DISSEMINATION OF SEISMIC RETROFITTING TECHNIQUES

TO RURAL COMMUNITIES IN PERU

J. Macabuag,
Building Design Partnership (BDP), UK.
joshua.macabuag@pmb.oxon.org

Prof D. Quiun,
Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per, Peru.
dquiun@pucp.edu.pe

ABSTRACT: (10 pt)

The Andean region demonstrates a high proportion of earthquake-vulnerable adobe (mud-brick) construction
amongst poorer communities, whilst being within a highly seismic zone. Several adobe earthquake-retrofitting
techniques have been developed by organizations across the world and the appropriateness of each technique is
dictated by the local topographical, economical and cultural conditions. However, dissemination of these
techniques to the many communities at risk is a very significant challenge.
Several community dissemination programmes conducted in Peru are examined. These programmes show that
beneficiary participation is key but lessons are lost over time, highlighting the requirement for long-term
intervention. Examining the financing of these programmes shows that operational costs of NGOs are a
significant barrier to long-term involvement, highlighting that local municipality capacitation is a necessary
feature of any community project. Revisiting previous programmes also reveals that communities are not selffunding the reinforcement of homes, showing that greater awareness and financial incentive are required. Finally
recommendations are made as to the key features of successful projects and the larger-scale interventions
required to support these programmes.
Keywords: Adobe, Developing countries, Non-engineered, Masonry, Seismic engineering

1. INTRODUCTION
The vast majority of earthquake fatalities in the last century have resulted from building failures with a
growing disparity between vulnerability of those in developing and developed countries. The greatest
risk is by far presented to inhabitants of non-engineered adobe structures (Figure 2) as demonstrated in
the 2003 Bam (Iran) earthquake, where many of the thousands of deaths were attributable to vulnerable
adobe (sun-dried mud brick) structures. This is due to the nature of the material (high mass, low strength,
brittle) and, in the case of non-engineered housing, also the lack of proper design and maintenance.

Figure 1: Examples of typical failure modes for nonengineered masonry dwellings [Blondet].

Figure 2: Non-engineered adobe in Condesuyos, Peru.

Vertical crack typical of poorly bonded orthogonal walls.
Walls are adobe blocks laid in mud mortar. Roof consists of
timber planks covered with corrugated sheeting.

1.1. Housing in Peru

In Peru, 35% of the population still resides in earthen dwellings despite poor performances of these
structures in major earthquakes in 2001 (south Peru, Mw=8.4) and 2007 (central Peru, Mw=8).
As an example, consider the Provinces of Castilla and Condesuyos, areas of the Peruvian High Andes
that were heavily affected by the 2001 Peru earthquake. Most families survive on agriculture with 50%
earning less than $115pm including 20% on less than $60pm per household. 72% of homes are adobe
with 40% less than 40m2 and of only 1 or 2 rooms. Half of the houses are constructed solely by members
of the family, with structural defects common (Figure 2). Many of the houses are built in unsafe zones:
e.g. on steep inclines or areas of loose soil with a high risk of land slides or rock falls [Perez-Palma].
In less rural areas there is a growing trend towards confined masonry, consisting of load-bearing
unreinforced masonry walls made of clay brick units, confined by cast-in-place reinforced concrete tie
columns and beams. Table 1 suggests that engineered confined masonry construction is beyond the
means of a large proportion of the population in remote rural areas. However, adobe is often
associated with poverty meaning that those with limited means are opting for non-engineered masonry
or confined masonry leading to poor quality construction (Figure 3a) or vulnerable hybrid structures,
combining materials inappropriately (Figure 3b).
Table 1: Financial and legal comparison of confined masonry and adobe dwellings.

Construction type:
Construction cost
Built by
Building Regulations

Typical income
bracket of owner
Land tenure and
financial loans
Earthquake insurance

Engineered Confined Masonry in

Urban Areas
$200-250/m!
Developers
Building permits must be issued by
Municipal authorities. Four types of
technical drawings are required:
structural, architectural, services and
electrical
Middle - high income
($12,000 - $60,000 pa)
Land and properties properly registered
allowing access to lines of credit
Typically available

Non-engineered Adobe Dwellings in

Rural Areas
$20-30/m!
Village artisans, home owners
Although there is a Peruvian building
standard for adobe construction (Norma
E.030) there is no process for building
code enforcement in rural areas
Very poor poor
($700 - $1000 pa)
Often no title deed for properties,
excluding people from loan applications
Unavailable

a: Non-engineered confined masonry dwellings

b: Non-engineered hybrid structure in Lunahuan displaying
in Chincha that performed badly in the 2007
slender adobe walls with long clear spans supporting a
Peru earthquake.
concrete ring beam with no vertical tie members.
Figure 3: Non-engineered structures using modern construction methods resulting from the negative perception
of adobe but limited means of the homeowner.

2. OBJECTIVES
What are the main technical, social and economical considerations for the dissemination of seismic
retrofitting techniques to remote rural communities? This paper aims to:

Highlight key successes and failures of previous programs for the dissemination of seismic
retrofitting techniques in rural Peru.
Propose a general model for projects to disseminate seismic adobe construction/retrofitting techniques
to rural communities and outline the larger-scale interventions required to support these programmes.

3. COMMUNITY DISSEMINATION PROGRAMMES IN PERU

3.1. Post-Earthquake Reconstruction Programme, Region of Arequipa (2001-2002)
Steel wire mesh reinforcement utilizes strips of mesh often used for fencing in parts of South America,
nailed to adobe walls in vertical strips connected to each other by a horizontal strip or ring beam
(Figure 5) [Quiun]. As a pilot project, 20 existing houses in six towns across Peru were retrofitted with
the steel mesh with five of these being two-storey accommodations. Six retrofitted houses were
affected by a major earthquake in 2001 (south Peru, Mw=8.4) and five retrofitted houses by an
earthquake in 2007 (central Peru, Mw=8). These houses demonstrated no damage, while neighbouring
constructions of traditional adobe houses without reinforcement showed heavy damage or complete
collapse (Figure 4). The success of wire mesh reinforced houses during the 2001 Peru earthquake
motivated several reconstruction programs for new adobe houses in remote Andean towns within the
Region of Arequipa incorporating this wire mesh system.

a: Partially reinforced wall in La

b: 2-storey reinforced house in
c: Undamaged reinforced house in
Tinguia. Performed well in the
Andahuaylillas, Cuzco.
Moquegua after 2001 earthquake and
2007 earthquake.
neighbouring unreinforced house [Quiun].
Figure 4: Existing adobe houses retrofitted with steel mesh reinforcement.

3.1.1. Phase 1: Post-Earthquake Reconstruction

360 reinforced adobe houses (Figure 5) were built in the Arequipa region as a collaboration between
several organizations. The project was funded by the German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ), the
design of the adobe houses was carried out by the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru (PUCP) and the
Peruvian National Service for Capacity Building and Research in Construction (SENCICO), and
implementation was carried out in collaboration with the special project of the Regional Government of
Arequipa (COPASA). The project aimed to reduce the future vulnerability of the participating
communities by engaging them in the construction process, so increasing their capacity to build and
reinforce earthquake-resistant houses in adobe, the primary construction material in the region.

Figure 5: House design for reconstruction programme. Incorporates steel wire mesh at intersection of orthogonal
walls, RC ring-beam and timber roof [San Bartolome].

Members of PUCP conducted a five-day training course in construction of the reinforced adobe houses for
20 SENCICO technicians plus 42 selected rural persons from high-risk communities. The members of the
community then built their own houses under the supervision of the trained maestros. Each mason was
assigned two assistants and supervised the construction of up to three houses at any one time. COPASAGTZ technicians supervised the rural construction three days per week and each zone had one permanent
SENCICO technical supervisor. The programme was in collaboration with the local government.
360 houses of 36m2 plan area were constructed within 17 months with construction costs of
approximately $1700 per house (approximately $50/m2) (Error! Reference source not found.). GTZCOPASA provided 67% of the cost of the house with the beneficiaries providing 33% mainly through
the supply of local unskilled labour and local materials.
3.1.2. Phase 2: Protection from Natural Disasters with a Focus on Food Security
Phase 2 sought sustainability of the intervention by motivating the communities to strengthen their
homes. Several public workshops showed videos of phase 1 and instructional material was distributed
on anti-seismic adobe construction and the manufacture of adobe blocks. The public was then engaged
in the construction of public buildings such as school classrooms and small health centres. 30 trained
masons from phase 1 were employed to facilitate.
3.2. Pilot Project to Construct a New Town: Ruruca, Arequipa (2007 - 2008)
The pilot project of Ruruca was intended to enable the development of a government model for a
program of capacitation and mass dissemination of safe, low cost rural houses to vulnerable
communities. The new town of Ruruca consists of 17 adobe houses reinforced with a number of
different seismic resistant systems.
The local municipality conducted the planning for the new town, collaborating NGOs and technical
agencies provided training and materials for reinforcement and the new community constructed their
own houses, paying for the basic construction costs (i.e. not including the cost of reinforcement). 7
masons were employed with experience of reinforced adobe through the Arequipa programme (section
3.1). The 64m2 modules had final construction costs of $5270 ($83/m2).
3.3. Reconstruction programme following the 2007 Pisco Earthquake (2008)
Following a major earthquake in 2007 (Mw=8) near Pisco a team from PUCP and the NGO CAREPeru designed a program for reconstruction and mass dissemination of seismic construction techniques
in adobe utilizing a reinforcing technique that uses a polypropylene mesh (commonly used for fencing)
to provide confinement of walls [Rubios]. This project was carried out with the collaboration of
SENCICO and the Fund for the Reconstruction of the South (FORSUR), an autonomous fund created
by the Peruvian National Government to lead the post-earthquake reconstruction process.

a: Example house reinforced with the

plastic mesh, used during the initial
training of masons, engineers and
NGO personnel [Rubios].

b: Fabrication of adobe blocks in

Caete, carried out by hired masons
[Rubios].

c: Completed house in Chincha Baja,

constructed by the public under supervision
(after theoretical workshops and practical
exercises). 9 houses were completed
throughout Caete, Chincha and Pisco.
Figure 6: Various stages of the post-2007 reconstruction and capacitation programme.

Key stages of the project are shown in (Figure 6). The community capacitation programme
incorporated literature and videos and taught 883 in theoretical workshops and 276 in practical
exercises and live construction. The construction of each 4-roomed, 50m2 house cost $3,155 ($65/m2).
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
4.1. Main Findings
All adobe houses built in these programmes were intact and performing well, with the exception of
some errors due to lack of full-time supervision (Figure 7a). Other NGO and cooperation agency-led
programmes in nearby areas followed on from these programmes using similar models. E.g. following
the Arequipa programme (section 3.1) 97 houses of the same design were built in the Arequipa region
of Yarabamba in a project managed by SENCICO and funded by the Italian Government and UNDP.
NGOs and cooperation agencies led and bore the brunt of the costs in the programmes presented. E.g.
in Ruruca (section 3.2) the modules had construction costs of $5270: 77% borne by the technical
agencies (COPASA-GTZ and COSUDE), 20% by the beneficiaries and 3% by the local government
[COSUDE]. Note that for the technical agencies involved, when considering overheads and
operational costs they collectively incurred a total cost of $7,841 per module. This represents an
additional 93% over the purely construction costs incurred by them, showing that operation costs are a
significant consideration for NGOs and technical agencies involved in rural construction projects.
Following the programmes no self-funded adobe dwellings have been retrofitted or built with
reinforcement. Several non-reinforced adobe structures built by communities after the programmes
also showed errors (Figure 7), showing that many lessons had been lost because of no further training
input after the initial programmes.
One reason that communities members named for not funding the reinforcing of their own homes was
that although the reinforced adobe dwellings were considerably cheaper than confined masonry they
were still more expensive than unreinforced adobe (Table 2). However, consider the case of the
Arequipa programme where the difference in price between reinforced and traditional adobe houses
was nearly $1000 but the cost of the reinforcement was only $112. The difference comes in additional
features such as a ground slab and foundations, concrete ring beam and more expensive roof
construction. Therefore, the basic mesh retrofit to an existing house would cost less than Table 2
would suggest, and fulfil the basic goal of preventing or prolonging collapse provided other structural
repairs are not needed. However, this basic cost may still be beyond the means of many families.
Another reason named for lack of take-up by the communities was the poor perception of adobe.
Many of the wealthier families were reconstructing their homes of masonry or confined masonry,
especially in Pisco and Chincha (section 3.3) where materials are readily availability in nearby urban
centres. However, many of these confined masonry houses had multiple stories and showed dangerous
defects such as exposed rebar and unsupported ring-beams (Figure 3).

a: Rear wall being used as retaining wall to a

public road.

b: Holes cut into wall for electrical and mechanical

services, undermining the wall connection and forming a
hole in the reinforcing mesh [photo: Chuquimia].
Figure 7: 2001 reconstruction project in Arequipa: Errors in construction or subsequent modifications.

Table 2: Comparing construction costs for different building methods [Haider].

Traditional adobe
Steel mesh reinforced adobe
Confined masonry

Total cost
$850
$1,774
$3,400

Cost/m2
$24
$50
$95

Relative cost
100%
217%
408%

Figure 8: Breakdown of construction costs for 36m2 reinforced adobe house in the Arequipa Reconstruction
Programme ($1774/house) [Haider].

4.2. Recommendations for community dissemination programmes of anti-seismic adobe

construction and retrofitting techniques
The respective roles for community dissemination programmes are summarized in Figure 9 and the
necessary features of the programmes are given below:
Preparation phase:
National or regional government by-in, as shown in Figure 9, is required to feasibly conduct a
sustainable, larger-scale dissemination programme.
Widespread awareness and training programmes must be conducted to promote the lesson that
adobe houses must be reinforced.
Local municipalities must be engaged to support the programme and empowered to repeat aspects
of these programmes at regular intervals so that lessons will not be lost.
Capacitation phase:
Training for the NGOs and technical agencies, masons and general population must consider the
level of experience and education of the persons being trained.
Implementation phase:
Participation of the beneficiaries is key. Careful selection of beneficiaries and monitoring of
progress is required to prevent mistakes being made and repeated.
Technical assistance is required in site selection, selection of soil for adobe and pouring of ring
beams if required.
Post-completion phase:
Long-term intervention by local municipalities is required to promote and support safe adobe
construction/reinforcement and reduce unsafe practices.

National or Regional
Government
Grant or apply for funding
for mass-dissemination
programmes
Multilateral Financial
Institutions
Grant funding and advise on
programme
Funding Administrator
Administer the funding to the
enacting organizations and obtain
materials etc

Private Sector,
Government Technical Departments,
Universities
Transfer the necessary technical and procedural
knowledge

NGOs,
Cooperation Agencies
Implement the proposed programme
Masons,
Target Communities
Learn the retrofitting technology
and provide hand labor in
construction/retrofitting

Long-term support

Regional and Local

Government
Support the implementation of
the programme,
carry out legal processes of
land allocation, planning
permission etc,
provide long-term support for
continued retrofitting within
community

Retrofitted Homes
Figure 9: Interrelation of organizations for programmes of mass-dissemination of seismic retrofitting techniques
[adapted from Rubios].

4.3. Recommendations for scaling-up the response to vulnerable housing

Regions must be identified whereby adobe is the predominant material and it is inappropriate to
promote other materials (due to local poverty and inaccessibility of the region).
Building codes for adobe construction in seismic regions must be developed in order for
governments to be able to support the construction of public buildings of adobe in remote areas.
Some countries do have empirical guidance on adobe reinforcing but not on detailed analysis of
adobe structures that would allow accurate, engineered designs.
Local governments must lead by example in areas of predominantly adobe construction by
constructing public buildings (e.g. municipality offices) of engineered adobe and engaging the
community in the construction of these buildings.
Government incentive programmes need to be established to financially assist communities to
reinforce existing adobe structures, reducing future vulnerability.
Given the high operational costs of NGOs and cooperation agencies acting in remote locations and
the dangers of unsupervised self-construction in adobe, local municipalities must be empowered to
support repeated construction and retrofitting programmes at regular intervals so that knowledge is
not lost with time.
7

4.4. Key Lessons Learned

The buildings most at-risk are built without engineering input, so programmes must target
communities directly. The cascade model (training technicians to teach a larger number who
then supervise self-construction) is an effective way of reaching large numbers of the community
whilst minimizing cost.
Remote communities cannot afford well-constructed houses using modern methods of
construction. However, these communities are not using reinforced adobe at their own cost due to
other basic needs and the poor perception of adobe. This shows that financial incentives are
required and that public adobe buildings are needed to raise confidence in adobe as a construction
material.
Lessons taught to communities are lost over time. Therefore, long-term interventions are essential.
Operational costs are a significant proportion of the total project costs for NGOs and technical
agencies, making long-term interventions difficult. Local municipalities have long-term presence
but lack capacity and funding. Therefore, capacitation of local municipalities is a necessary feature
for the sustainability of any community project.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The research was funded by the Educational Trust of the Institution of Structural Engineers through
the Pai Pan Li travel grant 2009. Many thanks to the following for their invaluable assistance and
guidance throughout the field investigation in Peru: Arch. Patricia Cardenas of SENCICO, Arch.
Edward Chuquimia and Juan Carlos for their guidance in Arequipa; Urbano Tejada, Mr Salustiano
Garca, Alvaro Rubios and Stefano Bossio for their assistance around Pisco and Chincha; Erik
Trigoso and Jesika Rodriguez for their support in Trujillo; Prof Julio Rojas Bravo for his help in
Cusco and Nancy Trujillo and the staff of PUCP for hosting the investigation.
REFERENCES

Blondet, Marcial and Garcia, Gladys V. (2006), World Housing Report: Adobe Construction, World
Housing Encyclopedia (electronic report on the Internet).
COSUDE (2008), Sistematizacion del proyecto piloto de vivienda rural en rururca region Arequipa.
Haider J., Chuquimia E., Huerta J., (2005) Retos en la Adopcin de Tecnologa Sismo-Resistente
para Viviendas de Adobe en la Sierra Peruana, proc. SismoAdobe, Peru.
Rubios A. (2009) Propuesta de Reconstruccion Post-Terremoto de Viviendas de Adobe Reforzado,
Civil Engineer (Masters) Thesis, Catholic University of Peru.
Perez-Palma, P. (2004) Estudio socioeconomico de las familias participantes del Proyecto Cuencas
Andinas y Proyecto de Gestion de Riesgo de Desastres Naturales con Enfoque de Seguridad
Aimentaria de la Zona Castilla y Condesuyos Arequipa, COPASA-GTZ, Arequipa, Peru.
Quiun D. (2009) World Housing Report: Reinforced Adobe, Report Num 107, World Housing
Encyclopedia (electronic report on the Internet).
San Bartolome ., Quiun D., Zegarra L. (2008) Performance of Reinforced Adobe Houses in Pisco
Peru Earthquake, proc. 14WCEE, Beijing.