The September 19th, 2017 Puebla, Mexico earthquake

Abstract

This report presents the observations and findings following the 2017 Puebla earthquake that occurred inMexico on September 19th, 2017. The reconnaissance mission was a collaboration between the New ZealandSociety of Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE), the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (UAM) Azcapotzalco,the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Disaster Reconnaissance team, and the Colegio de Ingenieros Civilesde Mexico (CICM). During the earthquake, 77 buildings suffered partial or total collapse and more than8,000 buildings experienced damage ranging from slight damage to significant structural damage necessitatingdemolition. As observed in previous earthquakes, the unique soil conditions of Mexico City resulted inextensive damage to the city’s infrastructure, primarily due to local site effects. The earthquake causedrelatively more damage to buildings built on transition and soft soil zones (i.e. between hard and deep softsoils) than those on hard soils.The NZSEE and UAM team focussed on areas with widespread and extensive damage. They also assessedthe performance of repaired and retrofitted buildings after the 1985 Michoacán earthquake. It was found thatthe lessons learnt from the 1985 Michoacán earthquake led to some risk mitigation measures which benefitedseveral buildings in the 2017 earthquake. Retrofitted buildings were found to have performed very well withlittle or no damage when compared to other buildings.

A machine learning damage prediction model for the 2017 Puebla-Morelos, Mexico, earthquake

“…Following the earthquake, local and international teams assessed buildings damage across Mexico City (Colegio de Ingenieros Civiles de México (CICM), 2017; Díaz et al, 2017; Galvis et al, 2017; Roeslin et al, 2018a, 2018b; Weiser et al, 2017).…”

“…These surveys collected detailed building data based on a streamlined taxonomy specific to the local building stock. These were later converted and aligned to the GEM Building Taxonomy v2.0 (Brzev et al, 2013; Roeslin et al, 2018). The GEM Building Taxonomy v2.0 was chosen, as it is a worldwide data standard that accommodates local construction variations (Allen et al, 2015).…”