SEISMIC VULNERABILITY OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS IN TWO

DISTRICTS OF LIMA, PERU USING THE ATC-21 METHODOLOGY

Z. Aguilar1 , J. Meneses2 , E. Bedriana 3 and L. Pinto4
(1)

Associate Professor, (3)Student, Peru-Japan Center for Earthquake Engineering Research and
Disaster Mitigation (CISMID), Universidad Nacional de Ingenieria, Lima, Peru,
zaguilar@uni.edu.pe
(2)

Assistant Scientist, (4)Student, Dept. of Structural Engineering, University of California,

San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA, jfmeneses@ucsd.edu

ABSTRACT
The assessment of the seismic vulnerability of all school buildings located at Chorrillos and
Barranco districts in Lima, the capital city of Peru, was conducted using the Rapid Visual
Screening procedure of ATC-21. A total of 28 school buildings were evaluated in Barranco, and
80 in Chorrillos, comprising all kindergarten, primary, and secondary school buildings existing in
these two districts. Even though some buildings are relatively new, their structural scores indicate
that most of them show from medium to high seismic vulnerability. This information has been
correlated with local soil conditions and seismic intensities observed in the past in the two
districts.

INTRODUCTION
Lima, the capital city of Peru, is located in the Circum Pacific Rim where more than 80% of the
world seismic activity occurs (Fig. 1). Lima experiences significant presence of traditional
construction, vulnerable essential facilities (schools, hospitals, etc.), and little support from local
governments for seismic risk management activities.

Fig. 1 Location of Peru, Lima, and Chorrillos and Barranco

Recent large earthquakes in Peru have shown the high vulnerability of buildings and facilities,
and among them school buildings. During the 1996 Nazca earthquake, many school buildings
were seriously damaged, including several newly constructed ones. After this, a new seismic code
was issued in 1997, which is more demanding than the former 1977 code. The seismic

performance of school buildings constructed with this regulation was successfully tested during
the June 23, 2001 Arequipa earthquake. In this event, these structures did not present damage at
all even though they where located in cities as Moquegua, where the observed maximum seismic
intensity was 8 on the Modified Mercalli scale. However others were severely damaged (Fig. 2).
Most of the buildings do not meet the seismic requirements stated by the new seismic code,
therefore, their seismic vulnerability need to be evaluated in order to establish retrofitting
guidelines to reduce the seismic risk to acceptable levels. Since no methodology to evaluate the
seismic vulnerability of a large number of structures is implemented yet in Peru, in this study the
Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards of the Applied Technology
Council (ATC-21), is used. An attempt to adapt this method to local construction systems and
materials, local seismicity and soil conditions was done.
As a pilot project, the assessment of the seismic vulnerability of all school buildings located at
Chorrillos and Barranco districts in Lima, the capital city of Peru, was conducted using this
methodology. These two districts out of the 43 existing in Lima were chosen for this study due to
their: 1) large population, 2) large number of traditional buildings, and 3) high seismic intensities
observed during past earthquakes. Damage distribution of past events shown that the seismic
intensity recorded in these two districts is about one degree higher than the average one in
downtown Lima.

Fig. 2 Left: School designed with the 1977 Code. Right: School designed with the 1997 code.
(http://www.eeri.org/earthquakes/Reconn/Arequipa_Peru/Bariola.html)
A total of 28 school buildings were evaluated in Barranco, and 80 in Chorrillos, comprising all
kindergarten, primary, and secondary school buildings existing in these two districts. Even
though some buildings are relatively new, their structural scores indicate that most of them
exhibit from medium to high seismic vulnerability. This information has been correlated with
local soil conditions and seismic intensities observed in the past in the two districts.

GEOLOGICAL AND LOCAL SOIL CONDITIONS

Chorrillos and Barranco Districts are located on quaternary deposits, mainly formed by the
dejection cone of the Rimac River, with thickness ranging from 100 to 400 m. This cone is
constituted by layered alluvial material, where gravel, sand, clay and silt deposits are
heterogeneously superposed. The alluvial sediments were deposited during the last stage of the
Pleistocene on the outcropping sedimentary rock from the Mesozoic. During the Holocene, the
clay sedimentation on several areas of the valley was more intense, forming clay layers more than
10 m in thickness that cover the granular material.

In the northern part of Chorrillos Distric t, there are some hills with outcropping rock conformed
by quartzite, shale and sandstone from the El Fraile, La Herradura and Marcavilca Tertiary
formations respectively. This lithology has influenced the morphology of the El Morro Solar
massif, where the topography ranges from very steep to flat areas.
In a Seismic Microzonation Study of Chorrillos and Barranco (Ayquipa, 1995), the local soil
conditions of these districts were evaluated, and four geotechnical zones were identified, which
are shown in Figure 3 and described below.

Fig. 3 Seismic Microzonation of Chorrillos and Barranco

Zone I. It is a limited area located around the outcropping rock of El Morro Solar massif
formation in Chorrillos district. The soil profile is composed by layers of poorly graded sand,
clayey sand and silty sand with lens of clay. At an average depth of 2.00 m, a layer of mid dense
gravel, with silty sand matrix, is found. The natural vibration periods, determined by
microtremor or ambient vibration measurements, ranges from 0.08s to 0.25s in this zone.
Zone II. It mostly covers the Barranco district and the northern part of Chorrillos district. The soil
profile shows randomly mixed layers of sand, clay and silt, with different thickness. Underlying
these materia ls and at depths ranging from 2.0 to 8.0 m, a layer of gravel is found. The
predominant natural vibration period range from 0.25s to 0.40s, with important amplification
factors in this range of periods. The ground water level ranges from 20.0 to 30.0 m in depth.
Zone III. It extends from south to southwest sector of Chorrillos District. The soil profile presents
clayey silt and silty clay layers of variable thickness. Layers of organic silt and clay appear at
depth from 0.50 m to 1.70 m, with high water content and thickness of 2.00 m. Underlying these
materials are fine sands and silt with high organic content reaching depths of 5.0 to 7.5 m, where
the alluvial gravel is found. The ground water table depth ranges from 1.0 to 3.5 m. This zone
also includes the beach area, conformed by clean, loose and saturated sand. Predominant natural
vibration periods in this zone ranges from 0.4s to 0.5s.
Zone IV. It includes a relatively small area located in the southern part of Chorrillos District. It is
formed by marshy ground named Pantanos de Villa. The soil profile consists of a thin layer of
clayey silt followed by a black to yellowish green peat with fetid odor. From 6.0 to 7.0 m in depth
appears a layer of compact sand inserted with lens of peat. The ground water level is shallow,

forming some ponds in the marshy area. The natural vibration periods in this zone are larger than
0.5s.

STRUCTURAL TYPE OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS AT CHORRILLOS AND BARRANCO

DISTRICTS
The structural types of school buildings identified at Chorrillos and Barranco are mainly
composed by concrete frame with unreinforced masonry infill walls (C3) and confined masonry
(CM), which together comprises the 92% of the whole number of school buildings. A small
number of unreinforced masonry structures (URM), reinforced masonry (RM), adobe (ADB) and
wooden (W) structures were also identified. The typical C3 structure consist of a moment
resistant concrete frame in the longitudinal direction and concrete frame with unreinforced
masonry infill walls in the transversal direction. The CM structural type consists of clay brick
bearing walls confined with caste in place concrete columns and beams, conveniently distributed
to increment the structure ductility. These elements lightly contribute to increase the structure
bearing resistance. The URM structures are those clay brick bearing walls that has no concrete
columns confinement at all, or if they exist are widely apart that do not contribute to the structure
ductility. Figure 4 shows photos of typical school buildings for each basic structural type.

Fig. 4 Left: Virgen del Pilar (C3);

Center: Mi Peru (CM);

Right: San Luis (URM)

The adobe and wood structures that are still being used as school buildings were constructed at
the beginning of the XX century or earlier. As can be seen in the photos of Figure 5, these school
buildings are becoming vulnerable due to aging and lack of maintenance; therefore some of them
have changed its use to administrative office only.

Fig. 5 Left: Jose Olaya (URM);

Center: San Fernando (ADB);

Right: San Julian (W)

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS

To evaluate the seismic vulnerability of school buildings at Chorrillos and Barranco districts the
Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards of the Applied Technology
Council (ATC-21) was used. At this stage, the basic scores and modification factors proposed for

the several types of American structures were assumed to correspond to the equivalent Peruvian
structures. A total of 108 school buildings were evaluated in the two districts, some of them
having more than one structural type or blocks from different construction year. It is remarkable
that near 50% of the schools have populations between 100 and 500 students, and 39% to 41% of
the schools more than 500 in Barranco and Chorrillos respectively. Figure 6 shows the
percentages of school populations of the evaluated school buildings.
.
Barranco, Lima-Peru
Percentages of School Populations
4 Schools

Chorrillos, Lima - Peru

Percentages of School Populations
32 Schools

14%

11 Schools
14%

39%

41%

11 Schools

45%

47%

36 Schools

500+

13 Schools

0-100
100-500
500+

100-500
0-100

Fig. 6: Percentages of School Populations in Barranco and Chorrillos Districts

Figure 7 shows the percentage of basic structural types of school buildings in these two districts,
where it is observed that 60% are concrete frame with unreinforced masonry infill walls (C3) and
32% are confined masonry (CM). Only the 8% of the buildings include Adobe, wood and
unreinforced masonry structures. 71% of the school buildings are located in the geotechnical
zone 2, where the soil conditions present an adequately good behaviour, 22% of them are located
in the zone 3, where the soil conditions are unfavorable, and only 7% are located in the
geotechnical zone 1 (Fig. 8).
S1
7%

3%
2%

C3
URM

S3
22%
S1

CM

S2

Adob/Q.

S3

Madera

32%
60%

S2
71%

3%

Fig. 7: Percentage of Basic Structural Types in Fig. 8: Distribution of School Buildings by

Barranco and Chorrillos
Geotechnical Zones
For the seismic vulnerability assessment of C3 structural type, the basic score and modification
factors proposed by the ATC-21 for C3/S5 structures were used. Even though these values are
being evaluated to analyze if they adequately represent the seismic behavior of Peruvian C3 type
structures, on the basis of the damage to this kind of structures observed during recent past
earthquakes, it seems that the basic score of 1.5 is representative for the expected probability of
damage, which means that 3 of each 100 C3 structures will collapse. On the same basis it was
assumed that a confined masonry structure (CM) would have similar basic score and modification
factors of a C3 structural type. Only the modification factors that not apply to this structural type
were eliminated. The others structural types were evaluated but their structural score do not
adequately represent their seismic vulnerability, since the construction technique, materials and

maintenance do not correspond to the American ones; therefore a detailed ana lysis is required to
estimate those structural score.
This paper will assess the seismic vulnerability of the basic structural types C3 and CM only,
since they comprise the 92% of the total school buildings in these two districts, and the structural
score correspond more properly to those proposed by the ATC-21. Since several of the evaluated
school buildings have more than one structural block, a total of 193 C3 type structure were
identified in both districts. Figure 9 shows the percentage of school building and their ranking of
final structural scores, where it is observed that 21% of the buildings have scores equal or less
than zero, 37% rank from 0.0 to 0.5 and 42% are greater than 0.5. Figure 10 shows the number of
structures in each structural score rank. The large number of structures with structural score equal
or less than 0.5 is explained by the short column modification factor, which is present in 111 of
the evaluated structures. Plan irregularity and soil condition are other modification fa ctors that
affect the final structural score of the school buildings.
C3 -

C3 - Number of School Buildings vs. Final Score

Basic Score =1.5

Structural Final Score

and Percentage of Buildings

80

72

N. of School Buildings

70
21%
27%
1.5-1.0
1.0-0.5
0.5-0.0
0<0

15%

60

53

50

40

40
30

28

20
10
0
1.5-1.0

37%

1.0-0.5
0.5-0.0
Final Score (S)

0<0

Fig. 9 Final Structural Score of C3 School Fig. 10 Number of C3 Structures by Final Structural
Buildings in Barranco and Chorrillos
Score in Barranco and Chorrillos Districts

121.0

111.0

120.0
100.0
80.0

51.0

60.0
20.0

a
e

3
S

rt

rk
a
m

o
C

n
m
lu

la
C

h
t

rg
a
L

in
d

g
in
d
H

g
Ir

n
la
P

0.0

ty
ri

io
rs
o

ft
S

0.0

la

ry
to
S

g
Ir
l

a
ic
rt

0.0

re

ty
ri
u

it
d
n
o

C
r
o
o

1.0

la

io

e
is
R

h
ig
H

1.0

0.0

0.0

2.0

21.0

14.0

20.0

40.0

re

N of Buildings

C3 -Number of School Buildings' Blocks and Modfication Factors

140.0

Fig. 11 Number of Structures vs. Modification Factors for C3 type school buildings
Figures 12 and 13 show the percentage and the number of confined masonry school buildings
(CM) and their ranking of final structural scores. For this structural type, it is observed that only
24% of the buildings have scores equal or less than 0.5, and 76% rank from 0.5 to 1.5. Plan
irregularity and soil condition are other modification factors that affect the final structural score of
these school buildings (Fig. 14). The final structural score of this CM type should also be
decreased by modification factor such as lateral rigidity (walls density) and adequate confining

columns distributions, which were not included in this evaluation, because it implies to have
access to the buildings interior.
CM- Number of Buildings' Blocks vs. Final Score
Basic Score =1.5

CM- Structural Final Score and

Percentage of Buildings

N of School Buildings'
Blocks

1%
23%
43%

1.5-1.0
1.0-0.5
0.5-0.0

80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0

0<0

33%

1.5-1.0

1.0-0.5
0.5-0.0
Final Score

0<0

Fig. 12 Final Structural Score of CM School Fig. 13 Number of CM Structures by Final Structural
Buildings in Barranco and Chorrillos
Score in Barranco and Chorrillos Districts

70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0

58.0
39.0
22.0
8.0
0.0
S3

0.0

S2

3.0

S1

0.0

Po
un
din
He
g
av
y
Cl
ad
di
ng
Sh
or
tC
Po
olu
st
m
Be
ns
nc
hm
ar
k
Ye
ar

Hi
gh

0.0

La
rg
e

0.0

Irr
eg
ul
ar
ity

2.0

To
rs
io
n

3.0

Pl
an

0.0

Ri
se
Po
or
Co
nd
Ve
itio
rti
ca
n
lI
rre
gu
la
rit
y
So
ft
St
or
y

N of Buildings' Blocks

CM - Number of Shool Buildings' Blocks vs Modification Factor

Fig. 14 Number of Structures vs. Modification Factors for CM type school buildings

Results show that a large number of C3 school buildings are moderately to highly vulnerable.
The main constructive defect of this structural type is the short column problem, which not only
appear in old construction but also in some new buildings constructed with no technical
assistance, as could be observed in Figure 15, where a photo of an under construction school
building is shown.
Even though at the present time no structural score threshold has yet been defined to accurately
identify the number of highly vulnerable structures, the ATC-21 procedure shows its
effectiveness in classifying the more vulnerable ones. The selection of a cut-off structural
score, i.e., a threshold differentiating adequate buildings from those potentially inadequate and
thus requiring detailed review, is beyond the scope of this study. This requires more detailed
studies on the structural systems, evaluation of observed seismic damage, adoption of seismic
safety criteria among other considerations.
Since the majority of large population school buildings in Barranco and Chorrillos districts are
concrete frame with unreinforced masonry infill walls (C3) structures, and these are very popular

in urban areas in Peru, discussion o n definition of degrees of seismic vulnerability will be focused
on this type of school buildings. Thus, with the information gathered in this survey it is proposed
four degrees of seismic vulnerability that are the result of combining school population with final
structural scores. Table 1 shows the proposed classification and intends to provide criteria to
prioritize action to reduce seismic vulnerability of school buildings. According to this table, 35%
of the C3 school buildings present very high vulnerability, 18% high vulnerability, 32% medium
vulnerability, and 15% low vulnerability. Due to the large number of student population of these
C3 school buildings it is necessary to evaluate in detail the seismic vulnerability of the critical
ones.

Fig. 15 Defects of Short Columns in several C3 Structural Type School Buildings

Table 1: Degree of Seismic Vulnerability for C3 School Buildings for both Districts
School Population
Final Score
S
1.0 1.5
0.5 1.0
0.0 0.5

Degree of
Vulnerability

0 100

100 500

> 500

5%
(L)
2%
(L)
13%
(M)

8%
(L)
4%
(M)
8%
(H)

15%
(M)
10%
(H)
35%
(VH)

Very High
VH

High
H

Medium
M

Low
L

CONCLUSIONS
The Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards of the Applied
Technology Council (ATC-21) was used to assess the seismic vulnerability of school buildings in
Barranco and Chorrillos districts. This methodology has shown to be effective capturing basic
features of the buildings for a rapid and economical assessment of the seismic vulnerability.
From the basic structural types identified, the concrete frame with unreinforced masonry infill
walls (C3) and the confined masonry (CM) are the predominants in these districts, and the more
important modification factors detected were short columns, and plan irregularity respectively for
each of these structural types. Unreinforced masonry (URM) and reinforced masonry (RM) are
not commonly used for school buildings and only a small number of them were identified, mainly
used as kindergarten and small schools. Most of the adobe and wood structures found are old
structures, which are in poor condition and present plan irregularity.
The most important school buildings in Barranco and Chorrillos districts, and the more popular in
urban areas in Peru, are the concrete frame with unreinforced masonry infill walls (C3) structures,

which generally have large student populations. Combination of final structural scores and
school populations defined different degrees of seismic vulnerability for this structural type
school building. The findings set a basis for the implementation of suitable retrofitting projects of
school buildings where economical analysis indicates retrofitting is less expensive than school
replacement cost. Based on the results of this pilot project it is recommended the establishment of
a standard rapid screening method that takes into account local structural characteristics of school
buildings, and its implementation in other areas of Peru.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was funded by the University of California Pacific Rim Research Program, grant
02T-PRRP4-0042. This assistance is greatly appreciated.

REFERENCES
Alva, J., Meneses, J., and Guzman, V. (1984). Distribution of Maximum Observed Seismic
Intensities in Peru. Proc. Symposium on Seismic and Volcanic Hazard and Risk in South America;
INPRES, CERESIS, Giesecke Alberto M., ed., pp. 411-420.
Alva, J., Meneses, J., Martinez, J., and Huaman, C. (1991). Advances on the Seismic
Microzonation of Lima city. Fourth International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Vol. III, pp.
65-72, EERI, Stanford, California.
ATC-21 (1988). Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A
Handbook. Applied Technology Council, CA. FEMA 154/July 1988.
Ayquipa, C. J. (1995). Microzonificacin Ssmica de Chorrillos y Barranco. Thesis. Universidad
Nacional de Ingeniera, Lima, Peru.
http://www.eeri.org/earthquakes/Reconn/Arequipa_Peru/Arequipa.html (2001), Earthquake in
Arequipa, Peru, June 23, 2001. EERI Special Report, June 23, 2001.