert J. (Robert John), 1950–

Q11.S8U38 2014

069.09753’090512—dc23

2014013331

ISSN: 1949-2359 (print); 1949-2367 (online) 

c The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48–1992. 
Contents

PREFACE by A. Elena Charola and Robert J. Koestler v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii

Back to Back: The Earthquake and Hurricane of 2011 1

G. Wayne Clough 

2011 Seismic Activity Quakes the Smithsonian: The Impact 

on Buildings and Collections 19

Elizabeth C. Sullivan and Mary Rogers 

Shake, Rattle, and Roll: Post-Seismic Stabilization of the Historic 

Homestead House at Smithsonian Environmental Research Center 23

Sharon C. Park 

Examination, Repair, Consolidation, and Conservation of the Natural 

History Museum’s Fossil Specimens 39

Steve Jabo 

Braced for Disaster: But the Botany–Horticulture Library 

Shelves Weren’t 49

Ann Juneau and Robin Everly

When Things Get Tipsy in the Fluid Collections: Addressing What 

Went Wrong and Preventing Future Damage 55

Suzanne C. Peurach 

Communications: Earthquake Damage Reports

National Portrait Gallery — Nik Apostolides 61

Smithsonian American Art Museum — Lynn Putney 63

Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden — Susan Lake and 

Keri Towler 65

National Museum of the American Indian — Justin Estoque 69

Freer–Sackler Galleries of Art — Bruce Young 71

Paul A. Garber Facility — Charles Fry 73
i v • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

When a Tempest Breaks your Teapots: Seismic Events 

and Museological Lessons 75

John P. Homiak

Compounded Damage at the Museum Support Center: 

Hurricane Irene after the Earthquake 85

Paula T. DePriest, Elizabeth Dietrich, Odile Madden, 

Elizabeth Sullivan, and A. Elena Charola

Conclusions and Recommendations 97

Nancy Bechtol, William Tompkins, Kerry Button, 

Catharine Hawks, and A. Elena Charola

EPILOGUE: ASK YOURSELF “WHAT IF . . . ?” by Corine Wegener 101

BIBLIOGRAPHY 103
Preface

Earthquakes on the East Coast! This thought rarely enters the mind of 

museum conservators, curators, or scientists when thinking about vibration mitigation in collections. We are all familiar with, if not quite 

always cognizant of, transmission of floor vibrations into cases and 

the dangers of free-standing pedestals or cantilever shelving that amplify local 

vibrations. Sure, we have seen objects “walk” if not anchored securely in exhibition cases, and we have seen minute pieces of objects, most often wood, appear 

underneath display objects, but we had not expected that our display or storage 

objects would be subjected to a significant earthquake! There was no institutional memory of damage from earthquakes in the mid-Atlantic or northeast 

USA, so it was a surprising event when on 23 August 2011 an earthquake, magnitude 5.8, hit the Washington, D.C., area. People who have experienced previous quakes elsewhere immediately recognized what was happening and knew 

what to do. The rest of us could think of only a human-caused accident or event. 

Fortunately, the earthquake was mild, the damage to the area was in the millions 

and not billions, and there were few injuries to people. The quake did serve as 

a wake-up call to museum personnel to reevaluate our emergency preparedness 

procedures and to reassess how well our collections were displayed and housed. 

This volume brings together a set of papers to illustrate the type of damage 

that resulted from the earthquake, both to the buildings themselves and to the 

collections housed in them. The aim was to cover the wide variety of problems 

that resulted and explain the reasons for the damage. It is not an exhaustive 

listing of issues, since these were immediately assessed and documented in various internal reports. Instead these papers illustrate the damage found in various 

examples, ranging from the historic Homestead House acquired by the Smithsonian’s Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Maryland, only some 

months prior to the earthquake, to the collections in the National Museum of 

Natural History on the Mall and those stored at the Museum Support Center 

in Suitland, Maryland. They also describe the issues encountered during damage assessment and the measures undertaken in preparation for the arrival of 

Hurricane Irene, which struck a few days after the earthquake. The last chapter discusses important issues such as prompt assessment of structural dam-
v i • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

age to buildings and lessons learned from this experience 

that should improve our response in future catastrophic 

events. One of the most important lessons corresponds 

to the human reaction when subjected to such an event: 

while the first instinctive reaction is for self-preservation, 

the second one is to address the safety of the collections. 

The first reaction in most museums was to evacuate the building, although this was not the correct one 

for an earthquake response. The inconsistency in this 

response among the various Smithsonian units contributed to a delay in organizing the damage assessment by 

less than a quarter hour—the time it took to reestablish 

communications. 

The second instinctive reaction to check the safety 

of the collections cannot be undertaken individually because of the huge numbers and locations of collections at 

the Smithsonian. Depending upon the size and the storage conditions of the collections, such an effort requires 

mobilization of many individuals. Therefore, this second 

reaction requires prior organization and a concerted focus 

in order for it to be carried out rapidly and with maximum 

efficiently. For this purpose, training is required at all levels. This is one of the main lessons that was learned from 

this experience.

A. Elena Charola and 

Robert J. Koestler

Museum Conservation Institute

Smithsonian Institution
Acknowledgments

We thank the collaborators to this volume for sharing their experiences 

and preparing the chapters included in this issue. Special thanks are owed to 

Lynn P. Campbell, private conservator from New Zealand, for her collaboration in compiling the bibliography. Further thanks are due to the many who 

indirectly collaborated in the preparation of this volume: John Yahner from the 

Office of the Secretary; Bayne Rector from the Office of Facilities Engineering 

and Operations; Mark Bretzfelder from the Office of the Chief Information Officer; Rick Fary from the Museum Support Center; and Katharine C. Wagner 

from the Smithsonian Libraries. Appreciated also are those who collaborated 

in identifying or contributing (or both) some of the many photographs included 

in this issue: from the Smithsonian Institution are Sylvia Kendra, Lee Robertson, Walter Ennaco, Britti N. Hammond, and Larry Varner (Office of Facilities 

Engineering and Operations), Kristin Quarles (National Museum of Natural 

History core facilities), Daniel G. Cole (National Museum of Natural History, 

Office of Information Technology); and from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and 

State University are professors James Martin and Martin Chapman and former 

students Betsy Godfrey and Morgan A. Eddy. We also thank Sasha Stollman, 

private conservator from New Zealand, for sharing her experience of the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Last but not least, Ann N’Gadi from the 

Museum Conservation Institute is thanked for her invaluable help with solving 

all the small details that otherwise take up so much time.

G. Wayne Clough, Office of the Secretary, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, 

D.C. 20013-7012, USA. Correspondence: A. E. 

Charola, charolaa@si.edu. Manuscript received 

12 December 2013; accepted 18 March 2014.

Back to Back: The Earthquake 

and Hurricane of 2011

G. Wayne Clough

ABSTRACT. This paper is based on a presentation given at the Freer Gallery of Art’s 

Meyer Auditorium on 21 September 2011, nearly a month after an earthquake (23 August 2011) and Hurricane Irene (27–30 August 2011) passed through Washington, D.C. 

It briefly explains why this area suffered so much from an earthquake centered about 

135 km (84 mi) to the southwest and describes the reasons for the damage to various 

Smithsonian Institution buildings as well as other important monuments in this area. The 

fact that Hurricane Irene hit the area only four days after the earthquake exacerbated 

problems caused by the earthquake. Because of design variations in a large number of 

Smithsonian buildings in the Washington, D.C., area and in the subsurface conditions 

beneath them, some buildings, and the collections within them, were more damaged 

than others by the earthquake. Cracking of museum walls was relatively common and 

offered avenues for water movement and leaks during Hurricane Irene. In the end, we 

were fortunate that the issues were not more severe. Experiences like these provide us 

with a teaching moment that we can use to improve our ability to respond in the future. 

It also allows us as scientists and engineers to take a moment to learn from the messages 

nature is sending us.

THE EARTHQUAKE

On Tuesday, 23 August 2011, an earthquake occurred some 135 km (84 mi) 

SW of Washington, D.C., at 1:51 PM. The epicenter was located 8 km (5 mi) 

SSW of Mineral, Virginia, and occurred at a depth of 5.95 km (3.7 mi) with a 

magnitude of 5.8 on the Richter scale (Figure 1).

The area is located in the middle of the North American plate where intense 

earthquakes are rare. Earthquakes are more likely to happen along the edges 

of neighboring tectonic plates when they shove and push against each other, as 

is the case along the coast of California. The bedrock in the epicentral area of 

the Virginia earthquake is riddled by faults, almost all of which are considered 

inactive (Figure 2).

However historical records show that an earthquake the size of the Mineral 

event occurs on average every one hundred years or so. The faults of this region trend along a northeasterly alignment that is directed toward our nation’s 

capital. The earthquake on 23 August was generated on one of these faults, 

and the motions generated were directional, moving northeasterly toward the 

District of Columbia. The unique pattern of motion has been documented by 
2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) by means of strong motion measurements and through observed damage patterns 

(Figure 3).

 It has been postulated that the directional nature of 

the event was caused either by a sequential occurrence of 

two earthquakes, one smaller that triggered a larger one to 

the east of the first one, or by a unique structure within the 

basement rocks in the area of Mineral, which blocked the 

motions from travelling to the west and amplified those 

to the east. As with many earthquake issues, we are just 

beginning to learn how earthquakes work, and it will take 

time to sort the mechanisms out.

The earthquake epicenter was relatively shallow occurring about 6 km (~4 mi) below the surface along a reverse fault. A mock up of this type of fault and earthquake 

are shown in Figure 4. An earthquake generates waves 

that dissipate the energy unleashed during the event. There 

are a number of such waves, but for this discussion the 

most relevant ones are the compression (P) and shear (S) 

waves (Figure 5).

FIGURE 1. Area of Virginia showing the location of the town of 

Mineral, epicenter of the earthquake. (Data and map courtesy of 

Esri, 2011; map modified by Dan Cole, Smithsonian Institution.)

FIGURE 2. The Northeast region of Virginia has many faults (red lines); the red dots correspond to earthquakes. (Map courtesy of Virginia 

Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy.)
number 4 • 3

FIGURE 3. U.S. Geological Survey intensity map of the area around the earthquake epicenter at Mineral, Virginia. Note the higher intensity 

damage to the northeast of Mineral as a result of the aligned faults.
4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

office in the Smithsonian Castle (Castle). It took me a moment to realize we were having an earthquake since this 

was not California, but when it dawned on me, I asked 

those at the table to move under it or to get in the nearest doorway. I remained in my chair and counted, one 

thousand one, one thousand two, and so on until I felt the 

shear wave arriving at about 16 s. My guess was that the 

epicenter was 130 km, or 90 mi, away. In actuality it was 

125 km (~84 mi) away—not bad for an out of practice 

earthquake guy. 

The response of the Castle to the motions was interesting. The building is long and narrow and aligned 

roughly in an east–west direction, approximately in the 

direction of the earthquake waves as they travelled from 

the west toward the east through the District of Columbia 

region. As a result, when the earthquake hit the Castle, it 

was clear to me the motions were following a west–east 

pattern because I could feel the building wracking along 

its long axis. I heard blocks of the Seneca sandstone slide 

along their mortar joints. After the quake, the Parlor was 

filled with a light haze from the plaster and mortar particles that suffused the room, and there were diagonal 

cracks above the east–west doorways emanating from the 

corners of the door frames (diagonal cracks are sure evidence that the building was being shaken laterally along 

its long axis). In my office, the floor above the south wall 

had shifted enough to crack the plaster open along a line 

between the wall and the floor for the entire length of the 

wall. Sand and mortar particles covered my desk and computer cabinet. An engineering assessment showed that the 

The compression wave travels at a higher speed than 

the shear wave: 6.2 km/s and 3.6 km/s, respectively. This 

means that although they start at the same time, the wave 

fronts will separate from each other as they move farther 

from the epicenter. This is illustrated in four seismograms 

that were measured at different distances from the epicenter (Figure 6). The first wave arrival is the compression wave, and the second is the shear wave. The farther 

a given location is from the epicenter, the longer it takes 

for the shear wave to arrive and thus the greater the time 

delay between this arrival and that of the earlier compression wave. Because these phenomena are connected by the 

relative speed of the two waves, scientists and engineers 

have long used the time difference between the arrival of 

the shear and compression waves to calculate the distance 

back to the epicenter. The calculation depends a bit on the 

type of rock and its hardness, but roughly every second 

in separation corresponds to about 8.3 km distance from 

the origin. 

As an engineer who has worked in the earthquake 

field, and having lived in California and travelled to 

earthquake sites around the world in time to experience 

many aftershocks, I have often used the time separation 

rule myself to calculate rough distances to epicenters. The 

key is to remain calm during the event itself so that you 

can note the arrival time of the compression wave and 

count the seconds till the shear wave arrives. Easier said 

than done, especially the first time, but with experience 

it becomes second nature. When the Mineral event occurred, I was holding a meeting in my parlor next to my 

FIGURE 4. Depiction of rupture occurring along a reverse fault in 

the rock crust beneath the surface soil. (Diagram by Yun Liu, Smithsonian postgraduate Fellow, Museum Conservation Institute.)

FIGURE 5. The two dominant waves generated by the earthquake: 

the compression wave (P) and the shear wave (S). (Diagram courtesy 

of AlabamaQuake, http://alabamaquake.com/education.html.)
number 4 • 5

wall and floor were still tied together and the damage was 

largely superficial, for which I was grateful. It took several 

weeks to repair the plaster, and during this time mortar 

and sand rained down regularly on my desk. I joked with 

my friends in the Office of General Counsel on the floor 

above me that they had to stop dancing until the building 

was repaired. When workers finally came to my office to 

repair the damages there and in the Parlor, I asked that 

they leave the diagonal cracks over the door that connects 

my office and the Parlor, feeling that the Smithsonian is all 

about history and that we need to leave some evidence for 

those who follow us to see. After all, it is a great conversation starter! 

There are more lessons we can learn from this earthquake, and one of these relates to “soil or site amplification.” Typically, as the waves travel away from the 

epicenter, the amplitude of the motions steadily diminishes. This is much like what happens when you throw 

a rock into a calm body of water and the ripples steadily 

diminish in amplitude with distance from the impact. The 

FIGURE 6. Seismograms showing how the initial compression (P) waves and subsequent shear (S) waves separate as they move away from the 

epicenter. Note that the time unit labels on the x-axis start at 60 seconds after the reference time of 1:50:00 PM. The P-wave arrival at station 

URVA (University of Richmond) is at 72 seconds on the plot, which corresponds to 1:51:12 PM. The URVA seismogram looks different from 

the other three because the recording instrument was overwhelmed by the earthquake and lost sensitivity. (Graph courtesy of Virginia Tech 

Department of Geosciences.)
6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

Roanoke, Virginia. However, in the case of Blacksburg, 

Virginia, which is farther away from the epicenter than 

either Lynchburg or Roanoke, the waves suddenly show 

an amplitude level more like that found closer to the epicenter. This is caused by soil amplification at the Blacksburg instrument site. 

Both the Castle and the MSC are about the same 

distance from the epicenter, as is an instrumented site in 

nearby Reston, Virginia (Figure 7). At this site, peak bedrock accelerations reached 0.02 g (1 g = the acceleration 

of gravity), but it can be seen that measured accelerations 

at the top of the soil column reached a peak of 0.09 g, 

that is about a fourfold amplification of bedrock motions. 

Similar conditions exist under the Castle, where there are 

three soil layers above the weathered rock, similar to those 

at the Reston site (Figure 8). Suitland conditions are also 

much like those at the Castle. So in both cases it is highly 

likely that amplification occurred and played a role in the 

damages that occurred.

As noted, the 2011 earthquake is not the first time 

this area has experienced a seismic event. In thinking 

about our recent event, it brought to mind the work I 

had done in the 1980s investigating the 1886 Charleston 

same occurs with earthquake waves; as they move farther 

away from the epicenter they spread out and encounter 

more and more mass, and because the energy in the waves 

remains roughly constant it has less influence on the everlarger mass. But there is an exception to this rule and it 

occurs when the soil layers lying above bedrock have a 

natural frequency that closely matches that of the earthquake waves. This results in amplification of the bedrock 

motions at the ground surface. This occurred in the soils 

that underlie both the Castle and the Museum Support 

Center (MSC) in Suitland, Maryland. We cannot show 

definitive proof of this because we did not have an instrument to measure strong motions at the Smithsonian, 

but there were several instruments at locations nearby in 

Virginia that reflect similar conditions. Also, the stronger 

than expected damages at the Castle and at Suitland reflect 

this phenomenon. Thus, there is strong circumstantial evidence for soil amplification. 

The two phenomena of wave attenuation and soil amplification are illustrated in the seismograms in Figure 6, 

where it can be seen that, as the waves travel away from 

the epicenter, the motions typically lose amplitude—for 

example, compare the seismograms at Lynchburg and 

FIGURE 7. Seismogram for Reston, Virginia, which is a similar distance from the earthquake’s epicenter as the Smithsonian Castle in 

Washington, D.C., and the MSC in Suitland, Maryland. Difference in time (ΔT) of onset of the compression (P) and shear (S) waves 

is indicated by the black arrows. (USGS seismogram modified by Morgan A. Eddy, Steele Foundation LLC.)
number 4 • 7

earthquake. This earthquake was thought to be close to a 

magnitude 7, much larger than the Mineral earthquake. 

The epicenter was in Georgetown, S.C., 852.9 km (530 

mi) to the south of the District of Columbia, and occurred 

at 9:51 PM on 31 August 1886. The event caused large 

and extensive damages in Charleston; at the time the 

damage was little understood but was fortunately well 

documented by the first-ever post-earthquake investigation by the USGS. Later investigations, including those 

I conducted with my students at Virginia Tech, showed 

much of the damage was caused by liquefaction of loose 

sandy soil deposits, some formed as ancient beach deposits and some created as developers dumped loose sand to 

expand the land mass in Charleston. What intrigued me 

about the Charleston event was that I had read years ago 

it was strongly felt in Washington, D.C., and New York 

City. I asked Pamela Henson, director of the Smithsonian Institution Archives’ Institutional History Division, 

and her staff to investigate. They are always a fount of 

interesting information, and they discovered an article 

published by the Washington Post three days after the 

earthquake. 

Mr. Lucien M. Turner, of the Smithsonian Institution, . . . 

noticed two additional shocks yesterday, the first occurring at 

8:24 a.m. and the second at 5:15 p.m. . . . 

[T]he first shock on Tuesday night occurred at 9:53:31. “I 

was sitting in the south tower of the Smithsonian building, with 

my chair tilted back and my heels resting on the table. . . . I recognized the cause, and looked at my watch. An old gas-fixture, 

shaped like an inverted T, suspended from the ceiling . . . served 

admirably as a seismometer. Its heighth from the floor is six feet 

six inches and sixty-six feet six inches from the surface of the 

ground. 

The disturbance was so great as to cause the fixture to 

swing five inches. The oscillations . . . move[d] from west to 

east. The movements of the tremors were observed to last until 9:55 p.m. Several slight disturbances occurred until 10:04 

p.m. . . . At 10:08 p.m. a second series of tremors began. The 

first of these moved from north northwest to south southeast; the middle tremors had a peculiar, circulatory motion, as 

though changing direction. The latter vibrations of this series 

were certainly from east to west, as indicated by the fixture. 

This lasted until 10:09 p.m. A third series occurred at 10:30:10 

p.m., but were not so strongly characterized as the first, but 

FIGURE 8. Cross section of the ground under the Smithsonian Castle. There are 

three different soils above the weathered rock with a total thickness of some 24 m 

(~80 ft); Vs

 stands for the speed of the S wave. (Diagram courtesy of Morgan A. 

Eddy, Steele Foundation LLC.)
8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

The Smithsonian Castle (Figure 11) and other Smithsonian buildings were affected by the earthquake; some 

of the damage will be briefly described in the following 

subsections. Also some of the objects in our collections 

were damaged, but that damage will not be addressed here 

because subsequent chapters address that issue, such as 

those by S. Jabo; S. Peurach; A. Juneau and R. Everly; and 

J. Homiak. 

Smithsonian Institution Building (Smithsonian Castle)

A brief history of the Smithsonian Castle building is 

necessary to understand why the damage occurred where 

it did (Table 1).

The changes introduced in the East Wing of the Castle 

can best be appreciated by comparing the photographs 

taken before and after the reconfiguration (Figure 12). The 

main factors contributing to the damage suffered by the 

earthquake are the

• high, long, narrow shape of the building;

• tall, slender, unbraced towers and chimneys; and

• unreinforced masonry walls that are not tied to the 

floors and roofs.

Not only was there damage to the chimneys and towers 

(Figure 13) but also to walls as evidenced by cracks in the 

interior of the building (Figure 14).

National Museum of Natural History

The National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) 

(Figure 15) suffered damages, and again its construction 

history is relevant. The Main Building of the NMNH was 

completed in 1910, but it was soon realized that it was too 

small and four additions were made to it:

• The East Wing (completed by 1963)

• The West Wing (completed by 1975)

• The East Court infill (completed by 1990)

• The West Court infill (completed by 1998)

These additions are part of the problem that affected 

the building during the earthquake. The Main Building 

had not been designed to have additions attached to it. 

When the additions were made, each one used different 

structural systems and building standards, including seismological ones. Thus damage was induced as exemplified 

in Figure 16.

were more severe than those occurring at 10:08 p.m. The third 

series lasted until 10:31:15 p.m.” (Washington Post 3 September 1886)

So just when I thought I had been creative in observing 

our earthquake, it turns out Mr. Turner was right on the 

ball in 1886.

THE DAMAGES

The 23 August 2011 earthquake was strong enough 

to induce damage to several buildings and monuments in 

the District of Columbia, for example, the National Cathedral and the Washington Monument (Figures 9, 10).

FIGURE 9. The National Cathedral in August 2008 and detail of 

damage it suffered in August 2011 during the largest earthquake to 

hit the region in more than 100 years. Note that long and spiky objects tend to suffer more—three of the four high spires at the top of 

the cathedral were damaged. (Photos: Cathedral, courtesy NCinDC, 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ncindc/2794096753; spire detail, 

REUTERS, Jason Reed.)
number 4 • 9

Donald W. Reynolds Center for

American Art and Portraiture

The Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art 

and Portraiture (DWRC) (Figure 17) houses the Smithsonian American Art Museum (SAAM) and the National 

Portrait Gallery (NPG). The building was originally constructed for the U.S. Patent Office. It is an excellent example of Greek revival architecture and was built with 

unreinforced stone and brick walls and column supported 

porticoes. The floor systems include both masonry arches 

(and vaults) and brick and concrete arched spanning iron 

beams that bear upon the unreinforced masonry. The center courtyard cover is constructed of structural steel and is 

independent of the surrounding older masonry structure. 

When constructed, a flexible joint was designed to separate the new steel frame from the older structure. Table 2 

gives a brief chronology of the history of the building.

The damage was limited, with some cracks appearing 

in the Great Hall (Figure 18) of the NPG and the Luce 

Center of the SAAM (Figure 19). Because the cover structure of the central courtyard has a flexible joint it could 

move independently from the older masonry structure 

around it, avoiding significant damage.

FIGURE 10. The Washington Monument in September 2005 (left) and detail of the crack that developed across one block on the pyramidion 

during the August 2011 earthquake (right). (Photos: left, courtesy Corey L. Kliewer, Washington, D.C., Convention and Tourism Corporation, 

www.washington.org [http://www.flickr.com/photos/wctc/79492470]; right, National Park Service.)
1 0 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

FIGURE 11. The Smithsonian Castle (above) and damage that some 

of the towers suffered as illustrated by the displacement of blocks 

in the chimney (detail, left). These blocks are high-quality Seneca 

sandstone and each one weighs some 68 kg (150 lb). (Smithsonian Institution photos: Castle, Donald E. Hurlbert; chimney detail, 

Mark Avino.)

TABLE 1. Brief history of the Smithsonian Institution building, 

referred to as the Castle.

Year Event

1846 Board of Regents select James Renwick Jr.’s plans for the 

building.

1847 Cornerstone of building laid on 1 May. Exterior of East 

Wing and Range complete by 31 December.

1848 West Wing and Range under construction, foundation of 

Main Building begun.

1849 East Wing and Range complete and occupied.

1850 West Wing and Range complete and occupied. Main 

Building roofed and towers partially complete.

1851 Exterior of building complete 31 December.

1855 Lower Main Hall open to public. Henry family apartments 

done in East Wing. Construction of the Castle complete.

1865 Fire destroys upper Main Hall and Towers.

1884 East Wing and Range reconfigured and enlarged and 

completed within that year.
number 4 • 1 1

FIGURE 12. The East Wing in 1883 (left) and after reconfiguration in 1884 (right). (Smithsonian Institution photos: left, SI negative 86-11899, 

probably taken by Thomas W. Smillie; right, Thomas W. Smillie.)

FIGURE 13. Stabilization of damaged stonework underway on 26 August 2011. (Smithsonian Institution photo by Eric Long.)
1 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

construction took place in 1983, when earthquake loading was not taken as seriously as it is by today’s codes. Finally, as illustrated for the case of the Smithsonian Castle 

(see Figure 8), the subsoil conditions at the site are conducive to amplification of bedrock motions in an event 

like Mineral. In 2007, Pod 5 was completed, and in 2010 

Pod 3 was renovated. Both were built consistent with the 

Museum Support Center

The MSC is located in Suitland, Maryland, southeast 

of Washington, D.C. (Figure 20). The layout in pods that 

intersect at mid wall is less than ideal for earthquake resistance since this does not support passage of structural 

forces at a strong point of the structure. The original 

FIGURE 14. The Regent’s Conference Room (above) developed a 

crack (detail, left) that runs through the beam over the bow window. 

(Smithsonian Institution staff photos.)
number 4 • 1 3

FIGURE 15. The National Museum of Natural History on the Mall. (Smithsonian Institution photo by Chip Clark.)

FIGURE 16. Damage to an original 1911 structural beam, basement of Main Building (left) and face brick separated where East 

Court building connects with Main Building at a bridge walkway (right). (Smithsonian Institution photos by James DiLoreto.)
1 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

TABLE 2. Brief chronology of the Donald W. Reynolds Center 

(DWRC) for American Art and Portraiture.

Year Event

1865 Building completed. 

1877 Fire starts at the West wing destroying other parts of 

the building. 

1877–1885 Restoration of the fire damage and creation of the 

Great Hall.

1932 Patent Office moves out of the building, which is then 

used for the Civil Service Commission until 1963.

1958 Smithsonian Institution receives the building.

1964 Renovations of the interior begin to adapt it to 

museum use.

1968 SAAMa and NPGb move in.

2000–2006 DWRC renovations take place, including covering 

the center outdoor courtyard.

a Smithsonian American Art Museum.

b National Portrait Gallery.

FIGURE 17. The Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture. (Smithsonian Institution photo by Ken Rahaim.)

FIGURE 18. Cracks in the Great Hall of the National Portrait Gallery, 26 August 2011. (Smithsonian Institution staff photo.)
number 4 • 1 5

formed of steel framing and glass walls and roofs, did 

not suffer any damage because they were designed to 

the new codes and were built in a compact configuration 

(Figure 23).

HURRICANE IRENE

The damage induced by the earthquake was compounded by the arrival of Hurricane Irene on Saturday, 27 

August, only four days after the earthquake. It spanned 

nearly the entire east coast of the USA, from North Carolina to northern Vermont and reached the Canadian border (Figure 24). A state of emergency was declared in 13 

states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Wind 

gusts reached 60 mph (approximately 97 km/h) during 

peak periods, and 3–6 inches (7.6–15.2 cm) of rain fell. 

It was one of the 10 most expensive catastrophes that the 

USA has suffered, and losses have been estimated to cost 

more than $10 billion. More than 5.8 billion customers 

lost electricity nationwide, in some cases lasting over several weeks.

The Smithsonian Institution Disaster Management 

Program worked well, and staff worked diligently to prepare for the worst, which luckily did not happen. With 

more than 1,000 full-time employees working, only five 

injuries were reported. Officers at both the Cooper Hewitt 

and the Heye Center in New York City sheltered in place 

for two days to give protection coverage until relief could 

report for duty. 

The Office of Facilities Engineering and Operation as 

well as the Office of Protection Services successfully managed to keep different crews following each other over 24 

hours a day to evacuate buildings and museums, fill and 

move over 1,000 bags of sand (20 total tons), and cut and 

remove more than 30 fallen trees. Maintenance, custodian, and security officers worked double shifts (16 hour 

days) to repair damaged structures and equipment, clean 

buildings and exhibits, and secure buildings and collections during evacuations and assessments. 

CONCLUSION

The estimated required remediation that is to be implemented can best be assessed by putting numbers to it:

Earthquake total $ 27,025,450

Hurricane total $ 135,530

provisions of an improved earthquake code for the Washington, D.C., region. 

The structure suffered considerable damage as a result of the earthquake, but where it occurred is illustrative. Pods 3 and 5 were undamaged, both of which were 

upgraded to the new code, but Pods 1, 2, and 4, which 

were not upgraded, were damaged; Pod 2 suffered the 

most severe impact (Figure 21). Damages mainly consisted of cracking in nonstructural masonry infill walls, 

failure of steel stair framing connections to the structure, 

and broken pipes due to interaction with structural elements (Figure 22). Ironically, the new Smithsonian Gardens greenhouses located across the road from the pods, 

FIGURE 19. Cracks in the Luce Center of the Smithsonian American Art Museum, 26 August 2011 (Smithsonian Institution photo 

by James DiLoretto).
1 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

Engineering and Operation conducted of all structures 

and subsequent emergency repair, and the swift action of 

museum and conservation staff who worked tirelessly to 

document and repair as much of the damage as possible 

while preparing for the hurricane that arrived four days 

later. All of this was followed by extensive efforts to clean 

up and carry out minor repairs, work that was so competently done that our museums were closed for only the 

remaining hours of the day the earthquake hit.

Subsequent studies have been helpful for future design, and to this end we are grateful to the cooperation of 

USGS and the earthquake effects evaluation team of the 

National Science Foundation, led by Dr. James Martin of 

Virginia Tech. Without question, we can learn from every 

challenge, and the Mineral earthquake followed by Hurricane Irene illustrates that point well.

The actions required for earthquake remediation can 

be subdivided into three categories:

• Immediate emergency: repairs, staffing, and material 

costs of remediation

• Required emergency: design and construction of seismic upgrades and structural remediation

• Future advances: correct structural conditions to diminish risk to staff and visitors and prevent damage 

to facilities and collections

Although damage did occur to some Smithsonian 

buildings and collections, put into perspective it can be 

said that fortunately the damage was relatively minor. This 

can be attributed to the short duration of the earthquake, 

quick intervention by staff to cut off pipes that were broken, the prompt evaluation that the Office of Facilities 

FIGURE 20. The Smithsonian’s Museum Support Center in Suitland, Maryland. (Photo courtesy of Esri, 2014.)
number 4 • 1 7

FIGURE 21. Pod 2 damage: (a) cracks along north wall; (b) bolts sheared off from floor; (c) a beam supporting another floor separated from its 

anchoring; and (d) one of the larger gaps that opened during the earthquake. (Smithsonian Institution photos by Office of Facilities Engineering 

and Operations staff.)
1 8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

FIGURE 23. The Smithsonian Gardens greenhouses suffered no 

damage. (Smithsonian Institution staff photo.)

FIGURE 22. (a) G. Wayne Clough (second from left) and others 

examine a piece cracked off on “street” along Pod 3; (b) major crack 

along that same street; and (c) Clough examines an empty cabinet 

toppled over in mezzanine of Pod 1. (Smithsonian Institution photos 

(a, b) by staff and (c) by James DiLoreto.)

FIGURE 24. Hurricane Irene as it approached the eastern coast of 

the USA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration photo, 

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/2011

/h2011_Irene.html.)
Elizabeth C. Sullivan, Contractor/Lend Lease, 

Manager, Office of Planning Design and Construction, Smithsonian Institution; and Mary 

Rogers, Collections Program Specialist, National 

Collections Program, Smithsonian Institution, 

P.O. Box 37012, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, 

USA. Correspondence: E. Sullivan, sullivane@si

.edu. Manuscript received 12 December 2013; 

accepted 18 March 2014.

2011 Seismic Activity Quakes 

the Smithsonian: The Impact 

on Buildings and Collections

Elizabeth C. Sullivan and Mary Rogers

ABSTRACT. As a result of the 2011 earthquake, approximately 20 buildings in the 

Washington, D.C., area suffered some form of damage. Damages ranged from superficial plaster cracking to major structural issues. Within days of the earthquake, teams 

of engineers were assessing all of the Smithsonian buildings. For the most part, damage 

was determined to be repairable during the year or was postponed to coincide with 

either scheduled renovation or systems upgrade work in the next few years when funding 

would become available. While the structural evaluations and major work were carried 

out by personnel from the Office of Facilities, Engineering and Operations (OFEO) and 

contractors, all collections damage assessments were conducted mainly by Smithsonian 

collections management and conservation staff. Within hours of the earthquake, the National Collections Program (NCP) issued a request for a collections damage assessment 

to the heads of collections of each Smithsonian collecting unit. Within days, the NCP 

provided rolling updates to the Smithsonian’s Emergency Operation Center to inform 

it regarding the immediate- and longer-term response effort that would be required to 

ensure the continued safety of collections. This report highlights the approach taken in 

evaluating the damage to both structures and collections to organize and efficiently prioritize the required actions to address the suffered damage.

INTRODUCTION

At 1:51 PM on the afternoon of 23 August 2011, a 5.8 magnitude earthquake 

struck the mid-Atlantic region. Although the earthquake was centered in Mineral, 

Virginia, it was felt from Alabama to Indiana to Ontario, Canada. It is said to 

have been felt by more people than any other earthquake in U.S. history. In total, 

four aftershocks also rocked the region, with the first occurring within 12 hours 

and the strongest (4.5 magnitude) in the early morning hours of 25 August.

ORGANIZATION OF THE ASSESSMENT 

FOR SMITHSONIAN BUILDINGS

The Office of Facilities Engineering and Operations (OFEO) in coordination 

with facilities staff at Smithsonian Institution locations along the eastern seaboard 

immediately performed assessments of all facilities for any damage. Facilities were 

inspected for extent of damage, if any, and whether the damage impacted the safety 
2 0 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

Within a week of the earthquake the multiple email reports from across the Smithsonian had been compiled into 

a comprehensive list of damages, and work was already in 

progress for those requiring immediate emergency repairs 

(category 1). Within this category were the Castle, the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH), and the MSC 

(see additional information in chapters by Clough and by 

DePriest et al., this volume). At the same time, required 

emergency repair (category 2) projects were established for 

design and construction of seismic upgrades and structural 

remediation, as in the case of the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) (see additional information in 

chapter by Park, this volume). The OFEO also evaluated future capital projects to advance (category 3) for those facilities requiring envelope and/or structural corrections, such 

as the Arts and Industries Building (AIB) and the National 

Air and Space Museum (NASM) on the Mall. 

Minor damage was reported at most buildings across 

the area and consisted of fallen ceiling tiles and light fixtures, plaster and mortar joint compound debris, collapsed 

shelving, fallen sprinkler escutcheon plates, water damage 

from a few broken sprinkler lines, and additional miscellaneous fallen debris. These minor damages were repaired 

quickly at each location and, therefore, were not included 

on the comprehensive list of damages. Also excluded from 

the large damage list were other damages also reported 

and resolved soon after the earthquake, including a damaged gas line at NASM–Udvar Hazy Center; a broken dielectric union in the boiler plant and one off-line elevator 

at the National Museum for the American Indian Cultural 

Resource Center (see additional information in chapter by 

Estoque, this volume); a roof expansion joint failure on 

the southwest side of the NMNH Mall building; and a 

potential gas leak at the new Smithsonian Greenhouses in 

Suitland, Maryland.

As time passed OFEO evaluated over 25 structural 

reports from some nine engineering and design firms (see 

Appendix for a list of the most relevant ones) to determine the extent of damage for each facility and developed 

a spreadsheet to facilitate tracking of the ongoing repairs. 

Projects were set up for those facilities requiring repairs, 

and a “crack team” comprising OPDC and OFMR personnel was established to physically evaluate each location 

reporting smaller-scale, nonstructural damage. The crack 

team determined the extent of damage at all reporting locations and established a schedule for repairs. After the 

team completed its review of nonstructural damage, the 

OFMR prioritized the list for repairs. The majority of the 

items on this list have been repaired.

of visitors and staff or required the facility to be closed until a more detailed assessment could be performed. Four 

engineering firms (Thornton Tomasetti, McMullen & Associates, AECOM, and KCE) were engaged to conduct expedited structural evaluations of facilities reporting damage.

Within hours it became clear that several locations would require immediate stabilization, such as the 

Smithsonian Castle (Castle) and Museum Support Center 

(MSC), necessitating closure of the buildings until structural engineers could completely assess the damage and 

construction workers could be brought in to implement 

the stabilization efforts. At the Castle, multiple masonry 

towers and chimneys on the east side were damaged and 

could potentially cause additional damage if they were not 

secured or stabilized as soon as possible. At the MSC, stabilization of the staircases along the interior “Street,” or 

main corridor, was required as well as structural repairs to 

sheared bolts at various locations. It was also determined 

that the collections storage buildings, Pods 1, 2, and 4, 

had sustained extensive structural damage.

As multiple damage reports were verified and news of 

a hurricane hitting the metropolitan D.C. area within two 

days of the earthquake was received—a hurricane that 

could threaten the already damaged areas—the response 

to earthquake damage was divided into three categories:

1. Immediate emergency: repairs required for safety or 

to maintain open and operating conditions

2. Required emergency: design or construction of seismic upgrades and structural remediation

3. Capital projects to advance: projects previously identified in the five-year capital plan that would correct 

envelope and structural conditions, diminish risk to 

staff and visitors, and prevent additional damage to 

facilities and collections

By 29 August the Office of Facilities Management and 

Reliability (OFMR), Office of Protection Services, Office 

of Planning Design and Construction (OPDC; formerly 

Office of Engineering Design and Construction), and Office of Planning and Project Management had worked 

550+ hours of overtime in conjunction with multiple contractors and structural engineers to inspect all facilities, 

install emergency stabilization at damaged areas, and reinspect facilities following several aftershocks and Hurricane Irene. This resulted in the reopening of all buildings 

with the exception of the Castle, which opened on the following day after confirmation from the structural engineer 

that it was safe to do so. 
number 4 • 2 1

if not impossible, to move collections in one primary location. Approximately 15,000 cabinets at the Smithsonian’s 

MSC were misaligned and unbalanced as a result of the 

earthquake. 

The collections damage assessments began immediately 

after staff were allowed to return to their facilities on the 

day of the earthquake. Smithsonian collections management and conservation staff surveyed exhibition galleries 

to ensure collections would not endanger either visitors or 

staff and surveyed collections storage space in primary and 

off-site locations. Depending on the complexity of the storage space configurations, some assessments required only a 

quick walk-through to ensure storage cabinetry was stable, 

whereas other assessments included opening individual cabinets and drawers to ensure the safety of individual collection items. In some cases it took several additional days to 

reach off-site locations because of staff limitations or lack of 

access to the facility due to ongoing structural assessments. 

Whereas facility assessments were contracted to structural 

engineers, the collections damage assessments were conducted, and continue to be conducted, mainly by Smithsonian collections management and conservation staff.

In the days following the earthquake, the NCP provided rolling updates to the EOC in order to inform the 

immediate- and longer-term response effort that would be 

required in order to ensure the continued safety of collections. The NCP and museum staff worked with the 

Smithsonian’s Office of the Treasurer, Risk Management, 

to collect costs associated with collections stabilization in 

the event that the Smithsonian would decide to submit an 

insurance claim. Based on the experience gained, the following actions should be considered to enhance future response to earthquakes:

• Improve the proper designation and training of collections emergency response staff.

• Improve the ability to document efficiently and accurately the efforts put toward immediate collections 

assessment and stabilization as well as longer-term 

stabilization requirements. 

• Ensure quality control during installation and periodic 

inspection of stability of collections storage equipment, ensuring suitability to withstand seismic events.

• Reassess current collections storage methodologies 

and preventive housing practices to minimize collections damage in the event of a future seismic event.

• Expand risk assessment for exhibition preparation to 

include equal emphasis on seismic events during development of exhibition mounts.

Of all facilities reporting damage, the MSC, SERC, 

Castle, NMNH, NASM, and AIB (which was under restoration at the time of the earthquake) reported the most 

significant damage and required design services before 

construction could begin for any repairs. This damage 

was a mix of structural and nonstructural damage for 

which repairs have been completed for the Castle, AIB, 

and SERC. Design and construction costs to date for both 

earthquake and hurricane damage are approximately $4 

million; an estimated $16.5 million more is needed to 

complete all the repairs.

ORGANIZATION OF THE ASSESSMENT 

FOR SMITHSONIAN COLLECTIONS

Because the general public of the Washington, D.C., 

metro area has a lack of familiarity with seismic events, 

buildings were evacuated immediately after the earthquake 

and many federal workers were sent home. Communication lines were quickly overburdened with area workers 

trying to contact family members and colleagues. Until 

the Smithsonian’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) 

was activated and fully operational, it took several hours 

before the Smithsonian’s central collections coordination 

office, the National Collections Program (NCP), was able 

to issue a request to the heads of each Smithsonian unit’s 

collections division for collections damage assessment information. From this information the NCP would report 

on the magnitude of damage across the Smithsonian to the 

EOC, consisting of the secretary and senior managers, as 

well as to potential insurance agents.

Within two hours of the distribution of the NCP request 

for collections damage assessment reports, the majority of 

collecting units had replied with information that over the 

next several days proved to cover the greater part of collections damage, some of which is described in other chapters 

in this volume. The damage ranged from slight movement 

of objects on storage equipment to their escape from housing materials, storage equipment, or exhibition mounts to 

their breakage; there was also damage from fire suppression 

systems that were compromised during the earthquake.

While the Smithsonian Institution’s collections fared 

relatively well throughout the event, collections storage 

equipment sustained more extensive damage that required 

recovery beyond the time frame for collections stabilization. Mobile-aisle shelving became detached from rails; 

cabinet doors bent, rendering them unable to close or lock; 

and a collections elevator was disabled, making it difficult, 
2 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

CONCLUSION

Of the more than 20 Smithsonian museums or units 

in or near the District of Columbia, only 6 suffered major 

damage. The remainder required only minor building interventions to repair cracks, which in most cases could be 

carried out in-house. Similarly, only a minimal number of 

collection items suffered damage relative to the actual size 

of the Smithsonian collections and most were repaired. 

The prompt response of the Smithsonian staff at all levels 

was fundamental for the timely evaluations carried out 

and the subsequent interventions.

Although some Smithsonian collections were damaged, the number of collection items affected was minimal in relation to the magnitude of the earthquake and 

the sheer size of Smithsonian collections holdings. The 

Smithsonian is truly grateful for the dedication of its collections management and conservation staff who worked 

tirelessly around the clock to protect collections from 

harm in the wake of the earthquake and Hurricane Irene, 

which arrived four days later. The staff’s daily professionalism and standards of practice assured the safety 

of and minimal damage to our collections during these 

events.

TABLE A1. Main structural evaluation reports.</tab title> 

Building Contractor Date of report

Arts and Industries Building McMullan & Associates 29 Aug 2011

McMullan & Associates 9 Jan 2012

Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture McMullan & Associates 6 Sep 2011

Freer Gallery of Art McMullan & Associates 26 Aug 2011

Museum Support Center Thornton Tomasetti 7 Sep 2011

Thornton Tomasetti 19 Sep 2011

Thornton Tomasetti 29 Sep 2011

Ewing Cole 1 Aug 2012

National Museum of American History McMullan & Associates 2 Sep 2011

National Museum of Natural History McMullan & Associates 26 Aug 2011

Ewing Cole 20 Jan 2012

Ewing Cole 27 Jul 2012

Ewing Cole 4 Dec 2012

National Museum of the American Indian—Mall McMullan & Associates 26 Aug 2011

URS Corporation 6 Jul 2012

National Museum of the American Indian—Cultural Resources Center Thornton Tomasetti 29 Sep 2011

Van Deusen & Associates 17 Feb 2012

URS Corporation 22 Feb 2012

National Zoological Park (NZP-DC) AECOM 26 Aug 2011

NZP-DC Elephant House McMullan & Associates 15 Sep 2011

NZP-DC Pedestrian bridges and walkways McMullan & Associates 15 Sep 2011

NZP-DC Vehicle bridges McMullan & Associates 15 Sep 2011

National Zoological Park—Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, McMullan & Associates 29 Sep 2011

Officer’s Quarters buildings 0740, 9800, 1180

Renwick Gallery McMullan & Associates 6 Sep 2011

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC)—Homestead House Thornton Tomasetti 31 Aug 2011

SERC—Mansion ruins Thornton Tomasetti 31 Aug 2011

Smithsonian Institution Building (Castle) KCE Structural Engineers 12 Sep 2011

APPENDIX

The following table provides a listing of the initial structural assessments across the Smithsonian. Additional structural 

reviews were required as well to inform structural and nonstructural scopes of work for necessary repairs.
Sharon C. Park, Associate Director, Architectural 

History and Historic Preservation, Smithsonian 

Institution, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, D.C. 

20013-7012, USA; ParkS@si.edu. Manuscript 

received 12 December 2013; accepted 18 March 

2014.

Shake, Rattle, and Roll: Post-Seismic 

Stabilization of the Historic Homestead 

House at Smithsonian Environmental 

Research Center

Sharon C. Park

ABSTRACT. The historic Homestead House, on the campus of the Smithsonian’s Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Maryland, was damaged as a result of the 

unexpected earthquake of 2011. Preservation standards followed by the Smithsonian 

Institution call for the careful assessment of the historic character of a building in connection with a condition assessment to set parameters for interventions. Through a team 

approach using experienced historic preservation architects and a contractor with a long 

history of quality preservation work, the seismic repairs were undertaken to ensure that 

the proposed work maximized the retention of historic materials. Standard seismic repair approaches for newer construction with exposed bracing and substantial rebuilding 

was not appropriate for this structure, which is listed as a historic building by the state 

of Maryland. There are often conflicts between prescriptive building codes and the performance of historic building materials, and in this case the structural engineers initially 

were calling for more intense interventions based on conservative assumptions regarding 

materials. Ultimately, in-situ testing of the existing masonry walls was performed, and 

the historic building’s structural resistance was found to be sufficient to perform adequately without a more extensive intervention. The overall project and the improvements 

to the building’s future performance are outlined with examples of sound preservation 

treatments and approaches. At the time of preparing this report, the building repairs for 

the exterior restoration and the interior stabilization were recently completed.

INTRODUCTION

The historic Homestead House and its surrounding property (Figure 1) in 

Edgewater, Maryland, had been acquired by the Smithsonian’s Environmental 

Research Center (SERC) in October 2010. Eight months later, on 23 August 

2011, an earthquake struck the mid-Atlantic region of the USA. The epicenter 

of the 5.8 level earthquake was in Mineral, Virginia, about 200 km (125 mi) SW 

from Edgewater, Maryland.

The earthquake did enough damage to this almost 5,000 ft2

 (465 m2) 

residence to disengage the front porch, dislodge chimney bricks, create diagonal cracking in brick mortar joints, damage interior plaster, and create some 
2 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

of the repairs. The post-earthquake stabilization work 

along with the new roof allows the building to stay in a 

sound condition until plans are completed for the integration of this structure into a proposed future visitors’ center 

complex for SERC. As such, rehabilitation of the historic 

house’s interior with upgraded services and renewed or restored historic finishes will be undertaken at a later date.

Historic buildings through their traditional materials 

are often difficult to assess for compliance with modern 

structural code requirements. However they often have 

surprising resilience due to the quality of their construction, such as self-healing lime rich mortars, and the substantial dimensions of materials, such as full-size lumber. 

Historic preservation approaches traditionally adopt the 

less-is-more philosophy—the minimal intervention criterion—that encourages the protection of historic materials and overall character to the greatest extent possible 

with minimal impact from modern interventions (Look 

et al., 1997). And yet safety is of the highest priority at 

the Smithsonian, so there needed to be assurance that the 

preservation approach would still reach the required level 

of code compliance. The results of the thoughtful analysis 

that has taken place at the Homestead House meets both 

the preservation objectives as well as code compliance. 

When the interior work is completed on the house, the intervention will be barely noticeable to the general public. 

Even in its interim stabilized condition Homestead House 

will be ready should there be another episode of shake, 

rattle, and roll in the future.

BACKGROUND HISTORY

The historic house (Figure 2) became part of SERC in 

2010 when the terms of a life estate transfer for the neighboring property were fulfilled. The over 575 acres (233 

ha) of the surrounding Contee Farm had already come 

into the Smithsonian in 2008 and are an important extension of the mission of SERC. The Homestead House is 

listed as an historic property—the Y. Kirkpatrick-Howat 

Residence—by the Maryland Historical Trust (1970s) 

and is significant because of its early architecture and the 

prominence of the families who had maintained farms on 

this site since colonial times. Additional research and oral 

histories are needed to expand upon pre–Civil War activities in the area as they relate to the enslaved population 

that worked the farms and later settled as freed persons 

in the area.

The Homestead House is the first structure a visitor sees upon entering the 2,650 acres (1,073 ha) of the 

transitional cracks in interior walls. This made the house 

immediately questionable for continued use. A team from 

the Smithsonian’s Office of Facilities Engineering and 

Operations (OFEO), the on-site staff of SERC, the engineering firm of Thornton Tomasetti, and the Baltimore, 

Maryland, architectural firm of GWWO all came together 

to assess the damage and to propose solutions to any damage. Homestead House was the first of the Smithsonian’s 

earthquake-damaged facilities to be fully assessed and 

was the first to undergo comprehensive stabilization directly related to the earthquake damage (P. H. Dawson, 

Global Forensic Investigations. “Structural Inspection 

after Earthquake, Smithsonian Institution Environmental Research Center,” unpublished report, 16 November 

2011; Z. D. Kates, Thornton Tomasetti, “Post-Seismic 

Event Structural Assessment, SERC–Homestead House,” 

unpublished report, 31 August 2011).

The work, completed in the spring of 2013, benefitted 

from a building survey conducted prior to the earthquake 

in February 2011. The property was scheduled for a new 

roof and masonry repairs when the earthquake hit, which 

immediately delayed that work until a new assessment 

could be made. A key funding factor in moving forward 

with the expanded repair scope of work was the existence 

of an active insurance policy on the house from the previous owner; this policy contributed to the increased cost 

FIGURE 1. Aerial view of the Homestead House at SERC in Edgewater, Maryland, before the earthquake. (Google Earth Pro 2014; 

image U.S. Geological Survey 31 March 2005.)
number 4 • 2 5

wall section in addition to an oversized base at the north 

end, possibly for another chimney (Figure 3). The only 

section of the house that seems to fit right on the foundation is the middle kitchen section of circa 1735. This seems 

to indicate that portions of an earlier structure were lost, 

perhaps due to fire; this needs further study.

The earliest remaining section is the kitchen portion 

and is believed to be from 1731–1735 based on at least 

two exterior wall bricks pressed or marked with dates 

(Figure 4). The larger three-story section is typical of a 

vernacular Greek Revival brick structure with a side hall 

double parlor plan and was built by Daniel L. Fitzsimmons, a builder and carpenter from nearby Baltimore, 

who conveniently signed and dated his name on one of the 

attic joists (Figure 5).

The modern two-story section was constructed in 

1979 and used many energy-saving solar gain features; it 

has living space on the ground floor and bedrooms above. 

It was built on raised piers and used modern frame construction. The flexible nature of the building handled the 

earthquake shaking easily, and there was no apparent 

damage. Therefore, this section of the house will not be 

discussed in terms of remediation or repair.

research center, and it sets the tone for the significance of 

this property with its agricultural land and striking Rhode 

River escarpment. The shoreline of the Contee Farm property extended SERC’s original shoreline and forms a contiguous watershed landscape for more than 4 mi (6 km) of 

fields, forests, and wetlands to the Chesapeake Bay. The 

Environmental Research Center’s mission is to lead the nation in research on linkages of land and water ecosystems 

and to use its coastal zone property to study the critical 

environmental challenges of the twenty-first century. Defining the agricultural history of the property, of which 

Homestead House is a part, will complement the research 

on the natural environment of the region.

The house has an interesting and not fully explored 

history as it has not been part of the Smithsonian for very 

long. The current building is constructed of three parts 

(Figures 1, 2): an eighteenth-century dormered brick 

kitchen section, a nineteenth-century brick, three-story 

main residence, and a modern twentieth-century frame 

wing that replaced an earlier small nineteenth-century 

frame section. The aboveground composition sits above 

a stacked iron pyrite fieldstone basement foundation that 

is 20 × 42 ft (6 × 13 m) with an unusually wide perimeter 

FIGURE 2. Photo montage of the west elevation. Left to right, the larger section of the structure is from 1841, the midsection is circa 1735, 

and the wooden frame section is from 1979. Note that the porch over the front doorway on the 1841 section has been removed as a result of 

earthquake damage. (Photos and montage by Sharon Park, Smithsonian Institution.)
2 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

FIGURE 3. The plan of the first floor is superimposed on the existing basement foundation, shown with shading. The 1841 section sits only 

partially on the early foundations, which was of concern regarding its structural loading capacity. (Drawing by GWWO, Inc./Architects.)

FIGURE 4. An impression pressed into the historic brick prior to firing appears to be dated 1731 and may indicate the beginning of construction on this section. The historical record has dated this section 

circa 1735 for completion and is consistent with eighteenth-century 

structural and framing details found in the house. (Photo by Sharon 

Park, Smithsonian Institution)
number 4 • 2 7

along with its being nestled between two larger masses, 

resulted in only minor damage, that is, several dislodged 

chimney bricks, an easily repairable situation.

The brick main block, 29 ft 2 in × 42 ft 6 in (~9 × 

13 m), the largest section of the house, was built circa 1841. 

With an elegant front entry porch it is of a style appropriate 

for a country house in this region (Figure 7). Three stories 

tall, the floor plan has a side hall with a handsome staircase 

(Figure 8a) and two large parlors, each having large masonry fireplaces. The wall between the two parlors on the 

first floor contains handsome double doors (Figure 8b), and 

it is this wall that was of greatest concern both to the structural engineers and to the historic preservation architects.

For the 1841 section, the exterior window openings 

and doorways are all original, and the standing seam metal 

roof is a second-generation roof over original wooden 

shingles. The unreinforced masonry exterior walls are 12 

in (30 cm) thick and made of three wythes, or thicknesses, 

of brick. The wooden floor joists are a full 3 × 10 in (~8 

× 25 cm) spaced 16 in (~41 cm) on center; the interior 

masonry-bearing walls are 8 in (20 cm) thick and made 

up of two wythes of brick. The roof trusses are 3 × 9 in (8 

× 23 cm), taper to 3 × 5 in (8 × 13 cm) at the roof peak, 

and are connected to the third-floor ceiling joists. A rear 

porch has been missing since prior to the 1979 addition, 

and the front porch, original to the 1841 section, had serious enough earthquake damage to require the removal of 

its roof element.

A survey of the property, in preparation for the new 

roof and masonry repointing prior to the earthquake, 

EXISTING STRUCTURAL CONDITION

The earliest section is of unreinforced brick masonry 

with glazed headers in a Flemish bond pattern (alternating 

long and short bricks), one and one-half stories high, and 

approximately 20 × 20 ft (~2 × 2 m). It is in remarkably 

good condition for its age. With its massive fireplace it 

serves as the kitchen on the first floor and houses a hall, 

closet, and bathroom above, which are accessed by a 

curved closet staircase. Historically this upper loft room 

would have been one space heated by a small fireplace 

there, which shares the large chimney but has its own 

flue. The first floor, served by the large cooking fireplace, 

has darkly stained woodwork trim from the nineteenth 

century (Figure 6). The original beam over the fireplace 

is intact and reveals that the original eighteenth-century 

fireplace opening was taller than currently exhibited with 

the circa nineteenth-century fireplace mantel. The small, 

curved closet staircase and second floor are decidedly original with hand riven, or split, wooden lathe and horse hair 

plaster, historic eighteenth-century paneled doors with 

wrought iron HL hinges, hand wrought rose-headed nails, 

and original pine flooring.

While the interior of this eighteenth-century section 

has undergone updating over time, the exterior masonry 

and window and door openings are original to the design. 

The tin roof, scheduled for replacement in 2011, was most 

likely a third generation roof—the original roofing having 

been of wooden shingles, some still remaining in the attic. This section’s compact shape and good construction, 

FIGURE 5. Chalk markings in the attic on a wooden joist call out Daniel L. Fitzsimmons, Baltimore, 5 June 1841 as the builder. This date is 

consistent with construction and decorative details of the nineteenth century within the house. (Photo by Anson Hines, Smithsonian Institution.)
2 8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

revealed a number of deficiencies due to deferred maintenance while in a life tenancy situation. As such, particularly 

for the larger 1841 section, there were some settlement 

cracks on the exterior, some missing or weathered mortar, a few dislodged bricks, some intermittent leaks in the 

existing metal standing seam roofs, and original windows 

needing repainting and caulking (Figure 9). Even with 

these obvious deficiencies, including some earlier unsophisticated basement bracing to support aging floor framing, 

the house was in fair condition for its age. The earthquake 

exacerbated the existing condition and, therefore, required 

additional analysis and a larger scope for repairs.

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Load-bearing unreinforced masonry structures are 

strong in compression and weak in tension. When subjected to lateral earthquake loading, masonry walls tend 

to crack on the diagonal along joint patterns and tend to 

pull away from floor joists unless adequately anchored. 

Historic buildings were not generally constructed with 

what are known today as shear walls and diaphragms, 

building elements used to resist lateral earthquake loading 

and transfer these loads to the building foundation. However, thick masonry walls have inherent shear strength and 

FIGURE 6. The oldest section has served as a modern kitchen for many years. It received dark trim and a wider mantel in the nineteenth century. 

The door, corner, leads to the upper level via a small curved stair. This portion of the house did not receive much damage as it was protected by 

the structures on either side. (Photo by Raymond Jones, Smithsonian Institution.)
number 4 • 2 9

unpublished report January 2012, can be obtained from 

the Smithsonian’s Office of Architectural History and Historic Preservation upon request). As for historic preservation guidance, the Smithsonian’s historic preservation 

policy (Smithsonian Institution, 2005) has adopted the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the treatment of 

historic properties (Brown Morton III et al., 1997). These 

standards are a series of guiding principles that should be 

applied to decision making when historic properties are 

protected, preserved, rehabilitated, or restored. The standards call for minimal interventions, reversible interventions, repair over replacement of historic materials, and a 

can be used to withstand lateral loads and overturning 

caused by earthquake activity. 

 After the earthquake, all three sections of the house 

were studied for performance, not only for resistance to 

code level seismic and wind loads but also for floor gravity load capacity. The structural engineers used the International Building Code (IBC) of 2009 (International 

Codes Council, 2009), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE, 2005) standard 7-05, and the American 

Institute of Steel Construction (AISC, 2006) manual as 

the controlling documents for compliance and guidance 

(“The Homestead House Structural Stabilization Report,” 

FIGURE 7. Exterior of the 1841 section, shown several months before the earthquake, was stable, but the masonry was in need of repointing 

as a result of deferred maintenance. This work along with a new standing seam metal roof was in the planning stages but was delayed because 

of the earthquake. (Photo by David Wright, GWWO, Inc./Architects.)
3 0 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

FIGURE 8. The interior after the earthquake. On the left is the 

handsome side hall staircase. On the right (above) is the wall between the two parlors showing the Greek Revival details of paneled 

doors, corner blocks in the door frames, and one of the black marble 

surrounded fireplaces. This wall was of concern as to its possible 

weakness in shear capacity structurally, but it had no visible cracks. 

(Photos: left, Raymond Jones, Smithsonian Institution; right, Sharon 

Park, Smithsonian Institution.)

FIGURE 9. The exterior and interior of the 1841 section had suffered from deferred maintenance while the house was in a life tenancy situation. 

The exterior brickwork (left) was in need of repointing; and the basement (right) had a number of temporary bracing supports, which luckily 

kept the house from having major structural damage during the earthquake. (Photos by David Wright, GWWO, Inc./Architects.)
number 4 • 3 1

To determine the ability of the building to resist lateral seismic and wind loads, the in-plane and out-of-plane 

lateral capacities of the masonry walls were evaluated, specifically in the 1841 section. The lateral movement of the 

earthquake created a racking effect on the unreinforced 

masonry walls and caused diagonal cracking. The diagonal 

cracking was most evident at weak points along the walls, 

such as over doors and windows and between windows. 

There had been some earlier settlement damage, probably 

from the poor engagement of the exterior walls with the 

stone foundation, and so there had been some minor diagonal cracking documented. During the earthquake additional 

diagonal cracks appeared and existing diagonal cracks were 

exacerbated, which further indicated that the integrity of 

the exterior wall was compromised. The front porch also 

pulled away from the masonry wall and had to be removed 

for safety reasons (Figure 10, left). On the interior, transitional cracking occurred where the front and back walls 

pulled away from the floor framing (Figure 10, right). There 

differentiation between what is historic and what is new. 

There should be sensitivity when making alterations in 

order to protect historic materials and character-defining 

aspects of a property as well as an understanding of what 

might be a contemporary or added layer of treatment.

The analysis of the building began with an assessment 

of the gravity load-carrying capacities of the wood frame 

structural flooring system. It was determined by the structural engineers that the building had the loading capacity 

to handle typical office occupancies based on the IBC of 

2009. In addition, the roof trusses were analyzed for wind 

load, uplift, snow, and other downward gravity forces 

and found to be deficient only in uplift in certain wind 

scenarios. As the roofing was to be replaced, there was 

the opportunity to make certain tie down connections of 

the structural members during the proposed roof work. 

If the building in the future will need to support higher 

live loads, such as addition of a library, floors would need 

further reinforcement.

FIGURE 10. Exterior damage from the lateral movement created by the earthquake is seen in the pulling away of the front porch 

(left). Interior damage resulted in the separation of front and back walls from interior bearing walls and floor framing (right). 

(Photos by Steve Groh, Smithsonian Institution.)
3 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

were new plaster cracks, particularly along the stair hall, 

probably as the lateral movement of the tall first-floor wall 

slammed into the stationary exterior wall of the smaller 

1735 building. The analysis and repair recommendations 

called for reinforcing the horizontal floor diaphragms and 

anchoring connections between walls and flooring.

Extensive out-of-plane movement of the exterior 

bearing walls was observed (maximum of 2.5 in [6 cm] 

out of alignment at the second-floor level following the 

earthquake). The earthquake is believed to have exacerbated a slight bowing problem evident before the earthquake. The west and east exterior walls (front and rear) 

were most affected because the floor framing at both the 

first and second floors run parallel to these facades and 

are not laterally connected (or laterally braced) by these 

floor levels. This was particularly evident at the secondfloor level where the maximum outward movement was 

observed. The unsupported length of the wall from the 

first-floor level to the second-floor ceiling is approximately 

25 ft (~8 m). The out-of-plane bending stress in these walls 

exceeded the allowable tensile stress of unreinforced masonry, as determined by the structural engineers, which 

meant the walls would need to be tied into the floor framing to reduce the unbraced length of the walls and bring 

them into conformance. With input from the engineering 

team, it was concluded that repointing the masonry, even 

in the slightly bowed out condition, and tying the exterior 

walls into the floor framing would be sufficient stabilization (Figure 11).

The in-plane analysis, using modern computational 

models, looked at the masonry-bearing walls and found 

that only the internal north–south bearing wall between 

the two major rooms, the parlors, was deficient. This interior wall experienced, by technical computation, a shear 

stress of only 10 psi (pounds per square inch) whereas the 

code called for 19.9 psi. The predefined shear stress limit 

was determined using recommendations found in commonly used standards and is conservative due to the large 

variability in age of construction and material quality. Addressing this issue would require a major intervention: the 

construction of a new wood frame shear wall parallel to 

the existing masonry wall from the foundation to the third 

floor. The preservation architects asked for additional 

studies to be done to find a less invasive alternative. 

It was determined that an in situ test could verify the 

actual shear strength of the masonry wall and determine 

whether or not the wall needed to be strengthened (i.e., 

could the wall perform at better than 19.9 psi). A masonry 

mortar joint shear strength test was undertaken on the 8 

in (20 cm) thick interior masonry wall to see if the added 

interior shear wall would be necessary. The test followed 

method C as outlined by the American Society for Testing 

Materials standard (ASTM, 2009). It is a resistance test 

that uses a pressure pump and a flat jack plate inserted 

into narrow slots cut into the mortar joints on each side of 

selected bricks (Figure 12). The flat jack exerts increasing 

pressure on the side of the selected bricks until horizontal 

movement of the brick is observed. The actual shear stress 

in the horizontal joints is calculated and, based on established ASTM formulas and applying conservative safety 

factors, the allowable shear stress limit is determined. The 

results of the in situ testing concluded that the shear stress 

limit for the wall is 32 psi, not 10 psi as previously expected. Therefore the proposed new shear wall was eliminated from the scope of work.

FIGURE 11. The diagram illustrates how floors need to be tied to 

exterior walls to reduce the amount of lateral deflection and therefore damage to the facades. There was extensive lateral cracking that 

occurred at the Homestead House because the second floors were 

not adequately connected. (Diagram by Thornton Tomasetti, Structural Engineers.)
number 4 • 3 3

are stainless steel to ensure a long life and avoid future 

corrosion (Figure 13).

Due to the significance of this property and the fact 

that so many of the original features were still in place, 

options were discussed as how best to preserve the greatest amount of historic material and details. In order to 

minimize the visual effect of the reinforcements being 

added, particularly the exposed wall plates, the anchorage would be concealed in the joists themselves and not 

with added interior shelf angles or new beams visible in 

the historic rooms. By using the space between the floors, 

the old growth historic wood flooring could be protected 

but the plaster ceilings would be disturbed. It was decided 

that it was better to invade the ceilings, which could be 

repaired more easily than the floors. Likewise with the 

plaster walls, it would be best to remove the plaster only 

around the affected cracking to make repairs and then to 

replaster to match the visual appearance of the historic 

PROPOSED REPAIRS

It was clear that there needed to be a number of reinforcements to strengthen the 1841 section of the house. 

For example, at locations where the joists run parallel to 

the exterior walls, the walls needed to be tied to the floor 

framing to reduce the unsupported lateral height of the 

exterior walls. A system of metal tie bars and wall anchors, sometimes called patress (or pattress) plates, was 

designed. As this is a modern intervention, it was decided 

that the new exposed anchors would not mimic the historic black iron stars but would use small circular discs 

as the external elements to establish that they were new, 

subtle interventions. The anchors would be totally removable without damage (only a drill hole in the joists 

that could be plugged) and clearly contemporary, thereby 

meeting goals of historic preservation to be differentiated 

from the historic and reversible. The end plates selected 

FIGURE 12. The shear stress wall test (left) is a fairly nondestructive test. The several slots made in the walls to place the flat plate jacks (right) 

are easily repointed after the test. This pressure test proved that the wall, which had shown no visible cracking after the earthquake, was not 

in need of reinforcement, which would have been an extensive, invasive, and expensive undertaking. (Photos: left, FMC & Associates; right, 

Sharon Park, Smithsonian Institution.)
3 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

walls (Figure 14). In less sensitive areas, such as the basement, the structural repairs could be more visually obvious; in this case all the historic timbers were saved even 

though many were strengthened with visible new adjacent 

framing members.

Preservation principles also directed that new mortar 

to replace the deteriorated exterior mortar would match 

the historic in composition, color, and pointing details. 

This was important as the two different periods of older 

construction, circa 1735 and 1841, respectively, had differing conditions and details. Interestingly, both sections 

had mortar of similar color, which is mostly derived from 

the sand and aggregate that historically was generally from 

a local source. The compositions also contained shell fragments consistent with being located along a river and tidal 

area. The 1841 section, unfortunately, had been selectively 

FIGURE 13. In order to tie the floor framing to the exterior walls, the 3 × 10 in (~8 × 26 cm) joists closest to the affected exterior walls were 

drilled from below to thread new 4 ft (~1 m) long tension rods every 4 ft or so to be anchored by a bolt on one end and a decorative disc plate 

on the exterior (left). The stainless steel disc has a black baked on finish (right). (Diagram, left: Thornton Tomasetti, Structural Engineers; photo, 

right: Sharon Park, Smithsonian Institution.)

FIGURE 14. Images, once plaster was removed, show the diagonal cracks over a doorway before (left) and after (right) repointing. As with other 

interior repairs, the plaster will be replaced at a later date. (Smithsonian Institution staff photos.)
number 4 • 3 5

match their unique historic appearance. Missing bricks 

at the chimney, entrance porch, and window heads used 

bricks reclaimed after the earthquake or from nearby salvage supplies. Several of the cracked or aged stone window 

sills were repaired or replaced with matching stone sills to 

ensure a complete exterior refurbishment (Figure 15).

The roof was already scheduled for replacement. The 

old metal roofing and sheathing was stripped off, additional ventilation was discreetly added to the gable ends to 

extend the roof’s life, and the roof rafters were strapped to 

the second-floor ceiling joists to complete the structural tie 

downs recommended by the engineers. The new roof is of 

a similar standing seam configuration as before the earthquake. Figure 16 shows a view of the house after completion of the intervention in spring of 2013.

CONCLUSION

The Smithsonian undertook this work with a team of 

seasoned professionals in an expedited manner. As some 

design work had already been undertaken for the new 

roof and masonry repointing prior to the earthquake, a 

design assist contract was established with the contractor 

to facilitate integrating the seismic repairs. To that end, 

the Smithsonian, the architectural firm, the structural engineers, and the contractor worked together to refine details as the work was underway. The project was initiated 

repointed in the twentieth century with very hard Portland 

cement-based mortar, which was causing additional spalling decay of the bricks. So the repointing of the exterior 

walls to strengthen them would also be corrective and extend the future of the brickwork by using an appropriate 

softer, pliable lime-based mortar. For the most part, the 

old mortar was removed by hand (no grinders or power 

tools to avoid damaging the brick joints) and replaced by 

masons experienced in working with lime mortars on historic buildings. The brick surfaces were washed using a 

garden hose, natural bristle brushes, and water (no power 

washing or chemicals) to remove surface dirt prior to repointing and to prepare the brick for the lime mortar. 

The replacement mortar for historic buildings needs to 

be weaker in composition and more porous than the bricks 

so that moisture in the walls can evaporate through the 

mortar as part of the natural performance of the wetting 

and drying of masonry walls. This is particularly important in the mid-Atlantic region where freeze–thaw action 

can result in spalled bricks when too hard a mortar mix 

has been used. As such, the mortar mix mimicked the historic mortars, which were rich in natural hydrated lime 

and sand and aggregate from a local source and contained 

no cement. The repointing of the majority of the exterior 

will unify the exterior walls in a way to strengthen them 

and to distribute stresses throughout the wall. The color of 

the sand and the tooling of the joints have been designed 

specifically for each of the two sections of the house to 

FIGURE 15. The image on the left shows the two eras of brick and mortar work. Mock-ups were developed to test for specific composition and 

appearance to match each era. On the right is seen a sample for the 1841 section with the bottom two courses of new lime-rich mortar with shell 

aggregate to match the upper course by the blue tape. The 1735 section had a slightly different aggregate mix and a tooled joint detail. (Photos: 

left, Raymond Jones, Smithsonian Institution; right, Bryan Fisher, GWWO, Inc./Architects.)
3 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

the lateral strength of the wall. The repointing of the masonry corrects earlier damage from inappropriate use of 

hard mortar and gives more homogeneity and a better appearance to the wall surfaces. The new rod and plate wall 

anchors tie the walls and framing together, and the interior 

transitional cracks, now stabilized, can be cosmetically repaired at a later date. The new roof, flashings, gutters, and 

downspouts for all three sections provide a sound top to 

the house and management of rainwater away from the 

basement. The structural strengthening of the first floor 

framing now meets code requirements as well. The new 

rebuilt entrance porch gives a fine appearance from the 

road as well as a welcome entrance once the house is refurbished as part of the future visitors’ center. The house will 

in the spring of 2012, and most of the stabilization and 

exterior work was completed by the end of that same year.

And so the lesson learned in this exercise was that the 

most affected part of the historic house, even though over 

170 years old, performed better than modern assessment 

formulas anticipated. The repair and strengthening work 

followed sound preservation principles, and the OFEO 

team took care to give the contractor good direction. 

While the house did need additional connections to tie the 

walls to the floors and to tie the roof framing to the ceiling joists, on the whole the interventions are modest and 

not particularly visible. The interventions go through the 

more repairable materials, and the proposed major new 

interior shear wall was eliminated after physical testing of 

FIGURE 16. The Homestead House after completion of the intervention in spring 2013. (Photo by Sharon Park, Smithsonian Institution.)
number 4 • 3 7

REFERENCES

American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). 2006. Steel Construction Manual, 13th ed. Chicago: AISC. 

American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM). 2009. “Standard Test 

Methods for In Situ Measurement of Masonry Mortar Joint Shear 

Strength Index.” ASTM C1531-09. West Conshohocken, Pa.: 

ASTM.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2005. Minimum Design 

Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE 7-05. Reston, Va.: 

ASCE.

Brown Morton III, W., G. L. Hume, K. D. Weeks, H. Ward Jandl, and 

A. E. Grimmer. 1997. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services.

International Codes Council. 2009. International Building Code (IBC), 

6th printing, Washington, D.C.: International Codes Council.

Look, D. W., T. Wong, and S. R. Augustus. 1997. The Seismic Retrofit 

of Historic Buildings: Keeping Preservation in the Forefront. Preservation Briefs 41. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. http://

www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/41-seismic-retrofit.htm 

(accessed 27 December 2012).

Maryland Historical Trust. 1970s. Inventory of Historic Properties: 

Y. Kirkpatrick-Howat Residence. Maryland State Archives. http://

www.mdihp.net/dsp_county.cfm?criteria2=AA&criteria1=Y (accessed 22 May 2014).

Smithsonian Institution. 2005. Historic Preservation Policy. Smithsonian 

Directive 418. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

be safe and should survive another round of shake, rattle, 

and roll with strength and dignity.

Acknowledgments

I acknowledge and thank the following three teams 

for their collaboration in the project:

1. The Smithsonian team: Anson Hines, Director, SERC; 

Bob Gallagher, Deputy Director, SERC; Steve Groh, 

Project Manager, Office of Planning and Project Management (OPPM); Sharon Park, Associate Director Architectural History and Historic Preservation, OPPM; 

Raymond Jones, Construction Manager, SERC; and 

Kenneth Williams, Office of Facilities Management 

and Reliability

2. The GWWO team: David Wright, Principal and Senior Preservation Architect; Bryan Fisher, Preservation Architect; and Mark Tamaro, Zachary Kates, 

and Neil Satrom of Thornton Tomasetti, Structural 

Engineers

3. The Construction team; Worcester Eisenbrandt, specialists in historic preservation projects; and Edifice 

Group, general contractor.

Steve Jabo, Museum Specialist, Department of 

Paleobiology, MRC-121, National Museum of 

Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. 

Box 37012, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, 

USA; jabos@si.edu. Manuscript received 12 December 2013; accepted 18 March 2014.

Examination, Repair, Consolidation, 

and Conservation of the Natural History 

Museum’s Fossil Specimens

Steve Jabo

ABSTRACT. Among the myriad of concerns after the Mineral, Virginia, 2011 earthquake was the large and storied fossil collections at the National Museum of Natural 

History in Washington, D.C., and the Museum Support Center in Suitland, Maryland. 

These collections consist of over one and one-half century’s worth of collecting of over 

40 million specimens of fossil vertebrates, invertebrates, paleobotanical samples, microfossils, tracks, burrows, and dung spanning 3.1 billion years of geologic history. Many 

of these specimens are holotypes (first published name bearers) and are very brittle and 

fragile, so damage due to vibration was a real concern and a real possibility. The day 

after the quake, Department of Paleobiology personnel began examining and assessing 

the fossil collections, starting with the exhibit specimens. Overall, the fossils sustained 

very little damage from the earthquake. A few specimens fell or cracked, but there were 

no catastrophic events. The design and composition of various brackets, as well as how 

a bracket was fastened to the wall, factored into why some specimens were damaged. 

These same factors also determined why some specimens were spared significant damage. 

Most of the specimens that fell out of their brackets did not have a holder at the top, and 

they fell forward during the shaking. Other brackets were not secured well enough in 

the wall and vibrated out or rotated. The vertebrate fossil mounts did not sustain much 

damage because, in part, of the springiness of the steel armature. The steel flexed and absorbed much of the energy of the quake. Another probable reason of less damage is that 

the paleobiological collections and exhibits are on the first and ground floors, sustaining 

less vibration than did higher floors.

HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL 

HISTORY’S FOSSIL COLLECTIONS

The National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) retains over 40 million 

fossil specimens of vertebrates, invertebrates, paleobotanical samples, microfossils, tracks, burrows, and dung spanning 3.1 billion years of geologic history, 

fossils that have been collected dating back to the mid-1800s. Throughout this 

over a century and one-half period, a variety of storage, conservation, and exhibition techniques have been employed on these specimens, almost always with 

the long-term durability of them as the primary consideration. However, there is 

a high probability that guarding against a fairly strong, local earthquake never 

entered the thought processes regarding these considerations. 

One of the public’s major misunderstandings about many types of fossils regards their inherent fragility and instability. It is sometimes assumed that fossils 
4 0 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

are just a type of “rock,” that they are virtually indestructible. But the reality is that a majority of fossils—fossil 

bones, especially—are extremely brittle and susceptible 

to damage by chronic ambient building vibration, acute 

visitor vibration, and chemical alteration due to reactions 

with water vapor in a high humidity (>50% relative humidity) environment. Over the millennia, iron sulfides, alkali salts, and other compounds that are fairly stable at 

low humidity get deposited in bones and react with water 

vapor to produce substances, such as sulfuric acid salts, 

that grow within the bone interstices and slowly and irreversibly destroy the bone material from the inside out. The 

presence of these aggressive compounds makes the fossils 

much more susceptible to damage from vibration.

To try to stabilize and preserve them, a wide variety 

of compounds such as shellac, varnishes, beeswax, nonarchival resins, plasters, and home-cooked brews of organic 

glues have been indiscriminately applied to fossils since 

they were first collected. The chemistry of fossils was virtually unknown in the past, so fossils were treated more 

like modern wood or rock rather than permineralized organic material. Fortunately, the field of fossil conservation 

and preservation has advanced by leaps and bounds since 

the 1840s, especially in the past couple of decades. Unfortunately, protecting the NMNH fossil collections with 

the latest conservation techniques presents an enormously 

challenging undertaking. Great progress is being made, but 

complete coverage of all the fossils in all of the collections 

has not yet been achieved. For vertebrates, professional 

conservators today recognize just a few compounds suitable for archival consolidation and adhesion. For consolidation, polymers dissolved in acetone or alcohol, such as 

polyvinyl butyral B-76, ethyl methacrylate copolymer B-72, 

and polyvinyl acetate B-15 are acceptable; for adhesion, 

archival compounds are limited to the same polymers at a 

higher viscosity, as well as some slow-setting epoxies. And 

these compounds should be applied only when consolidation or adhesion is necessary, not as a common practice on 

all specimens all the time. Over-applying consolidants on 

bone surfaces can cause differential torsion on the bone as 

the solvent volatilizes and consolidant sets, creating more 

damage than if no consolidant had been applied.

Storage techniques, especially for vertebrates, have 

historically ranged from placing fossils as-is on a wooden 

shelf with no support along the length of the bones, imbedding them in a plaster base, placing them directly onto 

a plaster base without padding, making rudimentary plaster cradles (padded and unpadded), and mounting them in 

a skeleton by drilling holes through the bones to bolt them 

directly to steel armature to today’s method of making 

custom-fit padded plaster clamshell jackets for individual 

bones (Figure 1).

Non-vertebrate specimens, such as rock slabs containing trilobites or fossil wood, are generally more stable and 

require less complex conservation methods. However, silicified invertebrates that have been dissolved out of carbonate rock are extremely fragile and require special care 

in the collections and exhibit.

THE FIRST DAYS AFTER 

THE EARTHQUAKE

On the afternoon of 23 August 2011, after a brief 

period of “sheltering in place” while it was being determined there were no immediate hazards to personnel from 

falling building materials, museum staff were evacuated 

from the NMNH. They were not allowed to return to the 

building until the next morning, after the internal architecture had been deemed safe by structural engineers. During 

the following five days, the following activities took place.

Assessment of the Exhibit Halls’ Specimens

Starting on the morning of 24 August and continuing 

through the next several days, staff from the Vertebrate 

Paleontology Preparation Lab began to assess the condition of the fossil specimens. In order to open as much of the 

museum as soon as possible, assessments started with the 

exhibit specimens, specifically the large vertebrate mounts 

FIGURE 1. Padded storage jacket containing a theropod dinosaur 

leg bone from the collection. (Photo by Steve Jabo, Smithsonian Institution.)
number 4 • 4 1

writing, the slab had not yet been examined, and the supposed crack or break could be an old repair.) Some very 

delicate silicified Permian marine invertebrates etched out 

of limestone were jostled out of position in their brackets and slightly damaged. Two relatively small specimens 

in the Ocean Hall, a Cambrian Burgess Shale Wiwaxia

specimen and a Silurian Eurypterus on slabs of rock, were 

broken when they fell out of their brackets (Figures 2, 3, 

respectively).

The causes of the damage—and the reason why some 

of it wasn’t as bad as possible or expected—are relatively straightforward. Damage occurred because fossil 

bones are extremely brittle and susceptible to cracking 

from torsion and uneven stresses along their length. High 

neural spines on the back of a sauropod dinosaur would 

be susceptible to damage as the mount shook back and 

forth and so forth. Bracketed specimens vibrated in their 

brackets, sometimes causing the bracket to loosen from 

the wall, or rotate or sometimes work its way out of the 

with skeletal elements overhanging the visitor passageways 

that might cause a hazard to anyone below. Surprisingly, 

there was very little damage to the mounted fossil vertebrates, some of which had been installed for 70 or 80 years. 

The damage found was relatively minor, such as a 

broken tooth on a Pleistocene giant ground sloth, a broken femur on the Allosaurus dinosaur, a chipped leg bone 

and broken neural spine on the Diplodocus dinosaur, and 

other small breaks on fossil mammals. In total, seven vertebrate mounts or bones on exhibit were damaged. None 

of the damage created a visitor hazard.

Further assessment of the Paleontology Hall and the 

Sant Ocean Hall revealed some damage and jostled invertebrate and paleobotanical specimens, none of which was 

catastrophic. Two upright fossil tree trunks (Araucarioxylon) were cracked through in a couple places but were stable in their brackets. A Devonian plant (Zosterophyllum) 

on small slab of rock behind a Plexiglas vitrine appeared 

to be broken but was stable in its bracket. (As of this 

FIGURE 2. Broken slab of Burgess Shale rock containing a 500-million-year-old soft-bodied Wiwaxia fossil. (Photo by 

Steve Jabo, Smithsonian Institution.)
4 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

sloth, it appears the spring of the steel worked against the 

specimen, allowing the lower jaw to “chatter” against the 

maxilla and knock off a canine (eye tooth) (Figure 6).

However, any positive flexure characteristic of these 

armatures is not a full endorsement of their mounting 

materials and methods. For instance, many mounts have 

drilled bones held in place by bolts and nuts, and there 

is no padding of felt or urethane between the steel and 

the bones. These will have to be corrected in any future 

re-mounting projects. Newly installed mounts of real 

bone, such as the Triceratops, Diceratops, and Centrosaurus skulls and the juvenile Brachyceratops skeleton, 

have rubber shock absorbers between their bases and the 

floor, and the bases are physically separated from the exhibitry decking with a small gap on all sides. Even though 

these features were designed to eliminate the ambient, 

chronic building vibrations, they also seemed to have 

worked well for acute, higher-amplitude shaking during 

the earthquake.

wall. The first reason the damage was minimized is probably because the Paleontology Halls are on the first floor, 

and the effects of the earthquake were less pronounced 

there than on the higher floors. Additionally in the case of 

the vertebrate mounts, the armature design and the flexibility of steel appear to be the main contributing factors 

as to why the bones were minimally damaged. Despite 

the fragility of fossil bone, the energy of the earthquake 

was dissipated in the spring of the bent steel between the 

limb elements; they seemed to have been able to “ride it 

out” on the steel for the most part. Some damage did occur at areas where the armature was fixed and rigid and 

not able to flex. For example, cracks occurred in a foot 

bone of the Edmontosaurus, in the femur of the Allosaurus (Figure 4), and at the base of an antler of the Irish elk 

(Figure 5).

If the bone elements weren’t mounted too closely together, there was not much contact by them or grinding 

as the steel flexed. In the case of the La Brea giant ground 

FIGURE 3. Broken slab of limestone containing a 425-million-year-old Eurypterus (sea scorpion) fossil. (Photo by Steve Jabo, 

Smithsonian Institution.)
number 4 • 4 3

by agate, microcrystalline quartz, at the molecular level. 

They were strapped into place with steel bands and apparently succumbed to the vibrations.

The bracket design of the slab mounts in the Sant 

Ocean Hall was at fault for the resulting damage there. 

Though the brackets were held tightly to the wall, the 

specimens were supported by only two arms at the bottom 

and stayed in place by gravity. As they shook during the 

earthquake, the specimens simply fell forward and flipped 

out of their brackets. The problem was solved by attaching a small bracket arm over the top of the specimen.

Assessment of Specimens in the Collections

and the Director’s Office

Examination of the fossil collections, the bulk of which 

dealt with the more vulnerable oversized fossil vertebrates, 

occurred immediately after the exhibit hall examinations 

were completed. Although specimens were jostled a bit on 

The majority of the damage to the invertebrate fossil 

specimens in the Paleontology Halls happened to the silicified specimens. Silicified fossils that have been etched out 

of limestone blocks, such as Permian bryozoans, brachiopods, and mollusks, are by their nature extremely fragile and vulnerable to breakage at the slightest touch. The 

original calcite and aragonite that comprised their structures has been dissolved out and incompletely replaced 

with silica over the millennia. When the specimens are 

acid etched out of the limestone what remains is a very 

light, airy, and brittle cast of the original. As these exhibits 

were vibrated and bounced in their brackets, they were 

abraded and pieces broke off and fell to the floor of the 

case (Figure 7).

The only real damage to the paleobotanical specimens 

appears to have been when two trunks of Araucarioxylon, a Triassic conifer, were each cracked through while 

standing upright in the exhibit (Figures 8, 9). These fossils 

were formed when the original plant cells were replaced 

FIGURE 4. The broken femur on the exhibit Allosaurus dinosaur. (Photo by Steve Jabo, Smithsonian Institution.)
4 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

FIGURE 5. Pleistocene-aged Irish elk with a crack through the base of its antler. (Photo by Steve Jabo, Smithsonian Institution.)

FIGURE 6. Pleistocene-aged giant ground sloth with a broken canine (eye tooth). (Photo by Steve Jabo, Smithsonian Institution.)

FIGURE 7. A group of silicified fossils that were acid etched out of 

limestone bounced out of their cradle and abraded against the display case. (Photo by Steve Jabo, Smithsonian Institution.)
number 4 • 4 5

of the oversized shelving is covered in 1 in (2.5 cm) Ethafoam, which dampens any vibrations. Almost all, if not 

all, drawers in the storage cabinets are lined with 0.25 in 

(0.6 cm) Ethafoam or polyester felt.

The few vibration-related issues that were found in 

the collections were limited to the shifting of an upright 

Triceratops skull on its plaster base, the exacerbation of 

some of the skull’s existing cracks, and the movement of 

some other specimens on the shelving. Discoveries of some 

broken specimens in drawers, such as fragile Stegosaurus

plates, have subsequently been reported; more finds like 

these in drawers and on shelves undoubtedly will continue 

as work on the collections continues.

Several esthetically pleasing paleobiological specimens are on display in a large case on the top floor in the 

director’s office. Damage to two of these specimens was 

observed soon after the earthquake. A crinoid on a slab 

of limestone fell and damaged a mammoth jaw, from the 

Department of Anthropology, below (Figure 10).

Again, the reason for the damage in the director’s office was the design and installation of the fossil’s brackets. 

The bracket holding the crinoid slab consisted of eight, 

0.125 in (0.3 cm) diameter brass rods that were flattened 

and slightly curved inward at their ends. Each rod was 

held in place by the mild pressure of its hole in the backboard. As the rods vibrated during the quake, some became loose in their holes and either rotated or fell out. 

Other specimens in multi-armed brackets affixed to the 

backboard as described above merely rotated from their 

original position. Fortunately, nothing fell out of the rotated brackets. In defense of the bracket makers, these 

brackets worked very well for years and were perfectly 

capable of holding their specimens but were not designed 

for fairly strong earthquakes given their rare occurrence in 

the Washington, D.C., area. 

FIVE DAYS TO FIVE MONTHS 

AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE

In the days and months following the earthquake, 

Department of Paleobiology staff conducted repairs, consolidation, and conservation on the damaged specimens 

and continued assessing the vast collections in the NMNH 

building and at the Museum Support Center (MSC), the 

storage facility in Suitland, Maryland. 

Consolidation and repairs to the vertebrate specimens 

were done with polyvinyl butyral B-76 (Butvar) dissolved 

in acetone to different viscosities—low viscosity as a consolidant and higher viscosity as an adhesive—and with 

their shelves, very little damage was found. Several factors 

appear to have contributed to this. Since the fossil collections are located on a lower floor of the museum, that is, 

the first floor, the effects of the earthquake were not as intense as would have been experienced on the higher floors. 

Another reason that damage was minimized is that many 

of the oversized vertebrates have been conserved and are 

protected in form-fitting, padded plaster jackets. Also, all 

FIGURE 8. A trunk of a 240-million-year-old fossil Araucarioxylon tree with a crack through it. (Photo by Steve Jabo, Smithsonian 

Institution.)

FIGURE 9. Another trunk of a 240-million-year-old fossil Araucarioxylon tree with a crack through it. (Photo by Steve Jabo, Smithsonian Institution.)
4 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

There are a couple of reasons for this: the storage facility 

is relatively new, less than 20 years old, and modern storage techniques have been implemented at the MSC from 

its beginning. All the cabinet drawers are lined with Ethafoam, the drawers are not so overcrowded that specimens 

are touching each other, and most of the specimens in 

drawers are well supported. The oversized specimens that 

have been moved to the MSC are all in padded storage 

jackets, so they are well supported and protected. Those 

jackets are strapped to wooden pallets and stored on highbay shelving. Some of the pallets moved a bit on the shelving, but none of them fell.

marine-grade, slow-setting epoxy. Repairs to the invertebrate rock slabs were done with Butvar, slow-setting epoxy, and cyanoacrylate adhesive (super glue). These repairs 

were reported to the department’s collections manager to 

be entered into the database as part of each specimen’s 

record.

There was very little, if any, damage found in the collections stored at the MSC. The first, obvious thing observed was that some of the rows of storage cabinets were 

out of alignment due to the shaking. And while the contents of every drawer of every case have not been examined, overall the specimens appear to have survived intact. 

FIGURE 10. A fallen slab of limestone containing a crinoid (sea lily) lying in the bottom of the display case in the director’s office. The slab hit 

and damaged the mammoth jaw, on the right, as it fell. There is a divot in the gravel at the bottom of the case where the rock landed. (Photo 

by Steve Jabo, Smithsonian Institution.)
number 4 • 4 7

exhibit skeletons with armature and bases that mitigate 

earthquake vibrations. As has been done with more recent 

exhibit installations, such as the ceratopsian skulls, bases 

will be physically separated from the surrounding floor, 

if possible, and have shock absorbing features added to 

them. The steel armatures will be padded with felt or rubber against the bone and remain flexible to dampen shock 

and vibration. Brackets for wall-mounted specimens and 

slabs will be bracketed on all sides to prevent them from 

falling out of the mounts in the event of an earthquake or 

other sustained vibration. 

There were many lessons to be learned from the 23 August 2011 earthquake regarding the effects of strong vibrations on fossil specimens. The Department of Paleobiology 

intends to incorporate those lessons into its collection storage and exhibition methodology to protect and preserve 

the fossil specimens for many years of further research.

PREPARATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

Monitoring and Maintenance of Collections

Conservation of the fossil vertebrates is ongoing with 

the construction of padded storage jackets, stabilization 

and support of specimens in padded drawers, and regular monitoring and assessments of the collections. Major 

renovations of the Department of Paleobiology’s fossil 

collection storage areas in the NMNH are scheduled to 

begin in the next decade and will provide an opportunity 

to house the specimens in state-of-the-art archival cabinets 

and compactors in a climate-controlled space. 

New Exhibit and Armature Designs

Upcoming renovations of the paleobiology exhibit 

complex provide an opportunity to re-mount some of the 

Ann Juneau, Department Head, Natural and 

Physical Sciences, Smithsonian Institution Libraries, and Robin Everly, Branch Librarian, Botany–

Horticulture Library, Department of Natural and 

Physical Sciences, Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, 

Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA. Correspondence: A. Juneau, juneaua@si.edu. Manuscript received 12 December 2013; accepted 

18 March 2014.

Braced for Disaster: But the Botany–

Horticulture Library Shelves Weren’t

Ann Juneau and Robin Everly

ABSTRACT. The Botany–Horticulture Library’s shelving structure suffered significant 

damage due to the 23 August 2011 earthquake. Shelving that had been moved 10 years 

prior was not cross braced properly when reinstalled. Quick action and a well-organized 

recovery effort allowed for efficient action when part of the collection had to be housed 

in another library. Other National Museum of Natural History libraries sustained minor damage, which was quickly addressed. Many lessons were learned about properly 

bracing shelving and ensuring the safety of staff when a natural disaster occurs. For the 

Botany–Horticulture Library, this incident also became an opportunity to rethink how 

the collection is housed and how library space for staff and library users is designed.

INTRODUCTION

The Smithsonian Libraries consists of 20 branch libraries within the Smithsonian Institution museum complex. Together, the libraries hold approximately 

two million printed items. The National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) 

building houses three branch libraries, which are staffed full time, and several 

smaller libraries (referred to as sublocations), staffed on an as-needed basis. The 

libraries serve NMNH departmental staff and are open to visitors by appointment. One of these branches, the Botany–Horticulture Library, is located within 

the Department of Botany. Established in 1965, it is the third largest book and 

journal collection in NMNH with approximately 100,000 items. The primary 

purpose of the library is to serve the information needs of the Department of 

Botany, Smithsonian Gardens, and other science departments in NMNH.

The library is located on the fourth floor of the West Wing of NMNH along 

a span of windows facing Constitution Avenue. The floor loads of the library 

cannot support compact shelving; instead, the shelving consists of upright, 

double-sided, cantilever-type metal shelving, 2 m (84 in) in height. At the time 

of the earthquake, the shelves were at 100% capacity with books and journals. 

The shelves are not mounted to the walls, but there are metal bars at the top of 

the shelving connecting the ranges together to provide stability. It was thought 

that the cross bracing on the individual tiers was secure. At the time, a small 

library carrel with a personal computer was stationed within one of the aisles. 

When the earthquake occurred, an intern was working in this area. 
5 0 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

Out of all the libraries in the building, the Botany–

Horticulture Library suffered the most damage. The following is a report of how both library and NMNH staff 

responded to the damage in the Botany–Horticulture Library, damage in the other two NMNH libraries, and lessons learned from the incident.

THE EARTHQUAKE

Fortunately, the intern working alone in the library 

at the time of the earthquake was quickly and safely 

escorted out of the building by Department of Botany 

staff. Upon reentry, staff discovered that several ranges 

of shelving had collapsed, including one of the ranges in 

the aisle where the intern had been working. All the damaged ranges were leaning toward the windows. Some of 

the twisted metal ranges pressed against the Constitution 

Avenue plate glass windows (Figure 1). Books were supporting the shelving structure and were wedged in tight 

(Figure 2).

Later that same day the building staff determined that 

all the damaged stack ranges leaning against the windows 

and walls had to be emptied. The Smithsonian Libraries 

director, who was the only library staff person remaining 

in the building at the time the decision was made, and approximately 10 museum staff worked into the evening to 

empty the shelves of several thousand books. The books 

were carefully placed in call number sequence, some in 

vertical and others in horizontal piles in the aisles of the 

stable shelf ranges. Clean herbarium paper blotters were 

placed on the floor beneath the books. Carts were used to 

shuttle books into the herbarium range, where they were 

placed in order on countertops and again on clean blotters on the floor between herbarium cabinets. The paper 

blotters were marked with the corresponding aisle numbers indicating the shelves from which the books came. 

This gave library staff an idea of the books’ call number 

ranges. Keeping this order proved beneficial when the 

books were loaded onto large carts days later and moved 

to the NMNH main library for temporary storage.

OTHER SMITHSONIAN LIBRARIES

Of the two other libraries in the NMNH, the Anthropology Library located on the third floor of the Main Building suffered the more noticeable effects from the shock. 

The shelf bracing detached from the walls, but the 3.4 

m (11 ft) shelving remained upright in spite of the earthquake. When the assessment was done, few items were 

found on the floor. While waiting for building management staff to reattach the bracing bolts to the walls, staff 

carefully returned books to their rightful places and roped 

off the affected areas with caution tape. However, during 

the interim period, the library staff pulled requested books 

from the cordoned off areas, hoping that there would not 

be any new aftershocks.

FIGURE 1. Left, twisted and broken shelving. Right, stacks shifted and distorted, leaning perilously against glass windows overlooking 

Constitution Avenue. (Smithsonian Institution photos by M. Kalfatovic; see more at http://www.flickr.com/photos/travelinglibrarian/sets

/72157627394103839/with/6077290443/.)
number 4 • 5 1

the shelving to shift from side to side. Also, some of the 

ranges that shifted were standing alone without top metal 

bracing rods anchoring them to other ranges. The entire 

affected area had seventeen doubled-sided ranges at the 

time, and approximately 18,000 books had to be temporarily stored in the NMNH main library. To make matters worse, the affected shelves housed the most heavily 

used section of the collection, the botany journals. The 

journals are used daily by the Department of Botany 

and circulate frequently for intralibrary loans within the 

Smithsonian Institution and interlibrary loans to other libraries throughout the USA. 

The other lesson learned is that when a library responds to a disaster, keeping books as much as possible 

in call number order is of fundamental importance. The 

librarians and collection managers carefully maintained 

books in call number order, on the floor, countertops, and 

carts. This saved a tremendous amount of staff time when 

LESSONS LEARNED

With regard to the Botany–Horticulture Library the 

first and most important lesson learned is not to have library carrels or desks embedded in the aisles of the stacks. 

Desks and tables where people work and use the library’s 

resources should be placed in open areas, away from the 

stacks. The library carrel mentioned in this article has 

been removed and relocated to open space in the reading room area. We also learned about the importance of 

properly braced shelving. The eight double-sided ranges 

that sustained damage were all located in one section 

of the library. This shelving had been moved about 10 

years earlier because of a sprinkler installation project; 

the installation allowed books to be housed on the upper shelves while retaining a 46 cm (18 in) clearance for 

the sprinklers. Apparently during this move the cross 

bracing was not properly anchored again, which allowed 

FIGURE 2. Images of twisted and distorted shelving kept in place by the weight of the books. (Smithsonian Institution photos by M. Kalfatovic; 

see more at http://www.flickr.com/photos/travelinglibrarian/sets/72157627394103839/with/6077290443/.)
5 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

to perform well. In all cases, bracing must be secure 

and periodic checks every couple of years are required.

• It is important to have book ends on the shelves to 

secure the books and prevent them from falling.

CONCLUSION

The 23 August 2011 earthquake caused no lasting 

damage to the Botany–Horticulture Library’s physical collection. Some books had dented covers and a ripped page 

here and there, but none was beyond repair. The shelving 

was quickly dismantled and replaced in a matter of weeks. 

What the earthquake did do was create the unique opportunity for Smithsonian Libraries management and the 

Department of Botany to rethink the Botany–Horticulture 

Library, considering what collections should be housed 

there and the appropriateness of the design of staff and 

library user space. It has truly been a silver lining in all the 

hard work that went into cleaning up and moving the collection days after earthquake. Before the earthquake, there 

were a variety of small book collections in call number order but shelved separately from the main collection based 

on plant type (e.g., algae, ferns, lichens, and grasses). This 

incident allowed for library staff to finally consolidate the 

botany–horticulture collection into two major sections, 

one section for the journals and one section for the books 

and floras. Most botanical libraries in the USA and Europe 

are organized in this matter, and it is now easier to find 

and reshelve books and journals used in the collection. 

Also, the work spaces and reading room have been redesigned to be user friendly and serve multiple functions.

In general, all the Washington, D.C., based library 

staff learned many lessons that day that they will carry 

throughout their careers. During times of confusion and 

danger, self-preservation and safety of personnel must 

be our highest concern. It is most critical to remain calm 

because typically after a disaster persons are not themselves. For this purpose, disaster training is fundamental 

to prepare us for these events. The overall Smithsonian 

disaster control plan worked, although there was some 

difference in response among the institution’s buildings. 

The unexpected breakdown in communications points 

to the requirement for better preparation for what might 

happen, an important lesson to be taken into account. 

And it clearly suggests that we all should be more knowledgeable and self-reliant about emergency responsiveness 

and prepare contingency plans for future events of communication loss.

putting the books on carts and moving them to another 

location.

To fully assess any damage that might have occurred 

at various other sites, the head of natural and physical sciences created a nine-question survey and sent it to several 

of the Smithsonian branch librarians in the Washington, 

D.C. area (NMNH: Anthropology, Botany–Horticulture, 

Main, and Joseph F. Cullman 3rd libraries; National Museum of American History: Main and Dibner libraries; 

Smithsonian American Art Museum; Sackler–Freer Galleries of Art; National Portrait Gallery; National Museum 

of African Art; National Air and Space Museum; National 

Zoological Park; and Anacostia Community Museum) 

as well as both the Museum Support Center in Suitland, 

Maryland, and the Pennsy Collections and Support Center in Landover, Maryland. The questions sent out are as 

follows:

1. At which library branch are (were) you located?

2. Where were you when the earthquake occurred?

3. What were you experiencing during the earthquake?

4. If you were in the library at the time, what did you 

observe about the book stacks and other fixtures in 

the library as the earthquake was occurring?

5. What damage did your collection or library space 

incur?

6. How long after the earthquake did you return inside? 

7. How long after the quake did you survey your library 

for damage? What precautions did you take? 

8. Did you gain any lessons from your experience?

9. Are there other observations you wish to contribute?

Apart from the general recommendations that in the 

event of an earthquake it is important to take cover under 

doorways, tables, or desks and stay there until the tremors 

have stopped (Clough, 2014, this issue), the most relevant 

points are the following:

• If the building is evacuated, make certain all staff 

gather in a preassigned location and all persons at 

work are accounted for.

• Upon evacuation, make sure to take your necessary 

personal belongings, such as house keys, as you may 

not be allowed back in the building that day.

• Communication systems may break down, so the best 

tool for monitoring breaking news is Twitter on a 

smartphone because of the limited bandwidth it needs. 

• Compact shelving appears to be much more stable 

than stationary shelving. Moveable stacks appeared 
number 4 • 5 3

REFERENCE

Clough, G. W. 2014 (this volume). “Back To Back: The Earthquake and 

Hurricane of 2011.” In Unexpected—Earthquake 2011: Lessons to 

Be Learned, ed. A. E. Charola, C. Wegener, and R. J. Koestler, pp. 

1–18. Smithsonian Contributions to Museum Conservation, No. 4. 

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Deborah Bell from the Department 

of Botany, Jerry Conlon and Chun-Hsi Wong from the 

NMNH, and Nancy E. Gwinn from the Smithsonian Libraries for their help in providing details about the occurrences during the earthquake and the immediate response 

that allowed the authors to provide a better description of 

the events.

Suzanne C. Peurach, Collections Manager, Division of Mammals, U.S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, National Museum 

of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. 

Box 37012, MRC 111, Washington, D.C. 20013-

7012, USA; peurachs@si.edu. Manuscript received 12 December 2013; accepted 18 March 

2014.

When Things Get Tipsy in the Fluid 

Collections: Addressing What Went 

Wrong and Preventing Future Damage

Suzanne C. Peurach

ABSTRACT. The fluid-preserved specimen collections in the National Museum of Natural History, Division of Mammals, suffered significant damage due to the earthquake 

that occurred in August 2011. Even though our newly renovated fluid storage bunkers 

were equipped with earthquake bars, these bars came loose on many shelves, resulting in 

toppled and shattered jars of specimens littering aisles in each of the three rooms. Quick 

action and a well-organized recovery and reorganization effort resulted in minimal damage to our specimens, but we learned much in the process about improving layout and 

design, preventing occurrences such as this in the future, and, most importantly, considering first the safety and well-being of staff if and when a disaster strikes.

INTRODUCTION

The Division of Mammals (DOM) of the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) houses a world-class collection of mammals, with approximately 

600,000 cataloged specimens, by far the largest maintained in any natural history museum. Many of the specimens were collected in the eighteenth and early 

nineteenth centuries, and it is not uncommon to see names on specimen labels of some of the nation’s most iconic individuals and renowned biologists, 

such as Theodore Roosevelt, C. Hart Merriam, and the second secretary of 

the Smithsonian Institution, Spencer Fullerton Baird. The over 90,000 specimens stored in fluid constitute a large and special subset of the DOM’s holdings. Fluid-preserved specimens were historically fixed in 10% formalin and 

then transferred into 70% ethanol for long-term storage. The DOM also houses 

special collections that include cleared and stained specimens stored in glycerin 

and treated with thymol as a preservative and anatomical preparations stored 

in a variety of chemical solutions (e.g., brains stored in unbuffered 10% formalin and genitalia stored in a mixture of glycerin and ethanol). The entire 

fluid-preserved collection was inventoried, data-captured, reorganized, and rehoused prior to 2002. This included replacing the fluid in each jar of the main 

fluid collection with fresh 70% ethanol cut with deionized water. The special 

collections also were rehoused and the preservation media replaced. The DOM 

moved the entire collection to the Smithsonian Museum Support Center (MSC) 

in Suitland, Maryland, in 2004 to facilitate HVAC (heating, ventilation, and 

air conditioning) renovations downtown and to comply with newly established 
5 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

safety regulations applying to alcohol-stored collections. 

Because of space limitations and safety concerns, most of 

our fluid-preserved specimens have been retained permanently at the MSC. Some parts of the fluid collection being 

used by research staff and visiting researchers were moved 

back to the NMNH and installed into newly renovated 

alcohol storage bunkers. The only fluid-preserved mammal specimens now stored within the NMNH on the Mall 

are small insectivores, microchiropteran bats, and small 

rodents. All special collections, including those stored in 

mixed-media solutions, were retained at the MSC.

THE EARTHQUAKE

When the earthquake struck on 23 August 2011, the 

DOM staff and visitors rapidly evacuated from the sixth 

floor of the West Wing of the NMNH. During evacuation, no damage to collections was apparent, even though 

several staff offices were in close proximity to the alcohol 

bunkers on the sixth floor. The NMNH staff waited outside about an hour until it became apparent that employees were not going to be let back into the building anytime 

soon; most people then headed home. The security force 

allowed one visiting researcher who needed to retrieve personal possessions to return to the museum quickly as long 

as he was escorted by a staff member. At that time, a quick 

walk-through of the collection areas revealed that many 

jars of fluid-preserved specimens had toppled, smashing 

many of them on the floor in each of our newly designed 

alcohol bunkers (Figure 1).

The building management staff was immediately 

alerted. Representatives from the NMNH administration, 

conservation staff, and collections managers from several 

departments and divisions, including the DOM, pitched 

in to help that same afternoon. Absorbent “snakes” were 

placed where pools of alcohol had collected, doors were 

propped open, and buckets, hand brooms, and dustpans 

were brought into each of the rooms (Figure 2).

Everyone worked quickly to rescue exposed specimens 

and return them to fluid storage as soon as possible. To 

keep specimens sorted, we used a single bucket per aisle 

and placed all specimens and jar labels from each aisle 

into it. The bucket was topped with 70% ethanol, marked 

according to the aisle where it was found, and covered 

with cheesecloth and plastic sheeting to limit evaporation 

until specimens could be re-jarred. Locating and retrieving 

all the specimens required hands-and-knees inspection to 

check under the bottom shelves of each row, where many 

specimens had traveled. Once all specimens were gathered and in fluid, hand brooms and dustpans were used to 

sweep up as much broken glass as possible and to deposit 

FIGURE 1. Two views of some of the central aisles of the Division of Mammals’ 

fluid storage bunkers. Above, bat specimens that had been in the bottles are lying 

on the floor among the glass shards. (Photos by Suzanne C. Peurach, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.)
number 4 • 5 7

all solid debris into specially marked, rolling hazardous 

material cans. After the rooms were cleared of specimens 

and broken glass, we rolled the hazmat cans out of the 

building and into the open air of the parking lot for disposal by building management staff.

During the following weeks, the DOM staff worked 

to sort and organize specimens so that they could be rejarred and reinstalled into the collection (Figure 3). An 

estimated 50 jars containing about 2,000 specimens were 

broken during the earthquake. Because every individual 

specimen in the collection is uniquely labeled by its catalog number and data captured, and shelf arrangement is 

based on scientific name, country and state, and catalog 

number sequence, it was fairly simple to generate printouts to organize the sorting process. In the end no specimens had suffered long-term damage, and data loss was 

limited to two individuals that had been disassociated 

from their labels.

FIGURE 2. Absorbent snakes (left) soak up pools of alcohol, and (above) specimens along with paper jar labels from each aisle are gathered into buckets. 

(Photos by Suzanne C. Peurach, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.)

FIGURE 3. (Right) Linda Gordon and Craig Ludwig work to sort 

specimens recovered from broken jars damaged by the 2011 earthquake. (Photos by Suzanne C. Peurach, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.)
5 8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

that could be accommodated for each jar type. Unfortunately the earthquake toppled these top-heavy jars easily. 

Wider, shorter jars with the same capacity for fluid would 

likely have fared much better in an earthquake but would 

sacrifice maximizing storage capacity. 

Many more toppled and broken jars were found in 

the center of each room than along the outer walls, and 

more damage occurred to jars on the upper shelves than 

to those closer to the floor (Figure 5). Shelving along the 

perimeter of the room is attached to the cinderblock wall, 

which undoubtedly enhanced stability.

Lastly and most importantly, although we used nitrile 

gloves to protect our hands, no one working to rescue 

these specimens, including this author, thought protection from fumes created from the large volumes of spilled 

ethanol was necessary. By the time we left for the evening, 

however, I had a headache, sore throat, burning eyes, 

LESSONS LEARNED

Fluid collection shelving at the NMNH was equipped 

with earthquake bars when the storage areas were renovated by 2007. The bars are positioned by sliding them 

into grooves cut into either side of each shelf support. 

While many bars held, some became dislodged under the 

movement during the earthquake. The problem was easily 

fixed by installing clips, hairpin cotter pins, to hold the bar 

to the side brackets on each shelf (Figure 4).

During the recent curation of the DOM fluidpreserved specimens, completed by 2004, jar sizes were 

standardized to maximize available space on the shelves, 

to reduce costs, and to simplify jar storage. The shelves 

were spaced to accommodate the largest jar size permitted under safety standards (3 liter Le Parfait jars), and the 

DOM opted for the smallest footprint and tallest jar sizes 

FIGURE 5. Jars on perimeter shelving had much less damage than 

those located in the central aisles of each alcohol storage bunker. 

(Photos by Suzanne C. Peurach, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research 

Center.)

FIGURE 4. Earthquake bars were originally designed to slide into 

slats on each side of every shelf. Hairpin cotter pins were applied 

to fasten the bars into place and prevent future failure. (Photos by 

Suzanne C. Peurach, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.)
number 4 • 5 9

reorganization. We developed a method for securing the 

earthquake bars in all three alcohol storage bunkers and 

recognize that respirators must be used when cleaning up 

large amounts of spilled alcohol within confined spaces. 

On the positive side, our situation could have been 

much worse, disastrous even, if the DOM had not already 

completed an extensive recuration of the collection in 

2004. If the earthquake had occurred in 1991 (instead of 

2011)—when our entire collection was still on the Mall 

and stored on open shelves lacking any earthquake bars, 

in various states of organization, and in a variety of chemicals with many uncatalogued and non-individually labeled 

specimens—we would have been confronted with a chaotic situation in terms of specimen conservation and data 

loss, disorganization of the fluid storage area, and decidedly greater safety concerns for museum staff. 

and undoubtedly an elevated blood alcohol level; yet it 

had never occurred to any of us to use respirators. The 

problem of accumulated fumes was likely exacerbated 

because following the earthquake the air handling system 

was shut down. Using fans to increase ventilation in these 

rooms would have dissipated some of the accumulating 

fumes.

CONCLUSION

The 23 August 2011 earthquake caused minimal lasting damage to the fluid-preserved collections stored at the 

NMNH, but there were considerable costs to the DOM 

and the NMNH in terms of personnel costs associated 

with cleanup, jar and alcohol replacement, and specimen 

Nik Apostolides, Associate Director, National 

Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. 

Box 37012, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, 

USA; correspondence: apostolidesn@si.edu. 

Manuscript received 12 December 2013; accepted 18 March 2014.

Communication: Earthquake Damage 

Report from the National Portrait Gallery

Nik Apostolides

The 2011 Washington, D.C., earthquake shook the National Portrait Gallery at the Smithsonian, but the building stood up very well to it. For example, 

staff in the Kogod Courtyard reported seeing the Norman Foster designed glass 

canopy swaying considerably from side to side. This is exactly how it was designed to respond in order to avoid collapsing, and the design proved sound, 

even under such unusual and unexpected conditions. Nonetheless, other areas of 

the building experienced significant shaking; in the Great Hall in the south wing 

this shaking resulted in a cracked steel plate on one of the third-floor mezzanine 

stairways and other cracks on various arches and architectural elements in that 

space (Figure 1). The large stone lintels in the west wing shifted considerably 

during the earthquake, but no structural damage was observed.

Immediately following the earthquake, visitors and staff were evacuated 

from the museum building. On the G Street side of the building, the police 

were concerned about possible structural damage to other buildings around the 

museum. The public and staff were unsure whether it was safer to stand on the 

sidewalks or in the middle of the street or to find other more open public spaces.

Inside the museum, I went to the Office of Protection Services’ (OPS) control 

room in the basement to find the security manager on duty and to establish our 

Emergency Command Center (ECC). In the control room, I found the deputy 

security manager, and we discussed the situation and began the process of assessing any damage and locating other members of our ECC team. Surprisingly, 

we were unable to use the voice over internet protocol telephones to reach the 

Smithsonian’s emergency operations center, so I left a message on the chief of 

OPS’ cell phone to let him know that we were not able to reach him.

Due to questions about the impact of the earthquake on the building’s 

structure, we moved the ECC upstairs to the G Street lobby of the museum. 

There we were able to locate the deputy director of the American Art Museum and the building manager, both of whom are also members of the ECC. 

We established communications from that location and began to address the 

main questions: the extent of any induced damage and the timing and safety of 

letting critical staff back into the building to secure dangerous materials, collect any personal belongings, and await word on the possible reopening of the 

building when safe.
6 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

Within approximately an hour or less, teams of the 

Office of Facilities Management and Reliability and OPS 

staff were permitted back into the building to do a quick 

survey of any damage and to begin to assess the safety of 

the building for staff, and eventually visitors, to return. 

Some museum staff were also allowed back into the building in order to secure hazardous materials that were in use 

at the time of the earthquake—for example, in the conservation departments. Eventually other museum staff were 

permitted in to assess any collections damage, which was 

minimal in the National Portrait Gallery.

FIGURE 1. One of several cracks in the arches around the Great 

Hall (above) and its pilasters (right). (Smithsonian Institution photos 

by Office of Facilities, Management and Reliability staff.)
The American Art Museum collections suffered no catastrophic damage as 

a result of the earthquake. A number of items in the display cases of the Luce 

Foundation Center at the museum shifted position or fell over (Figure 1), such 

as the Roman vases acquired in the 1920s (before the museum’s collecting goals 

were redefined to focus on American art and artists). But only eight works were 

damaged to a degree that warranted removing them from public view, and none 

were irreparably damaged.

Lynn Putney, Associate Registrar, Smithsonian 

American Art Museum, Smithsonian Institution, 

P.O. Box 37012, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, 

USA; putneyl@si.edu. Manuscript received 12 

December 2013; accepted 18 March 2014.

Communication: Earthquake Damage 

Report from the Smithsonian American 

Art Museum

Lynn Putney

FIGURE 1. Roman glass vases toppled over during the earthquake but suffered no significant 

damage. (Smithsonian Institution staff photo.)
6 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

Some cracks in the walls of the second-floor galleries 

at the museum, and a broken cornice in a second-floor 

gallery at the Renwick, were the most worrisome damage. 

The cornice was stabilized a few months after the earthquake (December 2011), and repair of the wall cracks at 

the museum began in 2013.

In the Lincoln Gallery the Jenny Holzer electronic 

artwork For SAAM suffered crossed LED strands and 

stressed solder joints, and a few television sets shifted position on the armature for Nam June Paik’s Electronic Superhighway. Both of these problems were quickly resolved 

by our conservation and exhibitions staffs.
On 23 August 2011 at 1:51 PM EDT, an earthquake with a magnitude of 

5.8 and centered near Mineral, Virginia, 135 km (~84 mi) SW of Washington, 

D.C., shook Smithsonian Institution buildings, including the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden (HMSG) on the Mall and its off-site storage facility 

on the ground floor of Pod 3 (rooms 110, 111, and 112) at the Museum Support 

Center (MSC) in Suitland, Maryland. 

At the HMSG, staff and visitors were evacuated by 2:30 PM; the staff was 

dismissed. Engineers then inspected the building for damage and by the next day 

declared it structurally sound. The engineers noted that several cracks in the ceiling of the lower level sculpture storage appeared to have widened, although this 

could not be quantified. Increased water penetration into that area during the 

following winter months indicated that the overhead plaza dam may have been 

breached. Despite a leak abatement project carried out through the remainder 

of the year, water penetration has continued.

The HMSG storage areas at Pod 3 in MSC suffered more structural damage—a series of vertical cracks in the walls of all rooms (Figure 1). Additionally, 

sprinkler heads in the overhead second-floor storage rooms were damaged and 

activated; it took almost three hours for the main valve to be located and deactivated. By that time, cascades of gray-colored water had entered through ceiling 

cracks in the small sculpture storage area (room 112) along the west and north 

walls and via an overhead trap in the oversized sculpture storage (room 111). In 

room 112, water pooled on the floor to a depth of 2.5 to 3.8 cm (1–1.5 in) and 

on the surfaces of palletized and crated objects located adjacent to the west and 

north walls (Figure 2). Fortunately, no water penetrated through the areas of 

ceiling over the compact shelving system, although it did flow under the shelving 

system and into the two adjacent rooms (110, 111). Several objects stored on 

the compact shelving toppled but were not damaged. One sculpture on the top 

shelf in the large sculpture room broke its tether, toppled from its palette, and 

would have fallen to the floor had it not caught on the edge of the wire shelving 

(Figure 3).

By late afternoon that same day, as water continued to flow from overhead, 

a museum registrar and conservator moved exposed objects away from falling 

Susan Lake, Director of Collection Care and 

Management, and Keri Towler, Collection Registrar, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, 

Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA. Correspondence: S. Lake, lakes@si.edu. Manuscript 

received 12 December 2013; accepted 18 March 

2014.

Communication: Earthquake Damage 

Report from the Hirshhorn Museum 

and Sculpture Garden

Susan Lake and Keri Towler
6 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

streams of water, wiped standing water from the surfaces 

of exposed objects, and covered vulnerable objects with 

plastic wrap. To the extent possible, MSC staff and building management directed standing water to a recently 

opened drain pipe in the adjacent hall. Eventually, they 

removed the water with a wet–dry vacuum. 

The following day (24 August), a five-member team 

comprising museum conservators, registrars, and interns 

(team composition varied over the course of several days) 

began to examine the objects in each room and mopped 

any still-standing water from under the compact shelving 

system and from the floors of the painting and large sculpture storage. This required removing all bottom shelves 

of the compact shelving and opening the painting screens 

(Figure 4). Ultraviolet germicidal lamps, to reduce airborne fungal spores, that were supplied by Museum Conservation Institute were installed and ran continuously 

for almost five days until data loggers indicated that the 

environmental conditions had returned to normal. Two 

mid-sized sculptures suffered water damage and were later 

treated by conservators.

When the earthquake struck, the museum was still in 

the process of relocating its collection to Pod 3. The extent 

of the damage would likely have been more serious had 

more objects been installed at the MSC at that point in 

time. Emergency efforts the afternoon and evening of 23 

August were hampered by several issues:

1. Staff could not enter the storage spaces until they were 

deemed safe, and throughout this period water continued to flow into the spaces; 

FIGURE 1. Cracks in the wall of Pod 3 at the MSC. (Smithsonian 

Institution staff photo.)

FIGURE 2. Dirty water pooled on the surfaces of floor and in packing crates. (Smithsonian Institution staff photo.)

FIGURE 3. A sculpture perilously toppled from its palette. (Smithsonian Institution staff photo.)
number 4 • 6 7

2. floor drains had not been installed when the storage 

spaces were redesigned; and

3. at that phase of the relocation no emergency supplies—such as a wet–dry vacuum, plastic wrap, absorbent pads and snakes, or sponges—had been moved 

into the collection spaces.

Requests from the HMSG and other units to MSC staff 

for such supplies surpassed the available stock. Since the 

earthquake, the cause of the sprinkler head failure has 

been remedied and the MSC and HMSG have stockpiled 

additional emergency supplies.

FIGURE 4. Cleanup following the earthquake and flood from the 

sprinkler system. (Smithsonian Institution staff photo.)

The earthquake of 23 August 2011 and a magnitude 5.8 quake along the 

New York–Ontario border in 1944 were the largest to have occurred in the USA 

east of the Rocky Mountains since 1897. The 2011 quake was felt across more 

than a dozen U.S. states and in several Canadian provinces. No deaths and only 

minor injuries were reported. The earthquake shook Smithsonian Institution 

buildings, including the National Museum of the American Indian on the National Mall (NMAI-DC), the Cultural Resources Center (NMAI-CRC) located 

next to the Museum Support Center in Suitland, Maryland, and the George 

Gustav Heye Center in New York City (NMAI-NY). The NMAI-NY did not 

suffer any damage during the earthquake or from the subsequent Hurricane 

Irene. Several aftershocks, ranging up to 4.5 in magnitude, occurred after the 

main tremor. As soon as it was realized that an earthquake had occurred, staff 

and visitors were evacuated from both the NMAI-DC and the NMAI-CRC. Two 

hours later, by 4 PM, all Smithsonian staff were dismissed.

During the inspection carried out immediately following the earthquake, the 

engineers discovered cracks on the curved wall of the Potomac Atrium, near the 

east entrance of the NMAI-DC, but declared the building structurally sound. 

Also noted was the slight shifting of horizontal blocks of stone outside the windows of the third-floor Family Activity Center. In the 1491 wall of the “Our 

Peoples” exhibit, an Arkansas ceramic jar and a Campeche, Mexico, ceramic 

fell off their mounts and were broken into many pieces. A Mexican stone figure 

and a Peruvian ceramic pitcher sustained abrasions and chips from the falling 

ceramics (Figure 1). And in the “Window on Collections” exhibit, a wooden 

Tsimshian headdress twisted off its mount, damaging some of the wood. 

The NMAI-CRC building suffered more structural damage, especially on 

higher floors, and staff were concerned that they might not be able to enter 

the building the next morning. However, inspections conducted by a structural 

engineer determined that staff could return to work. At the NMAI-CRC no objects suffered damage. However, the freight elevator became inoperable, and 11 

of the electronic control boards for the compactor storage units were damaged, 

likely from the units going into fire configuration mode while swaying after 

the fire alarm was pulled to evacuate the building. While awaiting shipment of 

Justin Estoque, Assistant Director, National 

Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian 

Institution, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, D.C. 

20013-7012, USA; estoquej@me.com. Manuscript received 12 December 2013; accepted 

18 March 2014.

Communication: Earthquake Damage 

Report from the National Museum 

of the American Indian

Justin Estoque
7 0 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

Aftermath: Unfortunately, these repairs were very 

disruptive to the work of collections management and 

required the closing of the NMAI collections during renovations. To allow the repair contractors access to the affected walls to use large lift equipment, at least 45 mostly 

oversized objects were moved or protected from dust or 

abrasion, including 23 large Northwest Coast house posts 

(as tall as 5.5 m) and a house front. On the northwest wall 

of the NMAI-CRC only the two largest totem poles remained in place. Two bulk storage racks and the 21 large 

objects they contain were moved, while an art rack system 

and a large bulk rack containing objects were protected 

from dust. The moved objects were stored horizontally 

on the floor of the NMAI-CRC collections in areas away 

from the repairs, thus severely limiting movement in collections storage.

replacement control boards, collections staff had to hand 

crank the affected units. 

A summary of repairs to be carried out after the earthquake is given below:

• NMAI-DC: Damage was relatively minor, concentrated primarily in upper areas of the Potomac Atrium. 

The design for repairs started in May 2012.

• NMAI-CRC: Cracks were found in 10 areas of the 

CRC—the mechanical/electrical rooms, the freight elevator lobby walls and adjoining stairway door, the 

conservation wet-cleaning area, and 7 areas in collections storage.

• In addition, the integrity of the collections’ hoist had 

to be recertified, which required an additional engineering review. The hoist was recertified in 2013 as 

part of the earthquake repairs.

FIGURE 1. Falling ceramic objects caused abrasion and chips to a Mexican stone figure and a Peruvian ceramic pitcher. (Smithsonian Institution 

photo by Gail Joice, NMAI.)
The Freer–Sackler Galleries of Art did not suffer any object damage from 

the August 2011 earthquake, neither in their exhibitions on the mall in Washington, D.C., nor in the storage area at the Museum Support Center (MSC) 

in Suitland, Maryland. At the MSC the rooms show minor damage that is no 

doubt repeated throughout Pod 3. In this pod, the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery’s 

space is located on the ground floor, in rooms 120 and 121. The earthquake 

opened some cracks running roughly north–south in the ceiling of room 120 but 

with no discernible debris or dust. However, one sprinkler head was activated 

on the top level, and the resulting water trickled downward, finally emerging 

through the cracks in our ceiling and dripping on top of several rows of Viking 

metal cabinets that are installed in a compact storage system by SpaceSaver. The 

cabinets are gasketed so there was no water damage to the objects inside. Collection Support Services staff placed plastic sheets over the cabinets affected so 

that we had a second level of protection. Otherwise, we suffered no damage that 

I could see to either rooms or collections.

Bruce Young, Registrar, Freer–Sackler Galleries 

of Art, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, 

Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA; youngbr

@si.edu. Manuscript received 12 December 

2013; accepted 18 March 2014.

Communication: Earthquake Damage 

Report from the Freer–Sackler Galleries 

of Art

Bruce Young

In response to the 23 August 2011 earthquake, Smithsonian staff completed 

visual inspections, structural analyses, and air monitoring in selected Smithsonian Institution buildings to determine whether asbestos-containing materials 

in the buildings could have been dislodged and rendered airborne as a result 

the earthquake. Visual inspections revealed no evidence of dislodged asbestoscontaining debris at these buildings. Included in the inspections were buildings 

at the Paul E. Garber Facility in Suitland, Maryland. Three of the buildings at 

the Garber Facility have ceilings lined with asbestos-containing materials. The 

ceilings in these buildings are covered with layers of polyethylene sheeting that 

were previously installed to protect stored collections in the buildings from possible asbestos contamination. Due to the asbestos-lined ceilings in these buildings, air monitoring was also conducted to determine if any fibers were present 

in their environment. All air samples were analyzed by transmission electron 

microscopy, a fiber-specific analytical method, and revealed that no airborne 

asbestos fibers were present. 

Charles Fry, Industrial Hygienist, Office of Safety, 

Health, and Environmental Management, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, 

D.C. 20013-7012, USA; FryC@si.edu. Manuscript received 12 December 2013; accepted 

18 March 2014.

Communication: Earthquake Damage 

Report from the Paul A. Garber Facility

Charles Fry

John P. Homiak, Director, Anthropology Collections and Archives Program, Department of 

Anthropology, Museum Support Center, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA; HOMIAKJ@si.

edu. Manuscript received 12 December 2013; 

accepted 18 March 2014.

When a Tempest Breaks your Teapots: 

Seismic Events and Museological Lessons

John P. Homiak

ABSTRACT. The staff of the Anthropology Collections and Archives Program (CAP) 

cares for more than 2.5 million extremely diverse artifacts, specimens, and archival materials at the Smithsonian’s Museum Support Center (MSC) in Suitland, Maryland. During 

the 1990s the Department of Anthropology’s holdings were moved from the National 

Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., to the MSC, where the collections 

were housed in state-of-the-art storage equipment. Since that time, the CAP staff has continued to make selective improvements to storage and access. Staff, however, had never 

considered the potential impact of a seismic event. This essay reviews procedures related 

to the damage assessment of the diverse and varied anthropological collections and the 

lessons learned from this assessment by the CAP director and staff in the aftermath of the 

earthquake of 23 August 2011.

THE EVENT

On 23 August 2011, at roughly 2:00 PM, I was standing outside my office near the doorway to the Department of Anthropology collection spaces in 

the Smithsonian’s Museum Support Center (MSC). I started to hear—and then 

feel—a low rumble. I have experienced at least six earthquakes while previously 

residing in California or doing fieldwork in the Caribbean, and the onset of each 

one has had exactly the same confusing cognitive and physiological effect on 

me. In the first few seconds I find myself trying to identify the source of the low 

rumbling or growling sound as something mundane and explainable. Perhaps 

it is a giant generator that has lost its bearings or a nearby train arriving. Only 

as those mental suggestions fail to fit and the mounting vibrations turn into 

tremors does my mind relinquish the search for easy answers and submit to 

the surprise of having the earth move underfoot. In this case, I wondered if all 

around me might not be coming down. Each time the event has been startling, 

uncomfortable—even frightening.

This experience was all of that, yet different. In each of the other instances 

none of the quakes was so severe that I couldn’t resume what I was doing almost 

immediately. This time, however, I was responsible not merely for myself but 

for a staff of 15 plus the priceless anthropological collections amassed during 

more than 150 years by the Smithsonian Institution. After the concerns of human safety and security had been dealt with in the ensuing 48 hours, it became 
7 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

clear that the next step would have to be a comprehensive 

survey of the physical state of our collections. The fact 

that the quake was severe enough to crack walls and split 

blocks gave us pause. What might be waiting for us inside 

the collection storage areas where tens of thousands of 

unique cultural artifacts were housed? 

With holdings that include more than 250,000 ethnology artifacts ranging from totem poles to Zuni ceramics 

and cradleboards to carved Chinese ivories, 2.5 million 

archaeological artifacts, and extensive archival collections that included over 30,000 glass plate negatives—we 

needed to evolve a triage approach quickly to determine 

what had suffered damage. Fortunately, some collection 

spaces—those with large oversized objects on cantilever 

shelves—could be eyeballed and dealt with quickly. But 

with the majority of collections housed on shelves and 

drawers within closed cabinetry, the survey of those collections would be time consuming and, in some instances, 

labor intensive. 

ARCHITECTONICS AND LAYOUT 

OF THE STORAGE SPACES

It is perhaps useful to understand that when funding 

was secured from Congress to begin construction of the 

Smithsonian’s MSC in the early 1980s, little or no consideration was given to the potential impact of seismic events. 

Southern Maryland, where the MSC is located, is not considered a seismic zone and, in speaking with colleagues 

who were involved during this period, no one considered 

the possible impact of a seismic event on the building, 

not to mention collection storage (G. Hansen, Smithsonian Institution, personal communication, October 2011). 

I am speaking here of a footprint essentially the size of 

a football field that is devoted entirely to the housing of 

anthropological collections. With respect to building construction, two of the five pods that presently form the 

overall storage areas for the MSC contain three levels of 

floors. In each, the second and third floor levels are not attached to the walls. Rather, they are supported by 46 parallel rows (roughly 55 m [180 ft] long) of rectangular steel 

posts anchored in the concrete floor. The stability of these 

posts is enhanced by additional posts that run the perimeter of the floors. The posts—roughly 2 m (84 in) apart, 

are themselves connected by 5 cm (2 in) cross-member 

struts that are welded to them to enhance their stability. 

The torqueing, deforming, and, in some instances, severing of these steel components was immediately apparent 

during our early walking inspections. In some cases, the 

expansion bolts were either snapped or torn from their 

concrete moorings (Figures 1, 2). Reports from the structural engineers who subsequently made several examinations of the pods and their supports assure us that these 

storage areas, and the buildings as a whole, performed as 

expected during the earthquake without significant structural damage. Despite this, given the visible signs of fallen 

debris from ceilings and cracks in our masonry walls, it 

was disconcerting to consider the possible state of collections—particularly ceramics and fragile objects—within 

the storage units. 

Because of the construction technique—floors supported by a myriad of steel posts—it seemed apparent that 

the movement of storage units would be the greatest on 

the third floor, less on the second, and least on the first. 

Although I am not a seismologist, a visual inspection easily confirmed this intuition. Of the roughly 3,150 storage 

FIGURE 1. Space between wall and floor of Pod 1. (Smithsonian 

Institution photo by David Rosenthal, National Museum of Natural 

History, Department of Anthropology.)
number 4 • 7 7

It would be two full days (25 August) until my staff 

and I were allowed back into the building to begin conducting visual checks in our storage spaces to determine 

damage. These initial surveys included checks in four of 

the five pods (1, 2, 3, and 4) within the MSC. Pod 4, the 

storage area equipped with large, cantilevered, heavy-duty 

shelves constructed for loads of up to 4.5 metric tons (5 

tons) per shelf, revealed no damage to objects. As with 

our storage cabinets, however, a number of objects (all of 

which are housed on and strapped to specially designed 

aluminum pallets) evidenced signs of walking (Figure 

4). These were easily returned to their original positions 

by use of a forklift, and the (uncompromised) structural 

integrity of the shelves was determined by two teams of 

engineers.

Pod 3, a newly renovated facility that now holds both 

our physical anthropology collections in compactor storage equipment and film and video in cold storage, also 

experienced impacts that were relatively minor and easily 

cabinets in Pod 1, those on level one remained roughly in 

place where they had been originally aligned and leveled, 

while those cabinets on level two showed modest signs of 

“walking,” sometimes 5 to 10 cm. Those on level three 

exhibited the greatest extent of walking, moving in some 

cases up to 20 cm (8 in). We had staff on the first floor of 

the pod when the quake struck, which, because of the low 

2.4 m (8 ft) ceilings on each floor, must have been a very 

disconcerting experience. “It was really loud in there” 

during the event, reported Felicia Pickering, our ethnology 

specialist who at the time was showing Southwest materials to two researchers from Arizona. “You could hear the 

cabinets clanging into each other. There was a tremendous 

amount of banging and noise and you could see cabinets 

shake. We were watching to make sure nothing fell from 

the ceiling.” Based on Ms. Pickering’s anecdotal experience and how our cabinets shifted, we more-or-less determined that the shaking forces of the quake moved roughly 

in a north–south orientation (Figures 3, 4).

FIGURE 2. Bolts sheared off or torn from Pod 1 floor. (Smithsonian Institution photo by David Rosenthal.)
7 8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

managed. Because of the manner in which these physical 

collections (human skeletal remains) are housed—in the 

interior drawers with Ethafoam cushioning in sealed cabinets—there was negligible impact to the collections. The 

single notable event in this pod was that the cabinetry—

which reaches almost to the ceiling of the pod—moved on 

its compactor tracks and severed the heads of a number of 

fire-suppression sprinkler units. This caused a discharge of 

black brackish water that spewed over the new cabinetry 

and much of the space. Aside from the inconvenience of 

the cleanup, the discharge soaked two collections of associated archival materials that required conservation attention. Pod 2, a space that the Anthropology Collections and 

Archives Program (CAP) shares with several other natural 

history divisions, was initially a source of concern if only 

FIGURE 3. Shifting of shelf cabinets, Pod 1, level three. (Smithsonian Institution photo by David Rosenthal.)

FIGURE 4. Walking of large palletized objects on cantilever shelves, 

in Pod 4. (Smithsonian Institution photo by David Rosenthal.)

FIGURE 5. National Anthropological Archives glass plate negatives in Pod 2, level one. (Smithsonian Institution photo by David 

Rosenthal.)
number 4 • 7 9

The CAP areas at the MSC utilize mainly four types of 

Viking cabinets: an oversized, four-door cabinet for large 

flat objects; a standard-sized cabinet with deep shelves 

that can be adapted with shelves or drawers, depending on 

the size of objects to be housed; a “220” or steel cabinet 

modeled after the traditional museum “quarter unit” or 

“half unit”; and a standard-sized cabinet of shallow depth 

with door windows that we have adapted to the storage 

of our archival materials. Given the extent of observable 

movements of our cabinets—sometimes as much as 15–20 

cm (6–8 in)—as well as our knowledge of the kinds of 

artifacts present on this level, my staff and I began our 

condition survey there.

AN UNCERTAIN LANDSCAPE 

OF CABINETRY AND OBJECTS

The plan for our survey was relatively simple. With 

support from the CAP staff, the Department of Anthropology, and four staff from the Museum Conservation 

Institute, we paired off in teams of two and three across 

the space of the pod. Each team positioned itself at one of 

the 44 rows of cabinets in the pod and proceeded down 

the length of that row—roughly 55 m (60 yd) of cabinets. 

When inspection of the cabinets in that row was completed, the team moved to the next unvisited row with 

teams hopscotching over each other in the process. In all, 

the survey took five full work days (25–31 August) and 

involved more than 800 hours of staff time. 

Each team was equipped with a mobile cart holding 

a laptop, camera, and supplies (e.g., sealable plastic bags 

in which to include any small broken shards or artifact 

pieces). One person would call out the cabinet number 

and location being surveyed, and the other would record 

that information on a spreadsheet in the laptop. This was 

followed by a visual examination of the interior shelves or 

drawers. It there were no detectable signs of disturbance, 

the doors were simply closed and relocked. If objects had 

been toppled or damaged, the catalog numbers of those 

objects were called out to the recorder. All objects were 

then set upright, any broken parts were associated with 

the relevant object, and any small pieces were placed in a 

sealable plastic bag. Care was taken in the pairing of team 

members to ensure that one individual was familiar with 

the cabinet nomenclature and the collections. At the end 

of each day our data manager, Carrie Beauchamp, copied 

the data from the 8–10 laptops that we used into a master 

Excel spreadsheet she had devised. One of the fields she 

used recorded the photograph numbers (as enumerated by 

because it contains the collections of our National Anthropological Archives, which includes over 30,000 priceless glass plate photographic negatives created during the 

last quarter of the nineteenth century. In addition to other 

things, this collection represents the visual legacy produced by the Smithsonian’s Bureau of American Ethnology 

(1878–1964) and includes thousands of historical images 

of Native American Indians and their traditional cultures 

and environments. Thanks to the manner in which these 

plates are housed—each in an archival Tyvek sleeve and 

slotted in groups of 8–10 between metal dividers—these 

treasures were unaffected by the event (Figure 5).

It was principally in Pod 1—particularly on level three 

of that pod—that we would realize that the seismic event 

was much more than a “tempest in a teacup.” On this 

level, where Viking storage cabinets once marched precisely down long aisles in marionette fashion, they were 

now consistently out of alignment and askew (Figure 6). 

FIGURE 6. Shelf cabinets out of alignment in Pod 1, level three, 

following the earthquake. (Smithsonian Institution photo by David 

Rosenthal.)
8 0 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

LESSONS LEARNED AND REINFORCED

As my staff and I worked through our collections on 

each level of the three levels of Pod 1 (and to a lesser extent, level two of Pod 2 where we also have anthropology 

objects stored), it became clear that the greatest damage 

had occurred on the upper two levels of the pod. On the 

first level a few objects had shifted on their shelves, but 

there was virtually no damage to any object. Intuitively 

this seemed to make sense in terms of how the structure 

of the pods themselves functioned during the earthquake. 

But during post-assessment when we began to discuss informally the uneven impact of the event on collections 

housed on different levels of the pod, it became clear that 

other factors accounted for the fact that our holdings 

fared better on the first level—and this included our entire 

collection of more than 7,000 Southwest ceramics. 

the camera) associated with toppled or broken objects as 

a way to cross-reference the survey shot with a particular 

catalog number. Once the whole survey was complete (a 

process that as noted took five working days), a shorter 

list was produced that included 137 damaged objects, the 

majority of them broken ceramics. 

While seemingly straightforward, this process was not 

always as simple. As one might imagine, museum objects 

come in all sizes, weights, and shapes. With some notable 

exceptions (e.g., oversized objects like totem poles, monumental Olmec sculptures, and outrigger canoes; large 

rolled textiles; and long, thin objects like spears, paddles, 

harpoons, or hoes) the Department of Anthropology 

houses its objects by cultural area rather than “type.” As 

a consequence, a given storage cabinet may house fairly 

large and heavy objects and relatively small and fragile 

ones on the same shelf. This turned out to be the case for 

many parts of our Asian ceramics collection in which tall 

cloisonné vases find themselves side-by-side with small 

cups and bowls of Fujina ware. Indeed, most of the damage discovered within our Japanese, Korean, and Chinese 

ceramics collection resulted from the toppling of tall cylindrical vases into each other or falling on smaller ceramic 

objects or figurines. In addition, we found that light thinwalled ceramics with small bases were also unstable as 

were small vases that might only be 10 to 13 cm high. 

The toppling of these smaller and lighter objects 

sometimes caused them to roll to the front of the shelf 

even though each shelf had an Ethafoam liner. We realized 

the consequences of this the hard way when, upon opening a door, one such small ceramic dropped onto the concrete floor and broke. This happened even though we were 

very cautious in opening cabinet doors, doing so slowly, 

to ensure that objects that had moved would not drop. 

Realizing the possibility that this could happen multiple 

times, we regrouped and came up with the idea of placing 

foam pads that were as wide as the cabinets on the floor 

at the base of each cabinet before we continued to open 

additional doors (Figure 7). Then, as a door was opened 

slightly, one team member would attempt to peek into 

the cabinet to determine if there were any “hanging objects” (Figure 8). If one was sighted, an attempt was made 

to reach in and secure it or push it back onto the shelf. 

This further slowed the work of the survey, but it saved 

an estimated 10–12 artifacts that might have broken on 

the concrete floor. Even with this care, however, it was at 

times impossible to keep a small object from dropping to 

the next level and striking the metal edges of the cabinet, 

something that damaged at least three other small ceramics vases (Figure 9).

FIGURE 7. With foam in place, staff checking for hanging objects 

as shelf cabinet is opened. (Smithsonian Institution photo by David 

Rosenthal.)
number 4 • 8 1

during the second half of the move and benefitted from 

our own collective reflections upon how best to use cabinet 

space. With respect to our Southwest ceramics it was determined that they should be decompressed. Rather than being lined up in two rows per shelf, a decision was made to 

stagger them in a kind of diamond pattern, providing more 

space between each object so that they could be more easily 

removed for study and research (F. Pickering, Smithsonian 

Institution, personal communication, November 2011). In 

addition, nearly all of these ceramics were fitted with an 

Ethafoam ring or “doughnut” to stabilize the object on the 

shelf. While some of these objects actually did tilt in their 

doughnuts during the earthquake, not a single one suffered 

damage (Figures 10, 11).

All of these stabilizing measures proved to be well 

worth the time and effort. But it also seems reasonable 

to suggest that our Southwest ceramics fared better during the earthquake for reasons that perhaps had more to 

do with the nature of the objects than to these stabilizations. Water jars and bowls from the Pueblo people can be 

more-or-less easily grouped into objects of similar size and 

shape, and we had housed them in this way. By contrast, 

our Asian ceramics represent a myriad of sizes, shapes, 

and weights that caused them to interact with much more 

apparent energy during the earthquake.

The lessons learned from this event now seem rather 

straightforward. We clearly had not anticipated dealing with an earthquake and, except perhaps fortuitously, 

we had not incorporated preventive measures for seismic 

events into our storage practices. The fact that no shelf 

cabinets themselves toppled (excepting one that was empty 

and had not been balanced), appears to have reflected the 

What accounted for this difference in impact, we now 

feel, is that during the transfer of collections from the National Museum of Natural History to the MSC—a process 

that took more than a decade, from the late 1980s through 

the 1990s—our own collections and housing practices 

evolved considerably (Hansen and Sawdey, 1999). At the 

front end of this move—which had begun with our Asian 

collections—staff had attempted to maximize the use of 

shelf space in our cabinets. As we continued through the 

process of moving the collections, however, it became apparent that some decompression of the spacing of objects 

might be warranted. North American materials—which are 

among those collections most utilized by researchers—came 

FIGURE 8. Examples of hanging ceramic artifacts. (Smithsonian Institution photos by David Rosenthal.)

FIGURE 9. Japanese vase that toppled, causing rim breakage. 

(Smithsonian Institution photo by David Rosenthal.)
8 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

careful manner in which the Collections Support Staff had 

aligned and balanced the cabinets at the time our collections moved into the facility. With regard to all of our 

Asian ceramic collections—which were among the first to 

have been moved to the MSC back in the late 1980s—we 

now need not only to restore those objects that were broken but to implement a decompression of the collection. 

In the process of doing this we anticipate developing stabilizations (e.g., bases and cradles) for specific objects such 

as tall cylindrical ceramics and other objects that may be 

top heavy due to their shape or design. Decompression 

will likely cause us to think further about the relationships 

among the size, weight, and shape of objects on a given 

shelf to insure that larger objects do not roll, topple, or 

impact smaller fragile ones. Small fragile ceramics will 

need to be appropriately grouped and placed in blue board 

trays or other housings that will prevent them from rolling 

and serve to buffer them from the movement of any larger 

adjacent objects in the event of a future seismic event (Figure 12). Currently there is also consideration for equipping some cabinets—those containing fragile, high-value 

objects—with glass portals that would allow staff to view 

the objects housed therein. In the future, this could prevent accidental damage that might be caused by an object 

falling when a door is opened.

While the staff of the CAP contemplates how we 

will implement these preventative improvements, we also 

find ourselves preparing for a structural refit of Pods 1 

and 2 as well. At a minimum, this will mean removal 

(by either torching or cutting) of some 75% of the metal 

FIGURE 12. Japanese Fujina dish shattered by impact from larger 

toppled object. (Smithsonian Institution photo by David Rosenthal.)

FIGURE 10. Example of crowded Japanese ceramics. (Smithsonian 

Institution photo by David Rosenthal.)

FIGURE 11. Zuni ceramics with stabilizing Ethafoam rings. (Smithsonian Institution photo by David Rosenthal.)
number 4 • 8 3

funds, and labor involved in this effort, we have sought 

to be proactive and forward looking. We have invited a 

seismic expert working with museums to visit the MSC 

and provide consultation on both the arrangement of our 

storage equipment and our storage practices. We do all of 

this with the hope that the next seismic event we experience will amount to only a tempest in a teapot.

REFERENCE

Hansen, G., and C. Z. Sawdey. 1999. A Moving Experience: Thirteen 

Years and Two Million Objects Later. Curator: The Museum Journal 42(1): 13–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1999.tb

01126.x.

strap cross-struts that were designed to stabilize the 

metal posts supporting the floors on levels two and three 

of these pods. To ensure the continued structural stability of the storage areas, these struts will be replaced by 

metal cables tensioned with turnbuckles. For our staff this 

will mean moving at least half of the more than 1,000 

cabinets in Pods 1 and 2. This task issues from the fact 

that the rows of storage equipment are created by placing cabinets back-to-back separated by the narrow space 

occupied by each line of steel posts in the pod, and most 

of the cross-members can be accessed only by moving the 

cabinets. In some instances, this will also mean removing 

the objects in these cabinets before they are moved and 

then reloading the objects when the cabinets are realigned 

and releveled. With such a significant investment of time, 

Paula T. DePriest, Deputy Director, Museum 

Conservation Institute, Smithsonian Institution, 

P.O. Box 37012, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, 

USA; Elizabeth Dietrich, Program Manager, 

Museum Support Center, Smithsonian Institution; Odile Madden, Research Scientist, Museum 

Conservation Institute; Elizabeth Sullivan, Contractor/Lend Lease, Manager, Office of Planning 

Design and Construction, Smithsonian Institution; and A. Elena Charola, Research Scientist, 

Museum Conservation Institute. Correspondence: 

P. DePriest, depriestp@si.edu. Manuscript received 12 December 2013; accepted 18 March 

2014.

Compounded Damage at the Museum 

Support Center: Hurricane Irene 

after the Earthquake

Paula T. DePriest, Elizabeth Dietrich, 

Odile Madden, Elizabeth Sullivan, 

and A. Elena Charola

ABSTRACT. On 23 August 2011 a 5.8 magnitude earthquake, centered in Mineral, Virginia, shook the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum Support Center building in Suitland, 

Maryland. Because of the building’s design and construction, the moderate earthquake 

caused significant structural damage and flooding. On 27 August 2011, Hurricane Irene 

brought 10 cm (4 in) of rain into the area, causing the aging and earthquake-damaged 

roofing system to leak in multiple areas. In less than a week the building constructed in 

the 1980s as a model for collection preservation had sustained an estimated $11 million 

in needed structural repairs and seismic upgrades.

INTRODUCTION

The Museum Support Center (MSC) in Suitland, Maryland, was originally 

constructed in the early 1980s to provide the optimum conditions for both the 

preservation and study of the Smithsonian Institution’s collections. The building 

is composed of modules called pods, each with a collection storage space separated from offices and laboratories by a wide central corridor or “street.” The 

building currently has five pods arranged in a unique zigzag-shaped pattern and 

covers 1.8 ha (4.5 acres) of land (Figure 1). Because less than 2% of the Smithsonian’s collections are on exhibit at any time (Smithsonian Institution, 2013), 

the MSC and its large pods were designed to keep the collections in an appropriate climate-controlled environment for long-term preservation and storage, with 

modern pest management and security as well as continual on-site access. The 

building is in constant use by staff and visitors throughout the year for inventory, survey, conservation, and research on the collections.

Approximately 40% of the Smithsonian’s 137 million objects and specimens 

(Smithsonian Institution, 2013), that is, more than 54 million, are located at the 

MSC (Smithsonian Institution, 2009). Although the majority of the collections 

are natural history and anthropological collections from the National Museum 
8 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

of Natural History (NMNH), the National Zoological 

Park, and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, the MSC also houses fine art and historical objects 

from the Freer Gallery of Art and the Arthur M. Sackler 

Gallery (FSGA), the National Museum of African Art, the 

Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden (HMSG), the 

National Museum of American History (NMAH), and the 

National Postal Museum. The MSC also houses the Museum Conservation Institute (MCI), the center for specialized technical collection research and conservation for all 

Smithsonian museums and collections, and a branch of the 

Smithsonian Institution Libraries (SIL).

However, despite being designed for preservation of 

collections, the building was susceptible to a pair of catastrophic events. On Tuesday, 23 August 2011, just after 

1:51 pm, a 5.8 magnitude earthquake centered at Mineral, Virginia, rolled through the MSC building. Staff in 

the office and laboratory areas reported a loud boom, followed by shaking and secondary (sine) waves on a north–

south axis. Staff in the pods reported violent shaking and 

swaying; metal groaning, rattling, and banging; an empty 

cabinet falling over; and water rushing from the sprinkler 

systems in the upper levels of Pods 2 and 3. The first photographs of the damage showed heavy bolts sheared off 

FIGURE 1. Simplified plan of the first floor of the Museum Support Center building showing the 

relative locations of the five collection storage pods and the associated office, laboratory, and conservation spaces. Numbers are length measurements in feet. Areas marked in grey are stairwells 

that suffered structural damage. (Drawing courtesy of Yun Liu, MCI Post-graduate Fellow.)
number 4 • 8 7

(see shaded areas in Figure 1) had cracking and spalling 

of varying degrees, while some columns and beam interfaces had surface detachments and spalling (Thornton 

Tomasetti, “MSC Building, Post-Seismic Event Structural 

Assessment,” unpublished report, 2011; Ewing Cole, 

“Part 1. MSC Damage Assessment,” unpublished report, 

2012; and briefly discussed elsewhere [Clough, 2014, this 

volume]). 

In storage Pods 2 and 3, three sprinkler heads were 

sheared off and water from the sprinkler systems was released over the collections, storage cabinets, and shelving. 

In Pod 2, a sprinkler head was knocked off by the swaying 

of a roof member during the earthquake. Rusty colored 

water from pipe corrosion sprayed over collections cabinets (Figure 2) and open storage on the third level and ran 

down to the first and second levels. In Pod 3, two sprinkler heads were broken off on the upper level when they 

banged into ceiling beams as the sprinkler lines swung 

back and forth during the earthquake (Figure 3) The water 

had a blackish color due to the presence of iron corrosion 

products and iron-related bacteria (S. Storke, Mid Atlantic 

Laboratories, unpublished report, 2011). Since there were 

no floor drains on the upper level, water flowed down 

through the floor and stairs to the first level where about 

7.5 cm (3 in) of water accumulated (Figure 4). Turning off 

the water line to the damaged sprinkler had taken about 

20 minutes for Pod 2, which was the first to be identified, 

and about 1.5 hours for Pod 3. Initially facilities staff did 

not realize that there were sheared sprinkler heads in Pod 

3 until water began collecting in its first level (Lake and 

Towler, 2014, this volume). Shutting down these sprinkler 

lines was further delayed by some problems in the automated fire detection system; problems were subsequently 

rectified.

On the evening of the earthquake the structural engineers cleared the OFEO’s Office of Facilities Management 

and Reliability (OFMR) to take basic steps in disaster recovery. Immediate steps included removing loose and unsupported concrete that presented a falling hazard, shoring 

up damaged stairways, and cleaning up water as long as 

no heavy equipment was used in the Pods, 1, 2, and 4, 

which had the greatest structural damage. By the afternoon of 24 August, the day after the earthquake, some 

recovery work was allowed in Pod 2 as well as immediate structural stabilization of the stairwells. That evening 

all water was removed from the floors, and open shelves 

on the upper level were covered. In Pod 3, all the water 

that had been released from broken sprinkler heads was 

removed. The following day, 25 August, collections management recovery teams were allowed to enter Pods 1 and 

posts, structural damage visible as cracks in stairways, and 

nonstructural damage to some masonry walls (Clough, 

2014, this volume). The initial official report mentioned 

only minor damage to all Smithsonian facilities because 

those reporting were unaware of the severity of damage 

to the MSC (E. Dietrich, Smithsonian Institution, “Earthquake Log of Actions 23 Aug 2011,” unpublished). Later 

that week, on Saturday, 27 August, Hurricane Irene would 

bring torrential wind and rain to the Washington, D.C., 

area. In a few days, the very strong earthquake and hurricane caused an estimated $11 million cost in structural and 

nonstructural damage that required seismic improvements 

and repairs to this multi-use building. The earthquake and 

hurricane endangered the preservation of Smithsonian collections and required certain collections’ displacement.

EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

In the immediate aftermath of the earthquake, it was 

clear that the MSC had sustained significant damage. 

Although a water-flow alarm was activated, no general 

evacuation alarm could be given, and shaken staff and 

visitors evacuated the building as soon as the earthquake 

subsided. No injuries to staff or visitors were reported. 

The MSC remained closed to all but emergency staff and 

recovery teams for two days, 24 and 25 August, to allow 

time for assessment of the damage and to ensure that the 

facility was safe for occupancy. Building engineers turned 

off the air handling units to protect them from damage 

during the anticipated aftershocks. Small teams worked to 

recover collections from broken jars in the NMNH’s fluid 

(alcohol) collection in Pod 5 and to move some HMSG 

and NMNH collections in Pod 3 to drier areas and cover 

them with plastic. Emergency staff and collections recovery teams that ventured into the building to check on collections also reported structural damage to the stairwells, 

elevators, walls, and ceilings and water damage from broken sprinkler heads in multiple areas of Pods 2 and 3. 

On the evening of the earthquake the Office of Facilities Engineering and Operations (OFEO) design and construction managers and contracted structural engineers, 

along with staff from the MSC, NMNH, and Office of 

Protection Services, began preliminary assessments to separate “cosmetic” damage from major structural damage 

in the building. Along the central corridor, or street, there 

was significant nonstructural cracking in the concrete masonry unit of the interior partition walls that divide the 

office and storage spaces. The three cast-in-place staircases to the street’s elevated walkways, or “catwalks,” 
8 8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

pods where collection storage cabinets shifted and even 

tipped over. Fortunately, there was no widespread damage 

to the art work or collections in the pods. In addition to 

structural and collection damage, NMNH and MCI staff 

examined their sensitive analytical instrumentation for 

3, although Pods 2 and 4 were closed for additional days 

until further structural assessment was completed. Recovery teams from NMNH, MCI, FSGA, NMAH, HMSG, 

and SIL worked over the next few days to check collection 

storage for damage, especially on the upper levels of the 

FIGURE 2. Rusty-colored water on case tops in Pod 2. (Smithsonian Institution photo by Catharine Hawks, NMNH.)
number 4 • 8 9

movement during seismic events. Because of the detailing of 

the connections (tension straps and cross-braces between 

posts), the mezzanine did not perform as designed, and the 

system’s resistance to lateral force was compromised. An 

estimated 75% of the tension straps permanently buckled or ruptured, allowing the mezzanine structures to rock 

back and forth during the earthquake and bang into the 

surrounding structures (Ewing Cole, “Part 1. MSC Damage Assessment,” unpublished report, 2012), Repair of the 

damaged mezzanines may require moving approximately 

10,000 storage cabinets, more than 65% of the estimated 

15,000 cabinets, and the collections they contain and then 

returning them into their original positions. 

PREPARATIONS FOR 

HURRICANE IRENE

Over the week following the earthquake, roof leaks, 

both new and compounded damage to existing leaks, became evident as Hurricane Irene brought torrential rains 

to the area. As there was advance notice of the approach of 

Hurricane Irene on Saturday, 27 August, the earthquakedamaged building was prepared for further water damage 

and power outages. Collections, open shelving, scientific 

instruments, office furnishings, and so forth, including the 

open stacks and shelves of the SIL branch library, were 

covered with plastic sheeting to protect against potential 

roof leaks and blown-in water. Because of the impact of 

environmental conditions, especially high humidity and 

damage. The MCI alone estimated immediate repair costs 

of almost $30,000. 

In-depth structural surveys and computer modeling 

after the earthquake revealed more significant damage to 

the building in addition to that already noted for the stairways. Both the interior and exterior concrete masonry unit 

walls had experienced out-of-plane movement, and several 

columns and trusses on the office, laboratory, and conservation side of the building were damaged (Ewing Cole, 

“Part 2. MSC Building Evaluation,” unpublished report, 

2012). The five pods (Figure 1) differed in their degree of 

structural damage: Pods 1, 2, and 4 were more damaged 

than Pods 3 and 5. For example, during the earthquake, 

the inverted tee beam between Pod 1 and Pod 2 shifted 5 

cm (2 in) to the west. Pods 1–4 originally were built in the 

early 1980s. Pod 3 was rebuilt completely between 2007 

and 2009. Pod 5, which suffered the least damage (Figure 

5), was an addition to the original building and completed 

in 2007. In the period between the construction of the 

original structure and the construction and renovation of 

Pods 5 and 3, respectively, seismic design requirements increased to improve earthquake performance of structures.

One factor in the increased damage inside three of the 

older pods was the subsequent addition of two mezzanine 

floors in each of the high-bay structures of Pods 1 and 2 

and half of Pod 4 to increase their storage capacity. These 

steel-framed floors were constructed as self-sustained, isolated units that did not connect to the building envelope or 

rely on it for support. A 5 cm (2 in) gap around the perimeter of each mezzanine floor was designed to accommodate 

FIGURE 3. Above, sprinkler head as installed; right, sprinkler head in Pod 3 sheared off 

during the earthquake. (Smithsonian Institution photo by Catharine Hawks, NMNH.)
9 0 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

and, where possible, frozen materials and samples were 

consolidated into freezers on emergency power systems. 

Interruption in electrical power and building systems during the earthquake and hurricane highlighted the need for 

increased emergency generator capacity and greater reliability and stability of the power supply. 

Hurricane Irene brought 64–97 kmh (40–60 mph) 

winds gusts and 10 cm (4 in) of rain that continued from 

Saturday, 27 August, until Tuesday, 30 August, in Suitland, 

moisture, on collection safety, the MCI staff prepared 

equipment—such as ultraviolet C lamps, fans, shop vacuums, and an argon treatment system—to control potential 

mold and mildew problems after water damage. Additionally, the expected hurricane-associated power outages 

threatened many of the sensitive analytical instruments 

and freezers that were not protected by an emergency 

back-up generator system at the MCI and MSC-NMNH 

units. These instruments were shut down preemptively 

FIGURE 4. Cabinets stained by the blackish water released from the 

broken sprinkler heads in Pod 3. (Smithsonian Institution photo by 

Catharine Hawks, NMNH.)

FIGURE 5. Minor, superficial damage in Pod 5. (Smithsonian Institution photo by Catharine Hawks, NMNH.)
number 4 • 9 1

the hurricane (with Hurricane Sandy contributing more 

damage in October 2012), during both dry and rainy days, 

until the roof was repaired. These repairs fixed all but a 

few persistent leaks associated with air handler units sitting on the roof over the MCI. The MCI staff worked with 

OFMR to document and assess damage to the roof.

ROOF ASSESSMENT

On 30 September 2011, one month after the hurricane, the OFMR MSC building manager and engineers 

as well as MCI scientists and conservators investigated 

the roof’s condition and causes of the ongoing leaks. The 

MSC’s roof is cast concrete with a waterproofing membrane that helps seal all the roofing penetrations such as 

duct work, plumbing vents, and exhaust fans. On top of 

this membrane is insulation covered by another singleply membrane. This outer single-ply membrane also seals 

all the roof penetrations. When the roof’s original outer 

membrane deteriorated, a choice was made not to remove 

it but rather to install a new one on top. In 1999, the MSC 

roof was refitted with a Stevens EP Vented Roof System. 

According to the manufacturer, the system consists of a 

roof membrane, described in the product specifications 

as “.045-in. or .060-in. nominal thickness overall scrimreinforced, Ethylene-Propylene-based sheet” (Stevens 

Roofing Company product specifications) plus adhesives 

and underlayment (Stevens, n.d.). The specifications also 

approved placement beneath the membrane of loose-laid 

insulation with a minimum of 1.3 cm (0.5 in) thick moisture-resistant gypsum board overlay. At the time of the 

earthquake and hurricane, the MSC roofing system was 

still under a warranty that covered all the subsequent necessary repairs. 

The roofing membrane has penetrations of regularly 

spaced round, capped aluminum vents that extend 15–

29 cm (6–12 in) above the membrane to vent the space 

below the membrane. The roof itself is penetrated by pipes 

and ductwork that allow water to drain from the roof and 

also air to vent from the work spaces below. The latter 

openings for vents are common above laboratories and 

areas with plumbing fixtures (common rooms and restrooms). In contrast, the roofs of the pods are clear expanses of evenly sloped white membrane with the regularly 

spaced aluminum capped vents and, toward the bottom of 

the slope, drains. There are no penetrations through the 

roofs of the pods.

At the time of the inspection, the roof surface was 

covered entirely with the 1999 membrane, the sections of 

Maryland (NASA and Acker, 2011). The torrential rains 

revealed earthquake-related damage to the roof system—

damage to expansion joints, flashing and caulking around 

seams, and pipe and ductwork penetrations (Ewing Cole, 

“Part 1. MSC Damage Assessment,” unpublished report, 

2012)—when leaks appeared in parts of the MSC building during the hurricane. These leaks were concentrated 

over offices, laboratories, and the central streets; none 

developed over the pods. The severity of leaks ranged 

from small puddles discovered on desks to those so large 

that water continued to be collected for many months in 

rolling, plastic dumpsters approximately 2 m3

 (60 ft3) in 

volume (Figure 6). In some office, laboratory, and conservation areas, water continued to drip for over a year after 

FIGURE 6. One of the most persistent leaks in the Museum Conservation Institute, still unresolved when photo was taken in January 

2013. (Smithsonian Institution photo by E. Keats Webb, MCI.)
9 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

water was not investigated in detail, it seemed most likely 

that it was an accumulation of rain water onto a low area 

of the roof, possibly combined with condensation from 

the decommissioned air handler above (Browning, 2004). 

Large sections (approximately 1.2 m2 [4 ft2]) of a solid 

board material, consistent with the loose-laid hard insulation installed under the membrane, were floating under 

the membrane such that the roof surface undulated underfoot like a floating raft. This condition extended across an 

area estimated to exceed 37 m2 (400 ft2). If the depth of 

water beneath the membrane is assumed to have been 10 

cm (4 in), the total amount of rain that fell during Hurricane Irene in this area (NASA/SSAI and Pierce, 2011), 

then that section held more than 3.77 m3 (996 gallons) 

of water, with an estimated weight of more than 3,774 

kg (8,320 lb). This area of the roof appears to be slightly 

lower than the surrounding area and could have collected 

which are adhered with overlapping seams. The underlying old membrane and concrete structural roof were hidden from view. The newer membrane, which consists of a 

supporting woven mesh coated with a bulked polymeric 

matrix, exhibited significant localized deterioration; in 

many areas, the polymeric matrix was chalking, cracked, 

and lost, which exposed the supporting open mesh within 

(Figure 7). This deterioration often was observed in areas 

of the roof with standing water. Clearly, this membrane no 

longer was impermeable to water and would have allowed 

rain to infiltrate the roof sublayers.

Deterioration of the membrane was most pronounced 

on the north side of an air-handling unit that had lost its 

metal underpan. A small sea of water had accumulated beneath the air handler on top of the membrane (Figure 8), 

and an alarming amount of water also had accumulated 

under the membrane in this area. Though the source of the 

FIGURE 7. Detail of the eroded membrane leaving the woven support exposed. (Smithsonian Institution photo by Carol A. Grissom, MCI.)
number 4 • 9 3

FIGURE 8. Top, large pool of standing water under air handling unit; bottom, detail of standing water with algae 

and gray-colored deteriorated roof membrane. A hanging piece of the corroded metal underpan is visible at the top 

center of the image. (Smithsonian Institution photo by Carol A. Grissom, MCI.).
9 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

roof membrane by at least 2.5 cm (1 in), and a significant 

amount of water can collect in the basin without draining. 

Some of the older flush-mounted drains, including those 

over the laboratories and offices, also exhibited heavy corrosion on the iron plates that secure the plastic cap. This 

corrosion was sufficiently bulky to inhibit drainage, and 

when drains do not shed water effectively the deterioration of the roof membrane may be accelerated.

Because the drains were designed for water shedding 

off the roof surface, there is no drainage for water that 

seeps beneath the membrane. This condition was most 

obvious near the sea of water with floating insulation described above. During the inspection, some small openings (about 5 cm [2 in] long) were cut into the membrane 

at a nearby drain basin. The water that gushed out was 

cloudy and white, possibly due to gypsum powder washed 

loose from the underlying insulation (Figure 10). In essence, the membrane behaved like a bladder that trapped 

and prevented evaporation of the water that had seeped 

beneath it.

The condition of the roof membrane, the roof’s uneven 

slope, and the drainage issues contribute to the accumulation of standing water that makes its way into the MSC 

buildings through damaged sealing around roof penetrations. The presence of microorganism growth in standing 

water suggests that drainage has been an ongoing problem on the MSC roof. The original outer roof membrane, 

which was not removed when the vented roof system was 

installed, probably continued to offer some protection to 

the concrete structural roof despite its deteriorated state. It 

seems likely that the earthquake created new openings in 

this membrane, which can reasonably be expected to have 

become brittle with age. 

The torrential rains of Hurricane Irene tested the 

MSC’s aging and earthquake-damaged roofing system. 

Whereas the roofs of the pods appear to shed water well, 

the roof above the laboratories and offices of the MSC has 

an uneven grade and does not direct all water effectively 

toward roof drains, which themselves do not shed water 

efficiently. Some roof drains will not allow water to enter 

the drain until at least 2.5 cm has collected on top of the 

membrane in the surrounding basin. During the hurricane, 

once the rainwater penetrated below the membrane, the 

drains became useless, and thousands of gallons of water 

had nowhere to go but into the building through the underlying old membrane and earthquake-damaged expansion joints, flashing, and caulking. This condition was far 

worse above the MSC laboratories and offices, where the 

roof is perforated by many ducts and drains. Few leaks, 

shedding rainwater, which would contribute to the large 

water accumulation and might explain the persistent leak 

below this area that lasted well over a year.

Smaller pools of standing water had collected in other 

locations across the roof. The bottoms and edges of the 

puddles often appeared red, green, or blue in color (Figure 

9), and in some instances a thicker green-black film was 

present, all of which suggested a biological origin. Analysis of the green-black film showed the presence of carotene pigments (Madden, internal Smithsonian Institution 

report, unpublished, 2011) that would be consistent with 

the presence of algae or bacteria, such as Trentepohlia sp. 

or Micrococcus roseus, respectively. Though the organisms were not identified definitively, it was clear that their 

growth indicated a longer-term problem with standing 

water in those localized low-lying areas.

These observed conditions beg the question of drainage. The component sub-buildings of the MSC complex 

each have a gently sloped flat roof surrounded by low 

parapet walls. Water is removed from each roof through a 

network of drains that span the roof surface at the level of 

the membrane. Weep holes in the parapet walls also help 

with drainage in some areas. Each drain is a shallow “basin” with a vertical pipe opening at the center that is covered with a cage-like plastic cap to keep out debris (Figure 

10). Two different configurations of drains were observed. 

For most drains above the pods the mouth of the drain is 

flush with the bottom of the basin. On other drains, the 

mouth of the vertical iron drain pipe stands proud of the 

FIGURE 9. Red staining in standing water presumably resulting 

from microorganism growth. (Smithsonian Institution photo by 

Carol A. Grissom, MCI.)
number 4 • 9 5

and upgrades to prepare for the next earthquake and to 

continue to fulfill its mission of safeguarding the Smithsonian’s collections.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the extremely 

helpful comments, suggestions, and information received 

from Nancy Bechtol (OFEO), Kendra Gastright (OFMR), 

Keith Keyes (Contracting Officer Technical Representative), Rick Fary (OFEO-OFMR, Suitland), David Hay 

(Office of Engineering, Design and Construction), and 

Molly McGrath (MCI Postdoctoral Fellow).

REFERENCES

NASA and J. Acker. 2011. “3-hourly TMPA-RT 00Z25Aug2011-18Z28-

Aug2011 Accumulated Rainfall [mm].” Graphic from website: 

Hurricanes/Tropical Cyclones. Latest Storm Images and Data from 

NASA. August 30, 2011. Goodnight Irene: NASA’s TRMM Satellite Adds Up Irene’s Massive Rainfall Totals. R. Gutro, H. Pierce, 

J. Acker. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. http://www.nasa.gov

/mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/2011/h2011_Irene.html; http://

www.nasa.gov/images/content/583114main_IMAGE3-irene_mary

land_rainfall_labeled.jpg (accessed 4 February 2013).

Browning, B. K. 2004. “Museum Archive Dehumidification in Hot and 

Humid Climates.” In Proceedings of the 14th Symposium on Improving Building Systems in Hot and Humid Climates, Richardson, Texas. College Station, Tex.: Texas A&M University, Energy 

Systems Laboratory. http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/4606 (accessed 

February 5, 2013).

if any, were found in the pods, which have far fewer roof 

penetrations. The prolonged leakage observed in several 

areas of the MSC building is a reminder that maintenance 

of flat roof systems with caulked seals is an on-going task. 

CONCLUSION: 

ESTIMATES OF DAMAGE

The 5.8 magnitude earthquake on 23 August 23 hit 

the MSC building especially hard, causing major structural and cosmetic damage to the building envelope and 

some breakage of collections and their containers. Of the 

five collection storage pods, three experienced significant 

movements and slippage of their supporting structures 

and roofs (Clough, 2014, this volume). In addition, broken pipes and fire suppression sprinklers caused flooding 

in two of the pods. A strong hurricane on 27 August compounded the damage by causing roof leaks in multiple 

areas of the bulding. On the basis of the engineering surveys, the Smithsonian requested from the U.S. Congress a 

total of $11,250,000, most of it required for moving the 

collections during repairs and making seismic upgrades 

of the MSC’s existing structure and roofing systems 

(Smithsonian Institution, 2012:219–220). The request 

noted that although the structure had avoided total failure during the earthquake, its original seismic design was 

compromised and there was no guarantee that it would 

withstand another earthquake. The MSC required repairs 

FIGURE 10. Left, typical roof drain in a shallow, membrane-lined basin that may collect rain water and allow it to seep under the membrane; 

right, a cut was made into the membrane and the water that had collected beneath spurted out. (Photos by Odile Madden.)
9 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/2011/h2011_Irene.html; 

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/583120main_irene_rain_20

-29aug11.jpg (accessed July 12, 2013).

Smithsonian Institution. 2009. “Fact Sheets: Museum Support Center.” 

Newsdesk: Newsroom of the Smithsonian, SI-410-2009. http://news

desk.si.edu/factsheets/museum-support-center (accessed 20 August 

2013).

———. 2012. “Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Justification to Congress.” Submitted to the Committee on Appropriations, Congress of the United 

States. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. http://www

.si.edu/content/pdf/about/FY2013-BudgetRequest.pdf (accessed 

11 July 2013).

———. 2013. “Fact Sheets: Smithsonian Collections.” Newsdesk: Newsroom of the Smithsonian, SI-379-2013. http://newsdesk.si.edu/fact

sheets/smithsonian-collections (accessed 5 June 2014).

Stevens, n.d. “Stevens EPTM Roofing Membrane.” Stevens Roofing Systems. 

Norfolk, Va.: Stevens Roofing Corporation. http://www.champion

servicesinc.net/Roofing/Stevens/EP.htm (accessed 21 December 2012).

Clough, G. W. 2014 (this volume). “Back To Back: The Earthquake and 

Hurricane of 2011.” In Unexpected—Earthquake 2011: Lessons to 

Be Learned, ed. A. E. Charola, C. Wegener, and R. J. Koestler, pp. 

1–18. Smithsonian Contributions to Museum Conservation, No. 4. 

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.

Lake, S., and K. Towler. 2014 (this volume). “Communication: Earthquake Damage Report from the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden.” In Unexpected—Earthquake 2011: Lessons to Be 

Learned, ed. A. E. Charola, C. Wegener, and R. J. Koestler, pp. 

65–67. Smithsonian Contributions to Museum Conservation, No. 

4. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.

NASA/SSAI and H. Pierce. 2011. “August 20–29, 2011 Rainfall Accumulation (mm).” Graphic from website: Hurricanes/Tropical Cyclones. Latest Storm Images and Data from NASA. August 30, 2011. 

Goodnight Irene: NASA’s TRMM Satellite Adds Up Irene’s Massive 

Rainfall Totals. R. Gutro, H. Pierce, J. Acker. National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration and Science Systems and Applications, 

Inc., Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. http://www.nasa
Nancy Bechtol, Director, Office of Facilities Engineering and Operations, Smithsonian Institution, 

P.O. Box 37012, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, 

USA; William Tompkins, Director, National Collections Program, Smithsonian Institution; Kerry 

Button, Supervisory Museum Program Specialist, 

National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution; Catharine Hawks, Collections 

Program Conservator, National Museum of 

Natural History; and A. Elena Charola, Research 

Scientist, Museum Conservation Institute. Correspondence: N. Bechtol, bechtna@si.edu. Manuscript received 12 December 2013; accepted 

18 March 2014.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Nancy Bechtol, William Tompkins, 

Kerry Button, Catharine Hawks, 

and A. Elena Charola

ABSTRACT. A brief overview is presented of the immediate actions undertaken to 

evaluate the damaging effects of the 2011 earthquake that resulted in the closing of two 

buildings, the Museum Support Center and the Smithsonian Castle, which were subsequently opened two and six days later, respectively. Despite initial communications problems, the prompt activation of the Emergency Operations Center permitted the coordination of the building damage evaluation. Nonetheless, the experience served to highlight 

areas that need to be improved in the case of a similar event. Among them is the need for 

better training of staff, that is, to improve preparedness. A list of recommendations has 

been put together to improve response to similar emergencies.

INTRODUCTION

The “After Action Report” compiled following the earthquake of 23 August 2011 summarizes the institutional response to this event (“After Action 

Report,” Smithsonian Office of Facilities Management and Reliability, unpublished, 2011). Museums located toward the east end of the Mall, such as the 

National Air and Space Museum and the National Museum of the American 

Indian, suffered minor damages as compared with those closer to the west end, 

such as the Smithsonian Castle and the National Museum of Natural History. 

Immediately after the earthquake, most Smithsonian Institution (SI) facilities were evacuated for both public and staff. Shortly thereafter, select Office of 

Facilities Engineering and Operations (OFEO) and unit staff re-entered some 

facilities to assess both building and collections damage. The Office of Protection Services (OPS) immediately activated the Emergency Operations Center 

(EOC) in its primary location in the Capital Gallery building. The Emergency 

Command Center (ECC) from the OPS started to contact all SI units. However, 

depending on individual SI units, wireless phone communications were down 

for the first quarter of an hour after the earthquake and radio systems also had 

periods of poor communication, whereas e-mail and the voice over internet protocol telephone service appeared to work normally during this first period. (We 

subsequently learned that this system did not work consistently for all SI units). 

All SI facilities were immediately closed to the public, and nonemergency staff 

were excused for the rest of the day. 
9 8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

The following day, all SI facilities were open to the 

public and staff with exception of the Museum Support 

Center (MSC), the SI Castle, and select Garber facilities, 

where structural damage had been the worst. However, after further evaluation and cleaning, the MSC and Garber 

Facility were reopened by 25 August 2011. Six days later, 

after emergency measures were taken, the SI Castle was 

reopened to the public and staff. 

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

The prompt reaction in activating the EOC despite 

initial communication problems is likely to have been one 

of the most important decisions because it permitted coordination in the evaluation of damage through the prompt 

action of the Office of Engineering, Design and Construction (OEDC) and the Office of Facility Management and 

Reliability (OFMR), both within OFEO. After the initial 

disruption, communications were quickly re-established 

through SI mobile alerts, SI-wide e-mails, the SI public 

website, and the SI alert website followed by public communications about museum status and interviews with 

Secretary Clough. These communication systems served 

well in preparation for Hurricane Irene.

Even with this level of communication, many units felt 

they were not prepared for an earthquake. The earthquake 

was a regional and Smithsonian-wide event for which the 

SI was not completely prepared since earthquakes have 

not been part of our emergency preparedness plans. Some 

felt that training for earthquake emergency management 

should be improved; others deemed that this might be an 

overreaction as earthquakes are not so frequent on the 

East Coast. Nonetheless, regular updates and guidance 

of what to do in emergency events, including earthquakes 

and hurricanes, is required. 

The response of the National Museum of American 

History (NMAH) can be considered a good example for 

the SI facilities on the Mall. Following the alarm sounded 

by the OPS, the building was evacuated in a safe manner. 

The zone manager notified the OFMR leadership immediately. The West Mall Zone put a team together to inspect 

exterior windows and any visible structure damage. Subsequently, the NMAH building management staff, after 

coordinating with the OPS and the NMAH associate director, sent an ad hoc team into the museum to inspect broken glass, fallen objects, water pipes, kitchen burners, fire 

pumps, and utilities such as natural gas, water, and electric 

and then notified the OFMR leadership of actions taken. 

After inspection, the team confirmed that there were no 

problems associated with the utilities or with broken glass, 

and this information was passed to the NMAH director 

and the OPS. At this point the director allowed employees back into the museum to retrieve personal items and 

released everyone for the day, except select curatorial and 

collections management staff who were going to inspect 

for any collections damage. 

An important point to remember is that immediate 

evacuation of both public and staff from buildings is not 

the proper protocol during an earthquake. Lack of experience prompted the immediate evacuations, and these were 

poorly managed. The designated gathering places were not 

generally known by staff, and this was compounded by 

the initial lack of communication systems. The response 

of OPS staff in the evacuations was not uniform: in some 

buildings they evacuated both staff and visitors but not in 

others. Therefore, training for this type of disaster needs 

to be addressed, in particular the evacuation of public 

from the museums, and especially those with disabilities.

LESSONS LEARNED: 

WHAT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED

While overall the response to the earthquake was 

appropriate and efficient, the following points listed below will help in improving future response to unexpected 

events:

• Reinforce that human safety always takes precedence 

over collections assessment and recovery, including 

the necessity for some buildings to undergo more extensive assessments of structural integrity than others, 

rendering them closed to collections responders for a 

longer period of time than are other buildings.

• Develop a standard protocol regarding what OPS 

units must do in case of earthquake emergencies so 

that they are better equipped to take charge and lead.

• Arrange for critical facilities staff to access the buildings immediately in order to assess damages. 

• Improve communication between the OEDC and the 

OFMR, especially with regard to assessments and 

repairs, for example, regarding what structural engineers should see and evaluate. 

• Improve communication between units within the OFEO. 

• Define the chain of command. In some cases, employees were not sure whether to follow instructions from 

the OPS, the specific unit, or the OFMR. 

• Clearly designate incident command post locations 

both inside and outside each facility so staff know 

where to report new information and receive status 

updates. 
number 4 • 9 9

awareness and training regarding such an event. Nonetheless, the DMP allowed for adequate management of the 

emergency. It has become evident that information regarding earthquake preparedness is necessary, but it should be 

in proportion to that required for more frequent natural 

disasters, such as hurricanes or snow storms. 

Based on the gained experience, the following recommendations are offered:

1. Prepare and distribute informative material regarding 

earthquakes and correct response procedures.

2. Develop and implement emergency preparedness and 

response training courses for diverse natural disasters, 

including earthquakes.

3. Improve SI collections emergency management, planning, preparedness, and response.

4. Establish indefinite delivery–indefinite quantity contracts for a variety of services to ensure emergency 

response and recovery is without delay.

5. Improve communication among all members of the 

central EOC.

6. Improve communications between the central EOC 

and the SI units, especially in the case where evacuation of one or more units is considered necessary.

7. Standardize check-in procedures between central 

EOC and unit–facility ECC staff to ensure that all 

units have reported conditions at their facilities in a 

consistent manner.

8. Standardize forms for recording events and updates 

from the SI Disaster Management Program and business continuity plan and ensure that forms are readily 

available to report damage.

9. Improve radio communications.

10. Provide Office of the Chief Information Officer with 

backup telephone numbers for use during emergencies as current capacity cannot handle the increase of 

calls.

11. Create a less cumbersome all-directors teleconference 

system.

12. Provide regular communications with emergency information via OPS to all SI staff.

13. Publicize the SharePoint website dedicated to the Disaster Management Program. 

14. Arrange for EOC to set up emergency contact organizationally, not geographically, as some unit directors 

do not share facilities.

15. Send periodic reminders to SI staff and volunteers to 

subscribe to the SI alert system.

To address the development of training courses to prepare staff for emergencies, a list of entities that provide 

• Set up guidelines and protocols for emergency situations along with an incident command system, then 

train SI staff to follow them.

• Coordinate with other federal agencies and sister 

institutions, especially on or near the Mall, as their 

evacuation plans may directly impact SI procedures 

and protocols.

• Do not make decisions based on incomplete information. The central EOC made some initial decisions, 

such as that it was safe to re-enter buildings, without 

having full information available from non-Mall facilities where it was not safe to enter the buildings.

• Share immediately structural analysis reports once 

received by the OEDC with all members of the integrated facility team.

• Resolve electronic communication issues. There was 

limited cell phone coverage inside buildings, and 

maintenance staff did not have radio communication. 

These problems were reported at the MSC in Suitland, 

Maryland, various SI sites on the National Mall, and 

at the National Zoo. Building management could not 

reach the OPS or museum staff. Verizon seemed to be 

the best carrier, while Sprint and AT&T were less reliable for cell phone communication.

• Expand risk assessment for exhibition preparation to 

include seismic events during development of exhibition mounts.

• Ensure quality control during installation and periodic inspection of stability of collections storage 

equipment. 

• Reassess current collections storage, exhibition methodologies, and preventive housing practices to minimize damage to collections in the event of a future 

seismic event; understand that adjustments may involve associated costs.

• Establish better guidance regarding the funding of collections storage equipment repairs or replacement and 

collections-specific actions to support immediate and 

short-term unit recovery efforts.

• In shared facilities, ensure emergency plans address 

prioritization of critical needs and orchestration of 

available resources so response is coordinated in the 

most effective manner.

SUGGESTIONS FOR 

FUTURE APPROACHES

The low incidence of significant earthquakes on the 

eastern coast was the main reason the Disaster Management Program (DMP) did not emphasize specific 
100 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

aid, CPR, and automated external defibrillator training 

incorporates the latest scientific guidelines and aligns with 

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s best 

practices for workplace first aid training programs. The 

Red Cross has an app that can be downloaded to smartphones and other such devices from their web page on 

earthquakes: http://www.redcross.org/mobile-apps/earth

quake-app.

Ready

Sponsored by Homeland Security and FEMA, the 

Ready (Listo in Spanish) website (http://www.ready.gov/) 

is a national public service campaign to educate the public 

about how to prepare and respond to emergencies. Emergencies of all flavors are included.

National Library of Medicine’s Disaster Information 

Management Center

This website (http://disaster.nlm.nih.gov/) has up to 

the minute information for disasters and health conditions making the daily news, providing quick access to 

hazardous materials (HazMat) databases for first responders. Designed for librarians and first responders 

in the medical and disaster response communities, it has 

a very broad content including that of cultural heritage 

workers. 

Disaster Information Management Research Center

Sponsored by the National Library of Medicine’s Disaster Information Management Center, the DISASTROUTREACH-LIB listserv (http://sis.nlm.nih.gov/dimrc

/dimrclistserv.html) is very active with a widespread 

membership from the library, medical, public health, environmental, first responder, and other communities. As 

described in the website, “As a participant in this listserv, 

you can stay informed about current disaster-related resources, connect to colleagues in the field, engage in information exchange and learn about new ideas, trends, 

training opportunities, and conferences in the area of disaster health information. Click here for a list of the news 

sources scanned for weekly news updates sent on this 

listserv.”

training alternatives for self-reliance during emergencies is 

provided in an Appendix at the end of this chapter.

Acknowledgments

The collaboration of Paula T. DePriest, Ann Juneau, 

Mary Rogers, and Elizabeth Dietrich in providing suggestions and recommendations included in this chapter 

is gratefully acknowledged. The information presented in 

the Appendix was kindly provided by Ann Juneau.

APPENDIX: TRAINING ALTERNATIVES 

FOR SELF RESILIENCE DURING 

EMERGENCIES

Community Emergency Response Team

The Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) 

was originated in 1985 by the Los Angeles Fire Department to train private citizens and government employees 

to help themselves, their neighbors, and first responders. 

There are now community training groups across the 

country. The Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) recognizes the importance of preparing citizens. 

The Emergency Management Institute and the National 

Fire Academy adopted and expanded CERT materials believing them applicable to all hazards. The basic training 

components of CERT include disaster preparedness, disaster fire suppression, disaster medical operations, light 

search and rescue operations, disaster psychology and 

team organization, course review, and disaster simulation.

Local CERT groups can be found in Montgomery 

County, Prince George’s County, City of Laurel, Anne 

Arundel County, and City of Annapolis in Maryland and 

Arlington County, Fairfax County, Falls Church, and City 

of Alexandria in Virginia.

Red Cross CPR, First Aid, and Automated External 

Defibrillator Certifications

Red Cross certification is valid for two years. In person and web-based training is available. Red Cross first 
Epilogue: Ask Yourself “What if . . . ?”

By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.—Benjamin Franklin

Smithsonian staff and other volunteers working in Haiti after the devastating 2010 earthquake were amazed at the bravery and resilience of our Haitian 

colleagues. We knew that staff at the Centre D’Art (Haitian Art Center) in Portau-Prince began working very quickly after the earthquake to salvage thousands 

of works of art of critical importance to Haiti’s cultural patrimony from their 

damaged building. In those same dark days, members of the Nader family salvaged thousands of paintings from the Nader Museum, rehousing them in their 

gallery in Pétion-Ville. My personal inspiration was architect and artist Patrick 

Villaire, who took it upon himself immediately following the quake to check in 

with the owners of some of the most important public and private collections 

around Port-au-Prince. Using his own truck and work crew, he helped many 

of these owners salvage and rehouse collections of rare books, paintings, and 

works of art. 

Those of us volunteering at the Cultural Recovery Center after the earthquake often gathered in the evenings after dinner, and sometimes the conversation came around to the “what if?” question: “What if I found myself in such 

a disaster? How would I react? What if that was my collection? Could I make 

those hard decisions about which objects to save and which to leave behind?” 

As so often happens when contemplating the worst case scenario, some of us retreated, shaking our heads and saying, “Let’s hope I never have to worry about 

something that bad.” Unfortunately, hope is not a plan. While the 5.8 Mineral, 

Virginia, earthquake that struck on 23 August 2011 caused a mere shadow of 

the devastation caused by Haiti’s 7.0 earthquake, it was a reminder that even 

so-called “once in a lifetime” events require appropriate risk assessment and 

planning to mitigate their effects on people and collections. 

This series of essays provides an overview of how the Smithsonian Institution’s various museums and storage areas were affected by the 2011 earthquake. 

If you read between the lines, you can also get a sense of how it affected the 

staff. Everyone reacted quickly and for the most part correctly, yet there were 

plenty of important lessons learned. Remember that an earthquake means shelter in place; increase the space between objects in storage cabinets so there is 

less chance of breakage; ensure the rails on fluid collections storage shelves are 

secured; and so forth. All of these are fairly easy to comply with, but one thing 
102 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

we know about human behavior is that lessons learned 

often become “lessons identified” over time. Sometimes 

even the easy fixes don’t get accomplished as we return to 

our normal routines. Those who directly experienced the 

disaster move on to other jobs, and the daily demands of 

the job take over. It doesn’t take long before hope, once 

again, becomes the plan.

One of the best ways to prevent this vicious cycle is to 

set aside a specific time of year to update as well as train 

and exercise the emergency plan. Most institutions have a 

written emergency plan, but few regularly communicate 

that plan to staff; even fewer actually carry out training 

drills. Emergency response professionals, the military, and 

law enforcement all know that training, drill, and repetition are necessary elements for teams to ensure quick reaction time, better teamwork, and increased resiliency after 

the disaster. One way to get into a routine about emergency planning is to observe the annual “May Day” campaign promoted by Heritage Preservation (“Do One Thing 

for Emergency Preparedness” at http://www.heritage

preservation.org/mayday/). Planning time to plan is the 

first step.

It may be an old adage in the disaster preparedness 

field, yet it remains true no matter how many times we 

hear it: we do not have control over the disaster, but we 

DO have control over how we prepare. 

Corine Wegener

Cultural Heritage Preservation Officer

Office of the Under Secretary for History, Art, and Culture

Smithsonian Institution
Bibliography

Buildings

Amaratunga, D., and R. Haigh, eds. 2011. Post-Disaster Reconstruction of the Built Environment: 

Rebuilding for Resilience. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. doi.org/10.1002/9781444344943.

Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU). 2007. 1st International Conference on Risk 

Management: Is the World Heritage Endangered Today? Nara, Japan: ACCU, Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office. 

———. 2009. 3rd International Conference on Risk Management: Reducing Vulnerability to Disasters in Historic Cities. Nara, Japan: ACCU, Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office. 

Government of Spain. 2012. Patrimonio en riesgo: Seismos y bienes culturales [Heritage at risk: 

Earthquakes and cultural property]. Revista Patrimonio Cultural de España 6. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. http://www.calameo.com/read/000075335fb4cfb209514 

(accessed 2 June 2014).

Matthews, G., Y. Smith, and G. Knowles. 2009. Disaster Management in Archives, Libraries and 

Museums. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.

Stewart, D., and D. Tremain. 1996. Emergency and Disaster Preparedness for Museums. Ottawa: 

Department of Canadian Heritage, Canadian Conservation Institute. 

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2010. Managing 

Disaster Risks for World Heritage. Paris: UNESCO. http://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/630/ 

(accessed 2 June 2014).

Collection Display and Storage

Accardo, G., A. Altieri, A. Cacace, E. Giani, and A. M. Giovagnoli. 2003. “Risk Map: A Project 

to Aid Decision-Making in the Protection, Preservation and Conservation of Italian Cultural 

Heritage.” In Conservation Science 2002, eds. J. H. Townsend, K. Eremin, and A. Adriaens, 

pp. 44–49. London: Archetype Publications. 

Berke, P., and T. Beatley. 1992. Planning for Earthquakes: Risk, Politics, and Policy. Baltimore: 

Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Dorge, V., W. Faulk, and J. M. Martínez. 2002. “Emergency Planning for Cultural Institutions: The 

Process and Some of Its Challenges.” In 13th Triennial Meeting, Rio de Janeiro: International 

Council of Museums Committee for Conservation Preprints, ed. Roy Vontobel, pp. 27–33. 

London: Earthscan. 

Erturk, N. 2005. “Earthquake Preparedness at the Istanbul Museums.” In Preparing for the Worst, 

Planning for the Best: Protecting Our Cultural Heritage from Disaster, ed. J. G. Wellheiser and 

N. E. Gwinn, pp. 53–59. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions 

Publication 111. Munich: De Gruyter Saur. 

Government of Spain. 2012. Patrimonio en riesgo: Seismos y bienes culturales [Heritage at risk: 

Earthquakes and cultural property]. Revista Patrimonio Cultural de España 6. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. http://www.calameo.com/read/000075335fb4cfb209514 

(accessed 2 June 2014).

Lowry, M., B. J. Farrar, D. Armendariz, and J. Podany. 2007. “Protecting Collections in the J. P. 

Getty Museum from Earthquake Damage.” Western Association for Art Conservation (WAAC) 
104 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUSEUM CONSERVATION

Newsletter 9 (3): 16–23. http://cool.conservation-us.org/waac/wn

/wn29/wn29-3/wn29-305.pdf (accessed 2 June 2014).

Norris, D. H. 1998. Disaster Recovery: Salvaging Photograph Collections. Philadelphia: Conservation Center for Art and Historic Artifacts. http://www.ccaha.org/uploads/media_items/technical-bulletin

-salvaging-photographs.original.pdf (accessed 2 June 2014).

Rebière, J., ed. 2003. Congrès International: Prévention 2000: La prévention des sinistres dans les aires de stockage du patrimoine [Prevention of disasters in cultural heritage storage areas]. Draguignan, 

France: Centre Archéologique du Var. http://www.art-conservation

.fr/colloques/2000/prevention_2000.pdf (accessed 2 June 2014).

Disaster Planning

Ashley-Smith, J. 1999. Risk Assessment for Objects Conservation. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU). 2008. 2nd International Conference on Risk Management: Planning Risk Preparedness for Cultural Heritage Against Natural Disasters. Nara, Japan: 

ACCU, Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office.

Cornu, E. 1991. “Seismic Disaster Planning: Preventive Measures Make 

a Difference.” Western Association for Art Conservation (WAAC) 

Newsletter 13 (3): 13–19. http://cool.conservation-us.org/waac/wn

/wn13/wn13-3/wn13-306.html (accessed 2 June 2014).

Dorge, V., and S. L. Jones, compilers. 1999. Building an Emergency Plan: 

A Guide for Museums and Other Cultural Institutions. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute. http://www.getty.edu/conservation

/publications_resources/pdf_publications/emergency.html (accessed 

2 June 2014). 

Edwards Information. 2011. Edwards Information Emergency Planning 

and Disaster Recovery Sourcebook. Ashton, Md.: Edwards Information. 

Feilden, B. M. 1987. Between Two Earthquakes: Cultural Property in 

Seismic Zones. Rome: International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM); Marina 

del Rey, Calif.: Getty Conservation Institute. http://www.getty.edu

/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/between_two

.html (accessed June 2 2014).

Government of Spain. 2012. Patrimonio en riesgo: Seismos y bienes 

culturales [Heritage at risk: Earthquakes and cultural property]. 

Revista Patrimonio Cultural de España 6. Madrid: Ministerio de 

Educación, Cultura y Deporte. http://www.calameo.com/read/0000

75335fb4cfb209514 (accessed 2 June 2014).

Handmer, J. W., and S. Dovers. 2007. The Handbook of Disaster and 

Emergency Policies and Institutions. London: Earthscan. 

Hawks, C. A., and S. H. Butts, eds. 2011. Health & Safety for Museum 

Professionals. New York: Society for the Preservation of Natural 

History Collections; Washington, D.C.: American Institute for 

Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, Health and Safety 

Committee. 

Heritage Preservation. 2006. Field Guide to Emergency Response. Washington, D.C.: Heritage Preservation. 

International Council of Museums (ICOM). n.d. Guidelines for Disaster Preparedness in Museums. http://icom.museum/fileadmin/user

_upload/pdf/Guidelines/guidelinesdisasters_eng.pdf (accessed 2 June 

2014).

Jenner, S.-J. 2006. “From disaster plan to action plan.” In Proceedings 

of the International Symposium: The 3-D’s of Preservation: Disasters, Displays, Digitization, ed. C. Koch, pp. 34–38. International 

Preservation Issues 7. Paris: International Federation of Library 

Associations and Institutions Core Activity on Preservation and 

Conservation. http://archive.ifla.org/VI/4/news/ipi7-en.pdf (accessed 2 June 2014).

Jigyasu, R., and K. Masuda, eds. 2005. Cultural Heritage Risk Management. World Conference on Disaster Reduction, Kyoto & Kobe, Japan, 15th-22nd January, 2005: Proceedings. Kyoto: Rits- DMUCH 

(Ritsumeikan Daigaku Research Center for Disaster Mitigation of 

Urban Cultural Heritage ). 

Jirasek, P. 1997. Prevention and emergency plans in museums, historic 

monuments, churches and libraries. ICOM International Committee on Museum Security Study Series 4:9–12. 

———. 2004. “Museum Security and Disaster Preparedness.” In Running 

a Museum: A Practical Handbook, ed. P. J. Boylan, pp. 177–193. 

Paris: International Council of Museums (ICOM) and United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001410/141067e.pdf (accessed 2 June 2014).

Jones, B. G. 1986. Protecting Historic Architecture and Museum Collections from Natural Disasters. Boston: Butterworths. 

Knight, B., and S. P. Floray. 2005. Museum Staff Emergency Procedures: 

A Sample Emergency “Flip Chart.” Conserve O Gram 21/11. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Park Service. http://www.nps.gov/history

/museum/publications/conserveogram/21-11.pdf (accessed 2 June 

2014).

Lewitt, A. M. 1997. Disaster Planning and Recovery: A Guide for Facility Professionals. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Liston, D., ed. 1993. Museum Security and Protection: A Handbook for Cultural Heritage Institutions. International Council of Museums (ICOM) 

International Committee on Museum Security. London: Routledge.

Lord, A., C. Reno, and M. Demeroukas. 1994. Steal This Handbook! A 

Template for Creating a Museum’s Emergency Preparedness Plan. 

Columbia, S.C.: Southeastern Registrars Association. 

McIlwaine, J. 2006. “International Federation of Library Associations 

Disaster Preparedness and Planning: A Brief Manual.” International Preservation Issues 7. Paris: International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions Core Activity on Preservation 

and Conservation. http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/pac/ipi/ipi6-en.pdf 

(accessed 2 June 2014).

Meister, P., ed. 1991. 1991 Disaster Preparedness Seminar Proceedings. 

Baton Rouge, La.: Southeastern Museums Conference and Institute 

of Museum Services.

Menegazzi, C., and I. Brianso, eds. 2004. Cultural Heritage, Disaster 

Preparedness and Response. Paris: International Council of Museums (ICOM). http://archives.icom.museum/disaster_preparedness

_book/index.html (accessed 2 June 2014).

Merrill, A. T., ed. 2003. The Strategic Stewardship of Cultural Resources: 

To Preserve and Protect. New York: Haworth Information Press. 

Ramroth, W. G. 2007. Planning for Disaster: How Natural and ManMade Disasters Shape the Built Environment. New York: Kaplan 

Publishing.

Stovel, H. 1998. Risk Preparedness: A Guide for Museums and Other 

Cultural Institutions. Rome: International Centre for the Study of 

the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM). 

http://www.iccrom.org/ifrcdn/pdf/ICCROM_17_RiskPreparedness

_en.pdf (accessed 2 June 2014).

Verberne-Khurshid, F., R. Boitelle, D. Ormond, and R. van Gulik. 2008. 

“Disaster Is Just a Step Away: Working at Being a Step Ahead.” 

In 15th Triennial Conference, New Delhi, International Council of 

Museums Committee for Conservation Preprints, ed. J. Bridgland, 

pp. 798–807. Paris: International Council of Museums Committee 

for Conservation. 

Weise, K., and A. S. Weise, eds. 2010. Proceedings of the International 

Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage: 2010, 5th Year, 13th to 26th September 2010, Kyoto, Kobe, 

Sasayama, Japan. Kyoto: Rits- DMUCH (Ritsumeikan University 

Research Center for Disaster Mitigation of Urban Cultural Heritage 

and International Council of Monuments and Sites [ICOMOS]). 

Wellheiser, J. G., and J. Scott. 2002. An Ounce of Prevention: Integrated 

Disaster Planning for Archives, Libraries, and Record Centres, 2nd 

ed. Lanham, Md.; Scarecrow Press; Toronto: Canadian Archives 

Foundation.
number 4 • 105

Koch, C., ed. 2008. “Proceedings of the International Symposium: The 

3-D’s of Preservation: Disasters, Displays, Digitization.” International Preservation Issues 7. Paris: International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions Core Activity on Preservation 

and Conservation. http://archive.ifla.org/VI/4/news/ipi7-en.pdf (accessed 2 June 2014). 

Human Reactions

Alcántara, I., and A. Goudie, eds. 2010. Geomorphological Hazards and 

Disaster Prevention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807527.

Dörner, D. 1996. The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations. Translated by R. and R. Kimber. Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Books; New York: Metropolitan Books.

Klein, N. 2007. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. 

New York: Henry Holt and Company/Picador.

Massey University, School of Psychology. 2011. A Focus on the Canterbury Earthquakes. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma 

Studies 2011-2, Special Issue. Palmerston North, New Zealand: 

Author. http://www.massey.ac.nz/~trauma/issues/2011-2/contents

.htm (accessed 2 June 2014).

General

AlabamaQuake.com. 2014. “Locating Earthquakes.” Earthquake and 

Seismic Education. http://alabamaquake.com/education.html (accessed 2 June 2014).

Government of Spain. 2012. Patrimonio en riesgo: Seismos y bienes 

culturales [Heritage at risk: Earthquakes and cultural property]. 

Revista Patrimonio Cultural de España 6. Madrid: Ministerio 

de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. http://www.calameo.com/read

/000075335fb4cfb209514 (accessed 2 June 2014).

International Council of Museums (ICOM). 2011. Haïti, Cultural Heritage and Reconstruction. Museum International No. 248 (Vol. 

62, Issue no. 4, December 2010): 5–124. (Some articles can be 

downloaded from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/muse

.2011.62.issue-4/issuetoc.)

Haiti Cultural Recovery Project. 2010. Bibliographie. Aide d’urgence pour 

le patrimoine culturel haïtien [Bibliography. First aid for Haitian cultural heritage]. Port au Prince: International Centre for the Study of 

the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) 

and Smithsonian Institution. http://www.iccrom.org/ifrcdn/fra/prog

_fr/01coll_fr/archive-haiti_fr/2010_09HaiticourseBiblio.pdf (accessed 5 June 2014).
ALL MANUSCRIPTS ARE REVIEWED FOR ADHERENCE TO THE SISP MANUSCRIPT PREPARATION AND 

STYLE GUIDE FOR AUTHORS (available on the “Submissions” page at www.scholarlypress.si.edu). Manuscripts not 

in compliance will be returned to the author. Manuscripts intended for publication in the Contributions Series are evaluated by a content review board and undergo substantive peer 

review. Accepted manuscripts are submitted for funding approval and scheduling to the Publications Oversight Board. 

MINIMUM MANUSCRIPT LENGTH is thirty manuscript 

pages. If a manuscript is longer than average, an appropriate 

length will be determined during peer review and evaluation 

by the Content Review Board. Authors may be asked to edit 

manuscripts that are determined to be too long. 

TEXT must be prepared in a recent version of Microsoft 

Word; use a Times font in 12 point for regular text; be double 

spaced; and have 1” margins. Each chapter/section must be 

saved in a separate file.

REQUIRED ELEMENTS are title page, abstract page, table 

of contents, main text, and reference section. See the SISP 

Manuscript Preparation and Style Guide for Authors for the 

order of all elements.

HEADINGS should be styled so different levels of headings are 

distinct from each other and so the organization of the manuscript is clear. Insert one line space above and one line space 

below all headings.

FRONT MATTER should include title page, abstract page, 

and table of contents. All other sections are optional. Abstracts must not exceed 300 words. Table of contents should 

include A-, B-, and C-level headings.

TABLES (numbered, with captions, stubs, rules) should be 

submitted in separate MS Word files; should include footnotes, if appropriate; should have rules only at top, bottom, 

and beneath column heads. Print outs of each table should 

accompany the manuscript to ensure correct layout of data. 

Tabulations within running text should not be numbered or 

formatted like formal tables, and should be included in the 

text of the manuscript. 

FIGURE CAPTIONS should be provided in a separate MS 

Word file.

FIGURES (e.g., photographs, line art, maps) should be numbered sequentially (1, 2, 3, etc.) in the order called out; be 

placed throughout text, not at end of manuscript; have all 

components of composites lettered with lowercase letters and 

described in the caption; include a scale bar or scale description, if appropriate; include any legends in or on the figure 

rather than in a caption. 

ART must not be embedded in the main text.

Figures must be original and submitted as individual TIFF 

or EPS files. Resolution for art files must be at least 300 dpi 

for grayscale and color images and at least 1200 dpi for line 

art. Electronic images should measure no more than 100% 

and no less than 75% of final size when published. JPG files 

will not be accepted. Color images significantly increase 

costs so should be included only if required. Funding for 

color art is subject to approval by SISP and the Publications 

Oversight Board.

IN-TEXT REFERENCES should be used rather than bibliographic notes and should follow the author-date system in the 

following format: “(author last name, year)” or “. . . author 

(year)”; “(author, year:page used within the text)” or “. . . 

author (year:page).” A full citation should be included in a 

“References” section.

ENDNOTES are to be used in lieu of footnotes and should 

be keyed manually into a separate MS Word file, in a section titled “Notes”. Notes should not contain bibliographic 

information. Manually type superscript numerals in text and 

use full-sized numerals at the beginning of each note in the 

“Notes” section. SISP will determine the best placement of the 

notes section, either at the end of each chapter or at the end 

of the main text.

REFERENCES should be in alphabetical order, and in chronological order for same-author entries. Each reference should 

be cited at least once in main text. Complete bibliographic 

information must be included in all citations (e.g., author/editor, title, subtitle, edition, volume, issue, pages, figures). For 

books, place of publication and publisher are required. For 

journals, use the parentheses system for volume(number):pagination [e.g., “10(2):5–9”]. Do not use “et al.”; all authors/

editors should be included in reference citations. In titles, 

capitalize first word, last word, first word after colon, and all 

other words except articles, conjunctions, and prepositions. 

Examples of the most common types of citations are provided 

in the SISP Manuscript Preparation and Author Style Guide. 

For questions regarding the guidelines, please email SISP at 

schol.press@si.edu. 

REQUIREMENTS FOR SMITHSONIAN SERIES PUBLICATION