693

ARTICLE
Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the 27 February
2010 Maule (Chile) earthquake1
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on 08/07/13

Murat Saatcioglu, Dan Palermo, Ahmed Ghobarah, Denis Mitchell, Rob Simpson, Perry Adebar, Robert Tremblay, Carlos Ventura,
and Hanping Hong

Abstract: The paper presents observed damage in reinforced concrete buildings during the 27 February 2010 Maule earthquake
in Chile. Performance of concrete frame and shear wall buildings are discussed with emphasis on seismic deficiencies in design
and construction practices. It is shown that the majority of structural damage in multistorey and high-rise buildings can be
attributed to poor performance of slender shear walls, without confined boundary elements, suffering from crushing of concrete
and buckling of vertical wall reinforcement. Use of irregular buildings, lack of seismic detailing, and the interference of
nonstructural elements were commonly observed seismic deficiencies. A comparison is made between Chilean and Canadian
design practices with references made to the applicable code clauses. Lessons are drawn from the observed structural perfor-
mance.

Key words: buildings, boundary elements, building code, concrete buildings, detailing, earthquakes, reinforced concrete, seis-
micity, seismic damage, seismic design, shear walls, structural damage.

Résumé : Cet article traite des dommages observés aux bâtiments en béton armé subis lors du séisme à Maule, Chili, le 27 février
2010. Le comportement des bâtiments à ossature de béton et à murs de contreventement est abordé en faisant ressortir les
manques sismiques dans la conception et les pratiques de construction. Il est montré que la majorité des dommages structuraux
For personal use only.

dans les immeubles à plusieurs étages et de grande hauteur peut être attribuée au piètre rendement des murs de contrevente-
ment élancés, sans éléments de contour frettés, qui souffre de l’écrasement du béton et du flambement de l’armature verticale
des murs. L’utilisation de bâtiments non standards, le manque de détails sismiques et l’interférence d’éléments non structuraux
ont été les manques sismiques les plus souvent observées. Les pratiques de conception chiliennes et canadiennes sont comparées
avec des références aux normes des codes applicables. Des leçons sont tirées du comportement structural observé. [Traduit par
la Rédaction]

Mots-clés : bâtiments, éléments de contour, code du bâtiment, bâtiments en béton, détails de construction, séismes, béton armé,
séismicité, dommage sismique, conception sismique, murs de contreventement, dommages structuraux.

Introduction cluded Santiago, Curico, Talca, and Chillan along Highway 5,

A magnitude 8.8 earthquake occurred on 27 February 2010, off
the coast of central Chile, causing widespread devastation in the
Maule Region. The earthquake took place along the subduction
zone, at the boundary between the Nazca and South America
tectonic plates. The Nazca plate has been moving downward and
landward below the South American plate at a rate of approxi-
mately 80 mm per year. The rupturing of the fault between the
two plates, at about 8 km west of the central Chilean coast, re-
sulted in a magnitude 8.8 earthquake with a hypocentral depth of
35 km. The epicenter was 95 km northwest of Chillan, 105 km
north of Concepción, and 335 km southwest of Santiago (Fig. 1).
Peak ground accelerations in east–west and north–south direc-
tions were measured to be 0.65g and 0.78g in Concepción and
Melipilla (58 km west of Santiago), respectively. The quake af-
fected buildings in central Chile within a 120 km zone from the
coastline.
The authors conducted reconnaissance trips to Chile in March
and April of 2010 to assess structural damage. The site visits in-
as well as Concepción, Talcahuano, Pelluhue, Constitución, and
Pichilemu along the Pacific coast (Fig. 1). Significant damage was
observed in both engineered and non-engineered buildings,
though many modern engineered buildings built in recent years
survived the earthquake with little or no damage. A large inven-
tory of buildings was built after the 1960 magnitude 9.5 Valdipia
earthquake. The majority of modern engineered buildings were
built after the 1985 magnitude 8.0 Santiago earthquake. Accord-
ing to a study conducted by Rene Lagos (Elnashai et al. 2010), based
on the building permit statistics provided by the National Insti-
tute of Statistics Chile; 9974 buildings were constructed between
1985 and 2009. Only 4 of these buildings collapsed and approxi-
mately 50 were damaged beyond repair during the 27 February
2010 earthquake. Among those built between 1985 and 2009, only
2.5% of buildings suffered damage. Almost all the damaged build-
ings were built on poor or soft soils. Several buildings were less
than a year old.

Received 19 June 2012. Accepted 30 August 2012.

M. Saatcioglu and D. Palermo. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada.
A. Ghobarah. Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L7, Canada.
D. Mitchell. Department of Civil Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0C3, Canada.
R. Simpson. Glotman Simpson Consulting Engineers, Vancouver, BC V6J 1N5, Canada.
P. Adebar and C. Ventura. Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.
R. Tremblay. Département de génie civil, École Polytechnique de Montréal, Montréal QC H3C 3A7, Canada.
H. Hong. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Western University, London, ON N6A 5B8, Canada.
Corresponding author: Murat Saatcioglu (e-mail: Murat.Saatcioglu@uOttawa.ca).
1This paper is one of a selection of papers in this Special Issue on Lessons Learned from Recent Earthquakes.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 40: 693–710 (2013) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2012-0243 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cjce on 26 July 2013.
 694 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013

Fig. 1. Cities visited and the epicentral location. (Source USGS).

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on 08/07/13
For personal use only.

Table 1. Soil types in NCh433–1996 and NBCC–2010.

NCh433–1996 NBCC–2010
Soil Soil
type Soil description n T= (s) S type Soil description
I Rock or soil with Vs ≥ 900 m/s 1.0 0.20 0.9 A Hard rock with Vs > 1500 m/s
B Rock with 760 m/s < Vs ≤900 m/s
II Dense gravel and sand or stiff 1.33 0.35 1.0 C Very dense soil and soft rock with
cohesive soils with 360 m/s < Vs ≤760 m/s
Vs ≥ 400 m/s in upper 10 m
III Medium density unsaturated 1.80 0.85 1.2 D Stiff soil with 180 m/s < Vs ≤
sand and gravel, or 360 m/s
medium stiff cohesive soils
IV Soft saturated cohesive soils 1.80 1.35 1.3 E Soft soil with Vs ≤ 180 m/s
Note: Vs is the shear wave velocity measured at site.

This paper describes the performance of reinforced concrete
buildings observed by the Canadian reconnaissance team. An as-
sessment of the Chilean seismic design practice, relative to that
used in Canada is also presented. Performance of masonry build-
ings, structural steel buildings, non-engineered adobe buildings,
and nonstructural building components are discussed elsewhere
by Saatcioglu et al. (2013).
Chilean seismic design practice for buildings
The majority of engineered buildings in Chile have reinforced con-
crete structural systems. The Chilean concrete design practice was
influenced by the German code starting in the late 1940s. Early rein-
forced concrete standards in Chile, NCh 429-57 (INN 1957) and 430-61
(INN 1961), followed the German standard DIN 1045 until the mid
1970s when the 1970 CEB Model code was informally introduced
(Yanez 2002). After the 1985 Santiago earthquake, the US practice
gained prominence, though the German, CEB, and the New Zealand
codes were also used by practicing engineers. The first Chilean Seis-
mic Code (NCh 433-96) was published in 1996, which was reissued in
2002 and revised in 2009 (INN 2009). It was based on the US practice
at the time, with similar provisions to those of the 1994 edition of the
Uniform Building Code (ICBO 1994).
The performance objectives specified in NCh433-96 are similar
to those given in the 2010 National Building Code of Canada

Published by NRC Research Press

 Saatcioglu et al. 695

Table 2. Response modification factors (R and R0
) and maximum limit for seismic coefficient (Cmax = C=SAo/g) in
NCh433–1996.
Structural system Structural material R R0
C=
Moment resisting Structural steel 7 11 0.35
space frames Reinforced concrete 7 11 0.35
Shear walls and Structural steel 7 11 0.35
braced systems Reinforced concrete 7 11 0.35
Reinforced concrete and confined masonry 6 9 0.35
- if conc. walls resist at least 50% of storey shear 4 4 0.55
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on 08/07/13

- if conc. walls resist less than 50% of storey shear

Wood 5.5 7 0.40
Confined masonry 4 4 0.55
Reinforced masonry 4 4 0.55
- of fully grouted concrete blocks, double-wythe 3 3 0.60
- of partially grouted concrete block and clay
bricks with partial or full grouting
Any type of structure or material that cannot be classified in one of the 2 — 0.90
above categories (spectral modal analysis is not permitted)
Note: Cmax= C=SAo/g, where S reflects the effect of soil as indicated in Table 1.

Fig. 2. Response sepctra of selected earthquake records.

For personal use only.

Fig. 3. Comparisons of design base shear requirements of NCh433-1996 and NBCC-2010 for conventional (R = 2; RdRo = 1.95) and ductile concrete
systems (R = 7; RdRo = 6.8 for frames and coupled walls, and 5.6 for ductile shear walls), for buildings of normal importance on firm soil.

(NRCC 2010). Accordingly, buildings are expected to survive mod- quakes occur, structural collapse must be prevented, though dam-
erate intensity earthquakes without structural damage. During age is expected. The seismic hazard is based on an earthquake
lower intensity earthquakes, damage is limited to architectural return period of 472 years, corresponding approximately to a
and nonstructural components. When exceptionally severe earth- 475-year return period with 10% probability of exceedance in

Published by NRC Research Press

 696
Fig. 4. Alto Rio Condominium in Concepción: (a) before the earthquake, (b) after the earthquake, (c) approximate sketch of building layout,
(d) shear-wall failure, and (e) spliced reinforcement.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on 08/07/13
For personal use only.
50 years. The seismic hazard is specified using seismic zones, with
Zone 3 being the highest seismic zone along the Pacific coast,
Zone 2 being the intermediate zone running parallel to the Pacific
coast but further inland, and Zone 1 being the lowest seismic zone
in the easternmost region of the country. These zones are as-
signed peak ground accelerations of 0.4g, 0.3g, and 0.2g, for Zones
3, 2, and 1, respectively. Four different soil types are specified, as
shown in Table 1. Soil amplification in softer soils is introduced
through a number of coefficients as explained later in this section.
NCh433-96 permits two types of analysis: (i) equivalent static
load analysis, and (ii) dynamic spectral modal analysis. The static
analysis is permitted for all buildings in seismic Zone 1, except for
post-disaster buildings and buildings with high importance. It is
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013
also permissible for buildings in other seismic zones, provided
that the building height does not exceed 5 storeys or 20 m. Equiv-
alent static load analysis may also be used for taller buildings of
up to 15 storeys high, if the ratio of building height to fundamen-
tal period in each direction is equal to or higher than 40 m/s and
the distribution of seismic forces is such that the storey shears
and overturning moments do not differ by more than 10% relative
to those obtained from spectral modal analysis used for distribut-
ing the static base shear. Similar but different restrictions exist in
the 2010 NBCC for using the equivalent static force approach. In
Canada, the static approach may be used if the building is located
in regions of low seismicity. In higher seismic regions it may be
used for regular buildings that are less than 60 m in height with
Published by NRC Research Press
 Saatcioglu et al.
Fig. 5. Torre O'Higgins Office Building in Concepción: (a) rear view, (b) front view, (c) loss of a storey, and (d) failure of coupling beams.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on 08/07/13
For personal use only.
fundamental periods less than 2.0 s, and irregular buildings that
are less than 20 m in height with fundamental periods less than
0.5 s.
The equivalent static design base shear in NCh433-1996 is
(1) Q a ⫽ CIP
where I is a coefficient that reflects the importance of the building
based on its use and occupancy and associated categories. Cate-
gory A includes government and public buildings, hospitals, fire
stations, media broadcasting stations, and other essential service
buildings with I = 1.2. This compares with the 2010 NBCC impor-
tance factor of IE = 1.5 used for post-disaster buildings. Category B
is for assembly rooms, stadia, schools, prisons, and shopping cen-
tres, also with I = 1.2. This compares with 2010 NBCC importance
factor of IE = 1.3 for high importance buildings. Category C in-
cludes buildings that do not belong to Categories A and B with I =
1.0. This corresponds to IE = 1.0 for buildings of normal importance
in the 2010 NBCC. Finally, Category D is for structures that are not
intended for human occupancy, with I = 0.6. This compares with
IE = 0.8 in NBCC-2010 for buildings of low importance. Term P in
eq. (1) is the total building seismic weight above the base level, and
C is the seismic coefficient defined as follows.
共兲
2.75A0 T
n
(2) C⫽
gR T∗
where A0 is the peak horizontal acceleration for one of the three
seismic regions defined for Chile (0.4g, 0.3g, and 0.2g, for Zones 3,
2, and 1, respectively), g is the gravitational acceleration, and R is
697
the structural response modification factor that reflects ductility
and energy absorption capacity of the structural system. Two dif-
ferent sets of response modification factors are specified as given
in Table 2 (R and R
0), where R is used for equivalent static load
analysis and R
0 is used for spectral modal analysis. For mixed
systems, the lowest of the response modification factor specified
for each system is used.
The term T* in eq. (1) is the period of the structure for the mode
corresponding to the highest equivalent mass in the direction of
analysis, n and T= are parameters reflecting the effects of soil
conditions. These values can be obtained from Table 1. The seismic
coefficient computed by eq. (2) has a lower limit of Ao/6g and
upper limits (Cmax) specified in Table 2, which vary with the re-
sponse modification factors and soil conditions.
In the 2010 NBCC (NRCC 2010), seismic hazard is specified by the
Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS) based on 2% probability of ex-
ceedance in 50 years for each municipality in Canada, rather than
using seismic zones. Significant emphasis is placed on irregulari-
ties as compared to the Chilean code. The following equation may
be used to compute the equivalent static base shear based on the
2010 NBCC.
(3) V ⫽ S(Ta)MvIEW/(RdR0)
where S(Ta) is the design spectral acceleration as modified for local
soil conditions, Mv is a factor to account for higher mode effects, IE
is importance factor, W is the seismic weight of building, and Rd
and R0 are ductility-related and overstrength-related force modi-
fication factors. There are limits placed on the base shear expres-
sion in short and long period ranges. For most buildings the
Published by NRC Research Press
 698 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013

Fig. 6. Performance of Plaza del Rio building in Concepcion: (a) Plaza del Rio building, (b) shear crack in wall, (c) damaged first-storey shear-
wall, (d) discontinuous wall supported by columns, (e) lack of transverse reinforcement, and (f) column hinging.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on 08/07/13
For personal use only.

maximum base shear in the short period range is limited to that
computed for 2/3 the spectral value at 0.2 s period, except for
buildings on liquefiable soils and highly plastic clays, as well as
buildings with brittle seismic force resisting systems, to which the
reduction does not apply. In the long period range, the base shear
is not reduced with increased period beyond 4.0 s, if the seismic
force resisting system has structural walls; and beyond 2.0 s for
frame buildings (including braced frames) and other structural
systems.
Four recorded earthquake motions (Boroschek et al. 2010) were
selected to compare the 27 February 2010 event with design spec-
tral values specified in NCh433-1996. The first record was obtained
from an instrument located 209 km from the epicenter in Angol
Municipality (ANGO) with a peak ground acceleration of 0.69g in
E-W direction. Two other records were obtained from the San
Pedro Station (CCSP) in the city of Concepción, 109 km away from
the epicenter, where a number of high-rise buildings were signif-
icantly damaged as discussed later in the paper. These records
have maximum ground accelerations of 0.59g and 0.64g in E-W
and N-S directions, respectively. The fourth ground motion was
recorded in Constitucion (COT), 70 km from the epicenter, with a
peak ground acceleration of 0.53g. Information on local soil con-
ditions was not provided. Figure 2 illustrates the 5% damped elas-
tic response spectra for these four records. All records indicate
maximum spectral values in excess of 1.0g, and one record reach-
ing as high as 3.0g. The maximum seismic coefficient Cmax for the

Published by NRC Research Press

 Saatcioglu et al.
Fig. 7. Central Park Condominium in Santiago: (a) approximate building layout, (b) southwest view, (c) west wall shear cracks, (d) damage in
shear wall, (e) column bar buckling, and (f) column shear failure.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on 08/07/13
For personal use only.
coastal region (within Zone 3 with PGA = 0.4g) ranges between
0.36 for Type II stiff soils and 0.47 for Type IV soft soils correspond-
ing to the minimum response modification factor of 2.0. Figure 3
provides a comparison of seismic base shear requirements for
ordinary buildings with an importance factor of 1.0, designed ei-
ther as ductile-earthquake resistant buildings or as conventional
buildings by NCh433-1996 in the coastal region of Chile; and by
the 2010 NBCC for Vancouver, Canada. Figures 2 and 3 demon-
strate that the seismic demand imposed on buildings with periods
of less than approximately 1.0 s was significantly higher than
what was anticipated in the code. Figure 3 results further indicate
that the design force requirements of the two codes are compara-
ble. This comparison is made for firm soil conditions with Type II
category soil in NCh433-1996 and equivalent Type C class soil in
the 2010 NBCC. For softer soils, the force demands in the Chilean
code can increase by only 30%, whereas the Canadian code calls
for up to 100% increase in the equivalent design base shear.
699
Performance of reinforced concrete buildings
The principal structural material used in Chile for mid- to high-
rise buildings is reinforced concrete. Moroni and Ghomez (2002),
in their review of 640 buildings of 10 storeys and higher concluded
that, of the buildings built after 1950, 76.7% have reinforced con-
crete shear-wall systems and 21.6% have combined shear-wall
frame interactive systems. The design practice in Chile, for mod-
ern buildings that were subjected to the 27 February 2010 earth-
quake, followed primarily the US practice with some exceptions.
An important shortcoming of the Chilean code is the lack of pro-
visions restricting irregularities in buildings. Poor performance
observed in irregular buildings is discussed in detail in the follow-
ing sections.
Since 1996, the seismic design practice for concrete buildings in
Chile has followed the provisions of ACI 318-95 Building Code
(1995), with some exceptions. Provision B.2 of NCh433-1996 makes
Published by NRC Research Press
 700 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013

Fig. 8. Partial collapse of Maipu apartments in Santiago: (a) apartment buildings in Maipu, Santiago with soft stories, (b) failure of a soft
storey, (c) diagonal tension failure of a wall, (d) high shear demands on soft storey walls, (e) failure of a narrow first-storey wall, and (f) lack of a
boundary element and bar buckling.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on 08/07/13
For personal use only.

Fig. 9. Plaza Mayor Complex in Concepcion: (a) overall view and (b) locations of buildings.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Saatcioglu et al.
Fig. 10. Design and detailing deficiencies in Plaza Mayor I: (a) Plaza Mayor I, (b) column damage, (c) lack of confinement and concrete
crushing, and (d) beam reinforcement anchored in column cover.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on 08/07/13
For personal use only.
a specific reference to the Chapter 21 provisions of ACI 318-95 for
designing and detailing reinforced concrete frame elements in
zones of high seismicity. This implies that the seismic design and
detailing requirements for earthquake resistant frame elements
are similar to those specified in Chapter 21 of CSA A23.3-2004 for
ductile moment resisting frames mainly because of the similari-
ties between the provisions of ACI318 and CSA A23.3 for frame
buildings. Both codes employ capacity design principles, where
energy-dissipation is promoted in well designed and detailed
flexure dominant elements while all others are designed to
have sufficient capacity to ensure the formation of the desired
energy-dissipating mechanisms. This indicates that the beams
are designed to have continuous top and bottom reinforce-
ment with sufficient negative and positive moment capacities
throughout their lengths to accommodate force reversals. The
strong-column weak beam concept is implemented to promote
flexural yielding at the ends of beams, rather than in columns.
Premature shear failure is prevented by designing for shear
forces associated with probable moment resistances at member
ends. Though shear design in CSA A23.3 follows a refined ap-
proach, shear capacities resulting from the two approaches are
not expected to be significantly different for the majority of frame
elements. Joint shear failure is suppressed by providing sufficient
joint shear capacity, and the columns are confined by closely
spaced transverse reinforcement for improved inelastic deform-
ability, though the CSA A23.3-2004 provides refined expressions
for concrete confinement, accounting for the effects of column
axial compression and the distribution of laterally supported lon-
gitudinal reinforcement.
The primary difference between the Chilean and North Ameri-
can concrete design provisions are in the area of shear wall design.
Provision B.2.2 of NCh433-1996 provides an exemption to the
ACI318-95 wall design provisions by excluding paragraphs 21.6.6.1
701
through 21.6.6.4 of ACI318-95, which require well-confined bound-
ary elements in wall boundaries and edges around openings of
structural walls when the maximum extreme fibre stress under
factored loads exceeds 0.2 fc
. This was justified in the Chilean
Code because of the satisfactory performance of shear-wall build-
ings designed in accordance with NCh433-72 without the require-
ment for boundary elements, during the March 1985 earthquake.
Unlike the Chilean code requirements, CSA A23.3-2004 ductile
wall provisions require concentrated vertical reinforcement at
each end of the wall, consisting of a minimum of four bars placed
in at least two layers. The minimum area of concentrated rein-
forcement is specified to be not less than 0.001 times the wall
cross-sectional area at each end of the wall, with 50% increased
minimum reinforcement to be used in potential plastic hinge
regions, with either buckling prevention ties or more stringent
transverse confinement reinforcement, depending on the maxi-
mum compression fibre strain in the wall. The Canadian standard
permits the design of ductile or moderately ductile walls, depend-
ing on the ductility related force modification factor (Rd) used,
with the ductility of walls computed on the basis of inelastic
rotational demands and capacities.
The use of slender shear walls is quite common in Chile, many
of which appear to violate the minimum thickness requirement
of CSA A23.3-2004 for earthquake resistant shear walls, which is
equal to 1/10th to 1/14th of unsupported wall height between the
floors. Walls with 150 mm thickness commonly observed in many
multistorey buildings in Chile are similar to the conventional
shear walls used in Canada, with a minimum wall thickness equal
to 1/25th of the unsupported wall height or 150 mm, whichever is
less.
Published by NRC Research Press
 702
Fig. 11. Damage to Plaza IV at the indoor garage level: (a) measured permanent displacements at roof level, (b) slender wall with buckled
reinforcement, and (c) buckling of longitudinal wall reinforcement.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on 08/07/13
For personal use only.
Effects of irregularities
Because the 1996 Chilean Seismic Code did not provide restric-
tions on structural irregularities, many buildings were built with
horizontal and vertical irregularities. Figure 4 shows the 15-storey
Alto Rio Condominium building located in Concepcion, which
was designed in 2008. The site in the vicinity of the building
consisted of deep deposits of soft alluvium soil. The building had
reinforced concrete shear walls, which had an offset at the first
storey level on the side towards which it collapsed, as indicated in
the elevation view shown in Fig. 4c. The walls were slender, and
lacked confined boundary elements. The vertical irregularity may
have resulted in increased compressive stresses at the first storey
level, crushing the unconfined concrete near wall ends, possibly
triggering the wall failure. It appeared that this was accompanied
by the tensile failure of wall reinforcement, resulting in total
collapse of the building. Figure 4e also illustrates the slippage of
spliced reinforcement near the base, raising the possibility of
insufficient splicing of reinforcement within the plastic hinge
region. It is interesting to note that very few people lost their lives
in the collapse of the residential building primarily because very
few tenants had moved into the brand new building.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013
Only a couple of blocks away from the Alto Rio Condominium
building was the 21-storey Torre O'Higgins office building, built in
2008. The building had setbacks at various locations, as can be
seen from the rear view, illustrated in Fig. 5a. The performance of
the building clearly demonstrated the effects of setbacks and tor-
sional eccentricity due to the presence of shear walls located at
the rear of the building. All of the damage was concentrated on
two sides of the building. The effects of the irregularities and
torsional eccentricity resulted in increased force and deformation
demands on the front of the building. The building lost a partial
storey at the location of a frame setback, and suffered significant
damage to the coupling beams at the front of the building.
Another building in Concepcion with irregularities was the 13-
storey Plaza del Rio residential building, which was L-shaped in
plan, consisting of two buildings in close proximity with a seismic
joint. The building, built in 2007, was a shear-wall building typical
of the style of construction in Chile with an abundance of internal
load bearing walls. Some of the shear walls were discontinuous,
and supported by columns at the first storey level, creating a soft
storey. The shear walls were very slender, lightly reinforced, and
without confinement reinforcement. Figure 6a shows the overall
Published by NRC Research Press
 Saatcioglu et al. 703

Fig. 12. Design, detailing, and construction deficiencies in Plaza IV garage: (a) lack of boundary element and bar buckling, (b) buckling of
compression bars at wall ends, (c) perforation of walls, (d) weakened wall by placement of a duct, (e) bars cut and not replaced to allow for
piping, and (f) poor anchorage of beam reinforcement, 90° column tie bents.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on 08/07/13
For personal use only.

view of the building. Figures 6b and 6c show extensive crushing of
the concrete along the base of the wall and along diagonal shear
cracks. Also shown is a lightly reinforced slender wall with buck-
led larger size bars near the ends. Plastic hinging of first storey
columns and lack of sufficient confinement for the increased de-
formation demand associated with the soft storey can be observed
in Figs. 6d through 6f. The figure also shows the use of small
diameter smooth reinforcement as column ties, with 90° hooks.
Figure 7 shows the Central Park Condominium building in San-
tiago, which suffered from shear wall and column damage. A
sketch of the building layout is shown in Fig. 7a, with approxi-
mate dimensions. The overall view of the building is shown in
Fig. 7b, exposing the southwest elevation. The building is shaped
such that the east end is longer and stiffer, containing two rein-
forced concrete shear walls in the transverse direction. All of the
damage was concentrated in the narrow west end and southwest
segment of the building. This suggests possible torsional effects,
increasing deformation demands at this end of the building. Fig-
ure 7c shows the west end of the building, with diagonal shear
cracks. Figure 7d illustrates the shear failure of a slender struc-
tural wall, also exposing sliding shear failure at a location of
change in wall length, where a significant change in wall strength
and stiffness is introduced. Two columns on the southwest face of
the building also suffered damage as illustrated in Figs. 7e and 7f.
The Maipu district of Santiago had a number of four-storey
older concrete apartment buildings that suffered partial collapse
of soft storeys used for parking. Figures 8a and 8b show the overall
view of the apartment complex, while illustrating soft stories. The
buildings had 150 mm thick reinforced concrete shear walls with
uniformly distributed vertical reinforcement and although larger
diameter reinforcing bars were concentrated at the end regions of
the walls these regions were not well confined. Figure 8c shows
extensive crushing of concrete along a diagonal tension crack.
Figures 8d and 8e show the out-of-plane movement after compres-
sion failure of walls and columns in first storey due to the increase
in force and deformation demands in soft and weak storeys. This
type of failure is prevented in the Canadian design practice by
limiting the use of weak storeys (NBCC 2010 Fig. 8f illustrates lack

Published by NRC Research Press

 704
Fig. 13. Failure of far end shear wall of Alto Arauco II Residential Building in Concepcion: (a) front view and (b) diagonal tension failure of
shear wall.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on 08/07/13
Fig. 14. Buckling of distributed vertical reinforcement in shear-
walls of Balaceda 2150 in Santiago.
For personal use only.
of well-confined boundary elements with 90° bends on the ties
instead of buckling restraining ties as required by CSA A23.3-04,
and the buckling of compression bars.
Design and detailing deficiencies
Structural damage in many recently built medium to high-rise
buildings was attributed to design and detailing deficiencies. The
use of slender shear walls, sometimes as thin as 150 mm, without
any boundary elements and buckling restraining ties, contributed
to widespread damage, especially when these deficiencies were
coupled with soft soil conditions and irregular floor layouts. The
Plaza Mayor Complex in Concepcion demonstrates design defi-
ciencies in walls and columns. This condominium complex con-
sists of 6 buildings as shown in Fig. 9. According to a local
engineer the site for the building complex is not too far from a
former pond, implying that the site for the buildings may poten-
tially have soft soils. Figure 10a shows 16-storey Plaza Mayor I,
which consists of reinforced concrete shear walls and columns,
with a large number of narrow and slender shear walls. Figure 10b
and 10c illustrate the performance of exterior columns of Plaza
Mayor I. The use of perimeter ties without interior crossties,
though placed with approximately h/4 spacing and 135° hooks, did
not provide sufficient confinement of concrete, and resulted in
the compression crushing of columns. Figure 10d illustrates a de-
tailing flaw, showing beam reinforcement anchored in column
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013
cover concrete instead of within the core of the beam–column
joint.
Nearby Plaza Mayor IV consists of two 16-storey buildings, with
a common underground garage. The buildings suffered extensive
damage to their shear walls at the garage level, which resulted in
permanent displacements in the structure. The readings taken by
a local surveyor were provided to the members of the visiting
team. Figure 11a shows the exterior view of Plaza Mayor IV, with
measured permanent displacements indicated. A common prob-
lem observed in structural walls was the buckling of uniformly
distributed reinforcement as shown in Figs. 11b and 11c. The dis-
tributed vertical reinforcement had larger diameter than typically
prescribed for minimum reinforcement. CSA A23.3-04 requires
vertical distributed reinforcement larger than No. 15 bars (with
16.3 mm diameter) to be tied by buckling prevention ties. Lack of
well confined shear wall boundary elements also resulted in the
buckling of larger size bars sometimes concentrated at the ends of
the walls, as shown in Figs. 12a and 12b. In addition, a significant
number of large perforations were evident in structural walls at
the garage level to accommodate mechanical ducts. The perfora-
tions caused further weakening in structural elements and many
shear failures were observed adjacent to the perforations, as illus-
trated in Figs. 12b, 12c, and 12d. In some cases the reinforcement
was cut and never replaced to allow for the openings, as depicted
in Fig. 12e. This resulted in reduced shear capacity, locally. An-
other common detailing deficiency was the improper anchorage
of the reinforcement. Figure 12f shows poor anchorage of beam
reinforcement, coupled with insufficient joint reinforcement and
90° column tie hooks.
Another building in Concepción that suffered from shear wall
damage was the Alto Arauco II residential building. The building
was 22 storeys high and had setbacks. The shear wall at the rear of
the building suffered a diagonal shear failure, as illustrated in
Fig. 13.
A number of mid- to high-rise buildings in Santiago suffered
from the failure of shear walls in their lower stories because of
compression failure of thin and slender walls, and (or) the buck-
ling of compression reinforcement. Figure 14 shows the buckling
of vertical distributed reinforcement after concrete crushing in a
wall in the parking garage shear walls of Balmaceda 2150 in San-
tiago. Similar shear wall damage was also observed in the
18-storey condominium building in Nuñoa, Santiago, shown in
Fig. 15. The walls were very slender in one direction. The structure
experienced severe damage in that direction during the earth-
Published by NRC Research Press
 Saatcioglu et al. 705

Fig. 15. Eighteen-storey reinforced concrete building in Nunoa, Santiago: (a) overall view of building, (b) severe buckling of vertical bars,
(c) termination of dowel bars, (d) instability of bars in 175 mm thick wall, and (e) buckling of bars near the top.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on 08/07/13
For personal use only.

quake. Figure 15b shows damage to the shear walls at the parking
level, just below the ground level. In Fig. 15b, it is apparent that
the ends of the walls are poorly detailed, with no hoop confine-
ment and the use of 90° bent anchorages for the transverse rein-
forcement. This wall had a thickness of 250 mm and contained
two pairs of 22 mm diameter bars at the end of the wall. The
transverse reinforcement consisted of 6 mm diameter bars spaced
at 150 mm on centre. The 90° hooks had a 120 mm long extension
and became ineffective due to spalling of the concrete cover. The
crushing of the concrete occurred at the top of the dowel bars that
ended 1250 mm above the floor level, as shown in Fig. 15c. The
thickness of most of the other walls was 175 mm. Figure 15d shows
crushing and wall buckling in two of these thinner walls. For
these walls with a clear height of 3.1 m, the height-to-width ratio
was 17.7, which satisfies the limit of 18 prescribed in the Chile
concrete design standard (NCh 433 1996), but significantly ex-
ceeds the limit of 10 for this highly compressed wall specified in
CSA A23.3 (CSA 2004).
Figure 16a shows a portion of a 7-storey building in the Los
Reyes Condominiums located in the Huechuraba district of north
Santiago. The new 7-story building and adjacent 3 year old 8-story
building suffered extensive damage. The diagonal crack pattern
shown in Fig. 16b indicates there was desirable spreading of ten-
sion strains in some thin shear walls. The diagonal cracks had

Published by NRC Research Press

 706
Fig. 16. Los Reyes Condominium in Huechuraba, Santiago: (a) overall building view, (b) diagonal tension cracks in transverse walls,
(c) rupturing of longitudinal column reinforcement and lack of confinement, (d) bar buckling and shear wall failure, (e) compression failure in
a narrow wall, and (f) shear failure of beam.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on 08/07/13
For personal use only.
closed completely after the earthquake and were visible only be-
cause of damage to the wall paper. Unfortunately, the other end of
the transverse shear walls suffered extensive damage in compres-
sion. In some cases the walls did not extend to the outside face of
the building where small columns were provided. Figure 16c
shows how the widely spaced ties (with 90° hooks) in these col-
umns were insufficient to contain the damaged concrete and pre-
vent the vertical bars from buckling. The buckled vertical bars
ruptured while straightening on the reverse cycle. Figure 16d
shows extensive flexural compression damage to the ends of some
thin walls without any boundary zones. Additional damage oc-
curred in the common underground parking structure below the
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013
two towers. Figure 16e shows the compression failure of a narrow
column-like shear wall that supported a large shear wall in the
tower. Figure 16f shows a compression-shear failure in a beam that
transferred a shear wall unto a column.
Figure 17 shows damage to a shear wall at the second floor level
of a new 23-storey condominium building in Concepción. The
shear failure passed through a window opening that reduced the
effective shear area. Figure 17b shows a close-up of the details of
the reinforcement at the third floor level. These details at the end
of the wall illustrate once again the lack of confinement and
anti-buckling reinforcement. It appears that flexural crushing
Published by NRC Research Press
 Saatcioglu et al.
Fig. 17. Damage to walls in new condominium in Concepción: (a) shear failure through window opening and (b) concrete crushing at
end of wall.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on 08/07/13
Fig. 18. Concrete arch beams in cathedrals of Talca with insufficient concrete confinement.
For personal use only.
may have occurred first followed by shear failure as the inertia
forces reversed.
Some of the historic cathedrals suffered from the crushing of
concrete arch beams. Figure 18 shows examples of reinforced con-
crete arch beams with insufficient transverse confinement rein-
forcement, and the crushing of core concrete, especially where
they join the supporting columns.
Interference of nonstructural elements
Structural damage in some buildings was caused by unintended
interaction with nonstructural elements, often creating short col-
umn effects. The exterior walls may provide unintended supports
to columns around window openings, reducing shear spans, and
increasing shear stresses. Figures 19a and 19b show the column of
one of the buildings at the University of Chile campus in Santiago,
and an exterior column of the Central Park condominium build-
ing in Santiago. Similarly, Figs. 19c and 19d show diagonal tension
cracks and failures in short columns of the Torre Amenecer Office
Building in Concepción, and a condominium building in Talca.
The Concepción office building also developed wide shear cracks
in central portions of its beams due to the presence of masonry
walls, which provided unintended supports to the beams during
response to the earthquake. This is illustrated in Fig. 20. The in-
terference of nonstructural elements in structural response is pre-
vented in the 2010 NBCC by either properly isolating them from
structural components, or by integrating them into the structural
707
system, in which case the structure has to be designed accord-
ingly.
Precast concrete and tilt-up construction
Precast construction in Chile includes office buildings, stadia,
warehouses, and industrial buildings. Some precast buildings per-
formed poorly due to connection problems. Industrial buildings
with wet-cast joints between girders and columns, as well as diag-
onal precast concrete bracing for precast concrete girder roof
framing performed well (Ghosh and Cleland 2012). Figure 21 illus-
trates partial roof collapse of a precast concrete structure. This
was due to large movements at the roof level and failure of the pin
connection between the columns and the roof beams. Figure 21b
illustrates the failure of pin connectors at the interior column,
while the exterior column which had the same connection detail,
had undamaged pins on the exterior face.
A big-box store in Concepcion with concrete tilt-up walls
around the exterior and a steel deck diaphragm roof, as com-
monly constructed in western Canada, suffered partial collapse
along one wall as shown in Fig. 22b. The 150 mm thick tilt-up walls
had significant vertical reinforcement on the inside face (bottom
face for lifting); but very little reinforcement on the outside face
(top face during lifting) as shown in Fig. 22c. The thin concrete
walls extended a very large distance above the roof as a parapet
(Fig. 22d). The steel roof structure was connected to the tilt-up
Published by NRC Research Press
 708 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013

Fig. 19. Short column behavior: (a) University of Chile building in Santiago, (b) Central Park condominium in Santiago, (c) Torre Amenecer
Office Building in Concepcion, and (d) a condominium building in Talca.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on 08/07/13
For personal use only.

panels by embedded anchor plates at most locations around the

structure, except at the location of the failure where adhesive
anchors had been used because of misplaced embedded anchor
Fig. 20. Unintended masonry wall support and resulting shear plates. Failure is believed to have been triggered when large hor-
crack. izontal flexural cracks from bending of the tall parapet occurred
exactly at the location of the drilled holes for the adhesive an-
chors.

Summary and conclusions

The magnitude 8.8 Maule earthquake of 27 February 2010 re-
sulted in strong ground motion in the central coastal region of
Chile. Only 2.5% of modern engineered buildings, built after the
1985 Santiago earthquake suffered damage, with only 4 suffering
from complete collapse and approximately 50 suffering from
damage beyond repair. The majority of these buildings were built
using reinforced concrete structural systems. Since 1985, the Chil-
ean reinforced concrete design practice was influenced by the US
design codes, and the first Chilean Seismic Code, published in
1996 (NCh 433-96) made a direct reference to the ACI 318-1995
Code with certain exemptions concerning shear wall design. This
earthquake is of significance to the Canadian seismic design pro-

Published by NRC Research Press

 Saatcioglu et al. 709

Fig. 21. Partial collapse of the roof of a precast concrete building: (a) loss of support of the roof beam and (b) damage to the pin connectors at
the interior column (background) and undamaged exterior column (foreground).
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on 08/07/13

Fig. 22. Tilt-up wall behavior: (a) industrial warehouse, (b) out-of-plane failure of walls, (c) significant reinforcement on bottom face
(for lifting) but very little on top face, and (d) tilt-up panels protruding above roof.
For personal use only.

fession because of the similarities in seismic design practices used
in the US and Canada, as well as the similarities in the seismolog-
ical aspects of the 27 February 2010 subduction earthquake and a
potential earthquake along the Cascadia subduction zone off the
coast of British Columbia.
Perhaps the single most important lesson learned from the
Maule earthquake was the poor performance of slender rein-
forced concrete shear walls without properly designed boundary
elements. The Chilean Building Code (NCh 433-96) permitted the
use of slender shear walls, with a wall thickness of as small as
150 mm, for use in multistorey buildings without a boundary zone
at the ends of the wall with at least buckling prevention ties. This
resulted in widespread damage in shear walls, in the form of
concrete crushing and buckling of vertical reinforcement, not
only at the ends of the walls, but also throughout the entire length
of the walls. The use of larger than No. 15 bars within the web,

Published by NRC Research Press

 710
presumably for increased strength, but without the ties, contrib-
uted to the instability of compression reinforcement. Lack of
properly confined shear wall boundary elements resulted in the
crushing of concrete and contributed to building damage, often
resulting in permanent displacements in buildings and loss of
proper supports near the base. These types of failures are not
expected to occur in walls designed by following the seismic de-
sign requirements of CSA A23.3-2004, which call for boundary
elements with sufficient vertical reinforcement, restrained by
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on 08/07/13
buckling prevention ties or confinement reinforcement. The de-
tailing of walls in Chile was equivalent to the conventional shear
walls used in Canada, indicating the seismic vulnerability of these
walls during strong earthquakes.
The Chilean Code (NCh 433-96), unlike the 2010 NBCC, does not
provide explicit restrictions against the use of irregular structural
systems. The use of irregularities in multistorey buildings, in the
form of soft and weak storeys, discontinuous shear walls, and
setbacks contributed to increased force and deformation de-
mands, and resulted in local and global failures. Where walls were
eliminated to allow for ground floor amenity or parking, the col-
umns that supported the walls were severely damaged in com-
pression and shear. Poor reinforcement detailing, consisting of
longitudinal bars anchored in the cover concrete of adjoining
elements, and the use of ineffective transverse reinforcement an-
chored with 90° tie hooks contributed to local failures. Insuffi-
cient shear reinforcement in walls, especially those that have
increased force demands associated with irregularities, was attrib-
uted to numerous wall failures. Insufficient column transverse
reinforcement, sometimes with 90° tie hooks resulted in diagonal
For personal use only.
tension and compression failures, as well as flexural compression
failures of columns due to the lack of confinement of column
core.
The interaction of nonstructural components with the seismic
force resisting system often resulted in unintended interactions
with structural elements and was another common source of
damage. The presence of masonry walls providing unintended
forces on columns around window openings created short col-
umn effects with reduced column shear spans, and resulted in
diagonal tension failures. Similarly, the use of masonry partition
walls provided supports to beams, causing diagonal tension fail-
ures in otherwise low shear regions of beams. Precast structural
elements and tilt-up walls used in industrial buildings suffered
failures due to lack of proper connections. Failures occurred at
connections between parts of structures, such as canopies along-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013
side buildings and sections of larger structures connected by a
link structure. Deficient construction practices appear to have
contributed to some failures.
The 2010 Maule earthquake once again demonstrated the im-
portance of good seismic detailing practices in reinforced con-
crete buildings and the ill effects of irregularities and associated
increase in seismic demands in critical regions of buildings.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support pro-
vided by the Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering
(CAEE), and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Coun-
cil of Canada (NSERC) for the Canadian Seismic Research Network
(CSRN).
References
ACI Committee 318. 1995. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI-318-95). American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills. MI.
Boroschek, R., Soto, P., Leon, R., and Comte, D. 2010. Informe preliminary, RED
Nacional de acelerografos, terremoto centro sur Chile, 27 de Febrero 2010.
Informe Preliminar No. 3, Facultad de Ciencias Fisicas Y Matematicas, Uni-
versidad de Chile.
CSA. 2004. CSA Standard A23.3, Code for the design of concrete structures, with
Update No. 3, August 2009. Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga,
Ont.
Elnashai, A.S., Gencturk, B., Kwon, O.-S., Al-Qadi, I.L., Hashash, Y., Roesler, J.R.,
Kim, S.J., Jeong, S.-H., Dukes, J., and Valdivia, A. 2010. The Maule (Chile)
Earthquake of February 27, 2010 – Consequence Assessment and Case Stud-
ies. Mid-America Earthquake Centre, Report No. 10-04, pp. 190.
Ghosh, S.K., and Cleland, N. 2012. Observations from the February 27, 2010
earthquake in Chile. PCI Journal, Winter 2010, pp. 52–75.
ICBO. 1994. Uniform Building Code. International Conference of Building Offi-
cials Washington D.C., USA.
INN (Instituto Nacional de Normalización). 1957. NCh 429 Of 57, Hormigón
Armado-Primera Parte, Santiago de Chile.
INN (Instituto Nacional de Normalización). 1961. NCh 429 Of 61, Hormigón
Armado-Primera Parte, Santiago de Chile.
INN (Instituto Nacional de Normalización). 2009. Diseno Sismico de Edificios
[Earthquake-resistant design of buildings]. Official Chilean standard NCh
433. Of 1996, Modified in 2009. 2nd ed. Santiago, Chile.
Moroni O., and Ghomez, C. 2002. World Housing Encyclopedia Report. Interna-
tional Association of Earthquake Engineering.
NRCC. 2010. National Building Code of Canada, Associate Committee on the
National Building Code, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
Saatcioglu, M., Tremblay, R., Mitchell, D., Ghobarah, A., Palermo, D.,
Simpson, R., Adebar, P., Ventura, C., and Hong, H. 2013. Performance of steel
buildings and nonstructural elements during the 27 February 2010 Maule
(Chile) Earthquake. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 40: This issue.
doi:10.1139/cjce-2012-0244.
Yanez, F. 2002. ACI318: The structural concrete code for Chile. Structural Con-
crete for Americas, Phoenix, Arizona, Oct. 25–26.
Published by NRC Research Press