THE MEXICO CITY EARTHQUAKE 1985: A LESSON IN DAMAGE PREVENTION

TO STRUCTURES AND LIVES

One of the largest and most destructive earthquakes ever felt violently shook Southern
Mexico on September 19, 1985. The quake was powerful enough to cripple Mexico City and its
18 million residents, although the actual epicenter was about 250 miles away from Mexico City.
Magnitude and location of the quake, type of ground that structures were built upon, poor design
of many buildings, and breakdown of utilities and communication services were all factors that
contributed to the great destruction of this earthquake. Mexico City also has a long history of
devastating earthquakes and a prediction of a great earthquake in the near future was predicted a
few years before this quake struck in 1985. But no one quite predicted the mass destruction that
came from this powerful earthquake.
On that memorable Thursday morning at 7:18, the strain and pressure that had been
building up along the fault zone in the Michoacan, along the West coast of Mexico, unleashed a
magnitude 7.8 earthquake, which lasted nearly 60 seconds (L. A. Times, 1985). This fault lies at
the subduction zone where the Cocos Plate (a piece of the Pacific Plate) is pushed under the
North American continental plate. The epicenter for the quake was exactly 18.1 degrees North
Latitude, 102.3 degrees West Longitude (See figure 1). These coordinates put the hypocenter on
the Southwest coast of Mexico, 33 kilometers below the surface of the Pacific Ocean, and some
250 miles away from Mexico City (Gamble, 1985). The epicenter was located close to the
Northern end of the Middle America Trench. The trench is characterized by a narrow area of
high seismicity running from the Rivera Fracture Zone to the Grozco Fracture Zone.
Seismologists believe the area has produced 10 Great earthquakes with magnitudes of 8.0 or
greater (Anderson, 1985). The shaking from the 1985 equke was reportedly felt as far away as
Houston, Texas, where there were eyewitness accounts of several large buildings swaying, with
window shades banging against the windows (L. A. Times, 1985).
Within Mexico City fires raged from gas main breaks, communications were down, loved
ones were missing and weakened buildings tumbled, spilling debris into city streets. Thousands
of residents set up makeshift shelters and tents. They were afraid of being caught inside
weakened structures (L. A. Times, 1985). Looting was a sever problem and the armed forces
were called to the scene in an attempt to turn chaos to order. Weary rescue workers attempted to
pull survivors from the rubble and treat the wounded. Some eyewitnesses said the scene in the
downtown areas looked as if the city had endured a series of explosions. At Sea, two merchant
ships and two dozen small fishing boats were said to be missing. The crew aboard a Mexican
fishing boat told of seeing 65 foot waves rising out of the ocean (Williams and Miller, 1985).
A small tsunami about 1.9 meters above sea level washed ashore causing serious flooding at
Paso de Burras. This was the first positive measurement of a tsunami ever in Mexico (Lomnite
and Castanos, 1985). Cancellation of regional tsunami warnings occurred a few hours after their
issuance earlier in the morning of the Michoacan earthquake (Finley, 1985).
Directly after the quake it was feared that the entire southern portion of Mexico was
totally destroyed including the resort town of Acupolco. As reports began to trickle in, it was
discovered that the extent of the damage was not as great as first believed. The bulk of the
destruction seemed to be centralized and most intense in three distinct areas inside of Mexico
City: The Downtown Sector, the Eastside Tlateloco District, and the southern section around the
National Medical Center. Seismologists began to study why these three areas were the hardest
hit. The quest for the answer took them back thousands of years to when the Aztec Indians were
defeated by the Spanish Conquistadors. The Spanish wanted to establish a city on high ground,
so they decided to drain a local lake. A large portion of present day Mexico City is built on the
old lake bed. The 150 foot thick deposits of sediments and soft clay cause ground shaking to
amplify, and it is in these areas where the greatest structural damage took place from the
earthquake. Because of past earthquakes some design codes had been established and enforced
on newly constructed buildings, but the ground motions were still much greater than ever
anticipated (Bolt, 1997).
Though the focus of the quake was over 350 kilometers away, the effects of the 1985
Mexico City earthquake were severe. Since the city rests on a former lakebed, the
unconsolidated sediments on which it is built caused the ground shaking to amplify in intensity
(Finley, 1985). The lake sediments, which have a lower acoustic impedence than the underlying
rocks, increased the amplitude of the displacements for the same amount of seismic energy
(Gamble, 1985). The distance between the earthquake source and the Valley of Mexico
protected most of the structures built on firm soil and rock; however, the frequency of the lake
zone surface waves corresponded with the natural frequency of buildings between 10 and 14
stories high. Due to this effect, 500 large buildings were destroyed. Foundation rotation and
progressive degradation contributed to the natural frequencies of the buildings to the period
range of peak response (Prince et al., 1985). Some buildings had collapsed flat, others toppled
into the street, and a few were uprooted from their foundations. All of these buildings were next
to similar buildings, which were not destroyed by the quake. At the Mexico General Hospital six
buildings collapsed, trapping about 400 doctors, nurses, and patients in the ruins of the Juarez
Hospital. Government buildings, such as the Presidential Palace, were also damaged
considerably (Hays, 1985). Though many buildings in the 5 to 15 story range were collapsed
totally or partially, most of the buildings in Mexico were generally not structurally damaged.
Included in the undamaged buildings was the Latin American Tower, which is 37 stories high. It
produced a vibration of period 3.7 seconds, which was far above the period of the most intense
seismic waves; therefore it sustained no structural damage (Bolt, 1988).
The population flood into Mexico City has caused many buildings to be built, which were
not constructed as safely as they could have been. Many of the tall buildings that collapsed in
the Mexico City earthquake may have been constructed without strict enforcement of any
earthquake building codes and without the benefit of high-quality engineering and materials
(Harris and Merina, 1985). Concrete buildings, which were not well designed or constructed,
failed to survive the shaking of the earthquake (See Figure 2). Even though these lessons were
learned, stricter building codes and earthquake preparedness may still not be government
priorities.
As with most major earthquakes, aftershocks play a major role in the destruction caused,
and the Mexico City disaster was no different. The people of the region were forced to endure at
least 20 aftershocks. None of the aftershocks were greater than 4.8 in magnitude, except for a
violent aftershock that struck the earthquake ravaged capital on the following evening. This
aftershock qualified as a major earthquake in its own right. It rumbled through southern Mexico
at 7:37 P.M. Friday, September 20, just as Mexican officials and many residents had begun to
think the worst of it was over. The U.S. Geological Survey calculated the shock at 7.3 on the
Richter Scale. The epicenters of the two major quakes were not very far from each other. The
second quake was pinpointed at 18.0 degrees North Latitude, 101.5 degrees West Longitude.
Survivors reported that the second shock seemed to start slowly and built to a fierce frenzy over
the span of about a minute of time (Williams and Miller, 1985).
In the week following the earthquakes, the National Earthquake Information Center in
Golden, Colorado released new information that upgraded the magnitude of the first quake from
7.8 to 8.1 on the Richter Scale. The center also upgraded the magnitude of Fridays major
aftershock from 7.3 to 7.5 on the Richter Scale. The new magnitudes were computed using data
from several stations around the world that recorded the disaster. Every increase of one number
on the Richter Scale indicates that the ground motion is 10 times greater. This means the
original tremor was 30 times more powerful than initially thought (L. A. Times, 1985).
Mexico City is the largest capital in the world with a population of nearly 18 million
people. The first estimate was that 400 had died in Mexico City alone. However, the count
quickly rose to 1300 people confirmed dead, and another 5000 people were injured (Williams
and Jones, 1985). Later the death toll was estimated at 5,000 to 10,000 (Hays, 1985). Fires
broke out because of the ruptured natural gas lines. Black smoke and dust clouds from fallen
buildings covered entire neighborhoods. Residents, police, soldiers, and ambulance crews
frantically tried to reach the people buried beneath the ruble. Victims of the quake packed all
Mexico Citys hospitals; unfortunately three of the hospitals had to be evacuated because of the
tremendous structural damage they suffered (L.A. Times Wire Service, 1985). At Nuevo Leon, a
13 story government built apartment complex, officials estimated as many as 1,000 residents
were crushed by the first quake as three sections of the building collapsed (Williams and Miller,
1985). By the night of September 19, police and soldiers patrolled the streets to discourage
looting, half of Mexico City was still without electricity, and telephone circuits to the city were
down (Williams and Jones, 1985). The government asked for flashlights to help the rescue
workers search through the night. A violent aftershock shook the city Friday night, further
damaging the buildings and driving terrorized residents back into the streets. The government
estimated that there were 2,000 survivors underneath the debris; however, without power tools
and cranes, the rescue workers could not make fast enough progress. Only 50% of the rescued
survived, many died from internal injuries, blood loss, and shock (Williams, 1985).
On Monday, some of the capitals routines returned to normal. Public services were
being restored; only 5% of the city still did not have electricity and 20% did not have drinkable
water. The estimated number of people left homeless by the quake was between 25,000 and
300,000 (Williams, 1985). The increasing number of corpses forced quick funerals; a baseball
stadium served as a temporary morgue in which the bodies were immediately fumigated with
insecticide. After four days, the danger of an epidemic increased daily from the decomposing
bodies trapped in the ruble; decisions to pull down the buildings with bulldozers and dynamite
were made, thus ending the hope for survivors. The fear was that Mexico Citys tremendous
number of rats would spread diseases, specifically the bubonic plague. The police reported that
there were 4,180 still missing. Search and rescue dogs were given the chance to explore the
ruins before the order to blow up the buildings was given; consequently, a few more survivors
were found by the dogs keen sense of smell (Williams, 1985).
Though Mexico City was the hardest hit region, many people in other Mexican states
died. In Jalisco state, northwest of Mexico City, 35 people died and 1,500 were injured. A
cathedral collapsed during morning mass in Ciudad Guzman, Jalisco, and 25 people were killed.
Landslides were reported to have buried an unknown number of farmers in their houses in
Atenquique, Jalisco (Williams and Jones, 1985). In Michoacan state, 30 people were killed
when two beach hotels were destroyed by the quake. In Lazaro Cardenas, the town closest to the
preliminary epicenter, 5 were killed and the town was described as semi-destroyed. The damage
in Guadalajara and Acapulco was light, but American tourists there reportedly rushed to the
airport to fly home (Williams and Miller, 1985).
The Mexico City area is rich with earthquake history. Karen McNally, director of the
Charles Richter Seismological Laboratory at University of California Santa Cruz, said, Mexico
City usually suffers when a quake occurs along the coast. Large coastal quakes along the
subduction zone of the Cocos and the North American plates have occurred pretty frequently in
the past. This subduction zone is also fairly notorious among seismologists as having frequent
seismic gaps. A 7.5 magnitude earthquake occurred in 1973 on the northern end of the fault
responsible for the Thursday 19, 1985 quake. A 1979 quake on the southern end of this fault
registered 7.6 on the Richter scale. These two quakes established a seismic gap that the 1985
Michoacan earthquake filled.
This seismic gap lead seismologists to believe that a stronger earthquake would occur
sometime during the 1980s (L. A. Times, 1985). Distant earthquakes in 1957 and 1962 also
caused great devastation to Mexico City because of the amplification of the vibrations. In 1981,
the average recurrence of a large earthquake near the Mexico City area was forecast to be
approximately every 35 years.
Because of these predictions of a upcoming large earthquake, the University of
California San Diego seismology department placed many earthquake measuring devices along
the coastal areas of Mexico. James Brune from the UC Scripps Institution of Oceanography
said, We anticipated the quake and weve got enough equipment there to say it will be the best-
recorded major quake ever in terms of recording the motion waves. Its a terrible disaster for
Mexico but, scientifically speaking, its a bonanza. 30 measuring sites were selected along the
coast to help pinpoint and measure the epicenter of the expected quake (L. A. Times, 1985).
There were however no noticed precursory phenomena recorded that helped to detect that
a large earthquake was eminent. In the case of many strong earthquakes, small foreshocks help
to show that a large earthquake may occur in the near future. The absence of foreshocks made
this earthquake much more surprising to the people in the effected area.
The aftermath of this great earthquake caused problems to Mexico City for several days
after the quake. Collapsed buildings trapped people for days. On the Monday following the
earthquake, only 5 % of the city remained without electricity and 20 % did not have drinkable
water (L. A. Times, 1985). For several days, telecommunications with the rest of the world were
impossible. This was the result of the structural collapse of the T-shaped telecommunications
building in Mexico City, and the lack of a back-up system for microwave transmissions. The T-
shaped communications building was very ill suited for the intense shaking that the earthquake
caused in Mexico City. The three wings of the building created great friction against each other
until the upper walls of the building began to collapse, thus destroying the microwave dishes on
the roof of the building.
As bad as the devastation sounds, it could have been worse. The overall death total
would have been even higher if the quake had hit 45 minutes later in the morning. At this time,
more people would have been inside their office buildings and more children would have been
inside of their classrooms. It was the collapsing of these types of buildings that accounted for the
high mortality numbers. In the final count, 10,000 people were dead, 8,000 people in Mexico
City alone. The city had 30,000 residents wounded in the quake, 500 major buildings destroyed
and 50,000 people left homeless (Bolt, 1997).
Building codes for earthquake resistance have been modified to help reduce structural
damages, economic losses, and loss of human lives. The best method for the testing of these new
building codes is through the unexpected forces that a large earthquake places on the buildings.
Many of the buildings that survived the earthquake on September 19, 1985 have served as
models for how new buildings needed to be built in order to survive the next big earthquake.
Since large earthquakes effect Mexico City once every 35 years on average, the next test for the
new building codes is only about 12 years away. Only then can seismologists and architects
determine whether all of their research and hard work will pay off with reduced losses of
buildings and lives.