Haiti Building Failures and a Replicable

Building Design for Improved Earthquake

Safety
Lisa Holliday,a) M.EERI, and Hank Grantb)

Christianville is a group of U.S. mission projects (education, medical, dental,

and eye) located 8 km east of Léogâne and near the epicenter of the 12 January
2010 earthquake. The facility consists of a conglomeration of buildings built using
Haitian construction methods over the past 40 years and serves as a microcosm of
Haitian building techniques in the remainder of the country. There was significant
variation in the performance of the buildings during the earthquake—some build-
ings completely collapsed, while others survived without a crack. Much can be
learned from both the buildings that failed and the buildings that did not fail. This
paper provides an analysis of the buildings on the site from various perspectives,
including earthquake survivability, construction techniques, structural details, and
changes that could be made to improve survivability in the future and the issues
involved in a new adaptable building design. [DOI: 10.1193/1.3636386]

INTRODUCTION
Christianville has a long and rich history in its mission work for children. It began in
the 1960s as an orphanage. Legend has it that “Papa Doc” Duvalier, the infamous dictator
of Haiti, originally donated the land to the orphanage and hired a woman from Jamaica to
run it. It operated in this mode for several years. One of that woman’s sons, Wayne Herget,
is still involved with Christianville. He currently lives in Atlanta, but has spent as much as
15 years living in Haiti and knows the country and local community well.
The mission was later expanded to agriculture education, which eventually replaced the
orphanage function. It began as an education source for raising pigs and then expanded to
raising fish, primarily tilapia. This still exists today, but the pig farm has been replaced by a
goat farm, as it is viewed as a more efficient generator of protein. Egg farming was also added
about ten years ago, and the mission now produces 800 eggs per day. The food produced at
Christianville provides protein-rich meals, two per day, for school children in the area. There
is also a building owned by the Haitian Fisheries Ministry on the grounds of Christianville.
This is an education resource for visiting students and scholars concerned with fish produc-
tion. It is a recently constructed building but was heavily damaged during the earthquake.
The Christianville Foundation now operates out of Jacksonville, Florida and, over many
years, has built several buildings to support education. These buildings include a

a)
Assistant Professor, Construction Science Division, University of Oklahoma, 830 Van Vleet Oval, Norman,
OK, 73019, email: lisaholliday@ou.edu
b)
Tom and Mary Dugan Professor, School of Industrial Engineering, University of Oklahoma, 202 W. Boyd St.
Rm 124, Norman, OK, 73019, email: hgrant@ou.edu

S277
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 27, No. S1, pages S277–S297, October 2011; V
C 2011, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
S278 L. HOLLIDAY AND H. GRANT

kindergarten, elementary school, high school, and college. Most of these original buildings
were destroyed or heavily damaged in the recent earthquake. Christianville is now working
on rebuilding some of those buildings and redefining the scope of its education mission.
Christianville houses other missions (which have separate boards) in the form of a medical
clinic (Haiti Health Ministries (HHM)), an eye clinic (Fellowship of Christian Optometrists),
and a dental clinic (Christianville Dental Clinic). These are sponsored by various agencies in
the United States. Other than proximity, they have little connection to the Christianville educa-
tion mission. Christianville also hosts mission teams and has facilities to house and feed these
teams. Most teams are now focused on repairing or rebuilding damaged buildings.
Today, Christianville is a complex of 27 buildings that contain several U.S. missions
and is located 8 km east of Léogâne, Haiti (Figure 1). On 12 January 2010, Christianville
became an emergency center for earthquake victims, and it did so even though its own med-
ical clinic building had collapsed. Doctors saw patients in the yard, while medical staff ran
in and out of the collapsed clinic only when necessary to gather emergency supplies. In the
days following the earthquake, the elementary school was converted into a temporary hospi-
tal. Now that the wounded are treated, they are determined to rebuild the clinic as quickly
as possible. The leaders of Haiti Health Ministries turned to the engineers at the University
of Oklahoma (OU) for help. The OU team1 arrived in Haiti within weeks of the earthquake
to advise authorities regarding the safety of the buildings, as well as to advise for rebuilding.
As the only clinic in the area, the Christianville clinic is an essential building and must be
rebuilt to improved standards of safety for both earthquakes and hurricanes. The OU team
advised HHM regarding materials and construction techniques and has helped design the
structural components of a new clinic in conjunction with Stone Cabin Design, which did
the architectural work. The new structural system is adaptable to other floor plans and can
be replicated in other buildings without engineering involvement in the future.

BUILDINGS AT CHRISTIANVILLE
All of the buildings were built with local materials, volunteer labor, and Haitian con-
struction managers. The construction managers are employees who also do maintenance
and other work when not working on construction projects. Workers were interviewed after
the collapse, and they described how the buildings were built and the materials that were
used. One volunteer worker stated that the concrete masonry unit (CMU) blocks were some-
times so weak that if you picked them up with one hand, they would break apart under their
own hanging weight, so workers had to pick them up with both hands. There were a few
trends noticed in the construction of the buildings. The newer buildings were built of CMU
block construction and had less steel reinforcement, and the blocks appeared to contain less
portland cement as noted by their whiter, rather than grayer, color (Figure 2). It seemed that
over the years, the expensive materials such as steel and portland cement were stretched
1
OU Team Members:
Dr. Hank Grant, Tom and Mary Dugan Professor, School of Industrial Engineering, University of Oklahoma
Dr. Lisa Holliday P.E., Assistant Professor, College of Architecture, University of Oklahoma
Laurent Massenat P.E., Obelisk Engineering, Oklahoma City
Dr. Chris Ramseyer P.E., Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, Univer-
sity of Oklahoma
HAITI BUILDING FAILURES AND A REPLICABLE BUILDING DESIGN FOR IMPROVED EARTHQUAKE SAFETY S279

Figure 1. Location of Haiti Earthquake of 12 January 2010.

further. Also, the newer buildings tended to be two or three stories to create balconies with
nice views. Another dangerous trend was to build the second floor over the roof overhang
of the first floor to achieving more floor space, but this offsets the bearing walls and creates
an inverted pyramid shape (Figure 3).
The buildings on the campus of Christianville include a large variety of materials used
for construction; see Table 1 for a complete list. Consider roofing systems, for example;
there are bar joists covered with steel panels, roof trusses made of steel and covered with
steel panels, roof trusses made of wood and covered with steel panels, cold-formed steel
purlins covered with wood sheeting and roofing, wood joists covered with steel panel, and
concrete slabs. The ratio of floor area per area of structural walls and columns was calcu-
lated but it did not prove to be a consistent measure of performance (Table 1).

Figure 2. Haitian concrete (left) shown with typical U.S. concrete.

S280 L. HOLLIDAY AND H. GRANT

Figure 3. Second floor built over the roof projection of the first floor (Medical Apartments
Building).

The buildings with the greatest damage were generally made of concrete slab roofs with re-
inforced concrete columns with CMU infilled walls or rock infilled walls. It is no surprise that
buildings such as the Kindergarten (Figure 4) and High School (Figure 5), with insufficient col-
umns to resist lateral loads and infilled with rocks, collapsed. Buildings constructed of rein-
forced concrete or CMU block, if detailed for ductile behavior, should have performed well, but
unfortunately, this was not the case. There were several buildings with reinforced concrete col-
umns with CMU blocks walls between the columns that failed. In addition to lack of reinforce-
ment and poor detailing practices, inspection of the blocks revealed material failures. The CMU
block samples were chalky to the touch and fell apart easily. Test results showed a compressive
strength of about 500 psi (Holliday 2011). Workers interviewed said the concrete mix used to
make the blocks used one thirtieth portland cement by volume compared to sand and aggregate.
A general recommended hand mixed concrete contains one part portland cement, two parts
sand, and three parts gravel or one sixth portland cement (Build Change 2006). This means the
blocks contained one fifth the portland cement that they should have contained.

BUILDING PERFORMANCE
The buildings were inspected shortly after the earthquake to determine which were safe
to re-enter and which were not safe (Table 1). The building damage varied greatly. Some
buildings completely collapsed, and others sustained no damage.

BUILDINGS THAT PERFORMED POORLY

Medical Apartments Building

The Medical Apartments Building was under final construction when the earthquake hit.
This two-story building, containing four apartments, did not collapse but was severely
Table 1. Christianville building details

HAITI BUILDING FAILURES AND A REPLICABLE BUILDING DESIGN FOR IMPROVED EARTHQUAKE SAFETY
Floor
Wall Column Lineal Lineal Ft Area=
Roof Transverse Long Damage Thickness Size Ft Long. Transverse Structural
No. Use Length Width Levels const. walls walls Level1 (inches) (inches) (approx.) (approx.) Element Area
1 Med Clinic 49 32 1 Concrete CMU Stone infill 3 8 Unknown 196 128 7.3
2 X-ray=Lab 30 19 1 Concrete Stone= Stone= 2 8 Unknown 90 38 6.7
CMU CMU
3 Pharmacy 47 27 1 Concrete Stone Stone 5 10 6x6 94 54 10.3
infill infill
4 Kindergarten 120 25 1 Concrete CMU Stone 5 CMU-8 6x6 240 150 10.3
School infill Stone-10
5 School 40 35 1 Concrete Concrete Concrete 1 8 8x8 80 105 11.4
6 Dental 50 36 2 Concrete Concrete Concrete 1 6 6x6 100 190 12.4
7 Eye Clinic 35 42 1 Concrete Concrete Concrete 5 8 8x8 105 84 11.7
8 Eye Surg. 40 35 2 Concrete CMU CMU 5 6 6x6 80 60 20.0
Apts. infill infill
9 Generator 14 13 1 0
10 Elem 150 25 1 Steel CMU CMU 1 8 None 300 175 11.8
School
11 Wilkins 52 41 1 Concrete Concrete Concrete 1 8 10x10 192 146 9.5
School
12 High 138 46 2 Concrete CMU Stone 5 9 10x10 398 260 12.9
School infill
13 Restrooms 50 44 1 Steel Stone Stone 0 6 10x10 94 161 17.3
infill infill
14 FCO House 54 46 1 Steel=wood CMU CMU 1 8 None 138 180 11.7
15 Med Aprts 2 Concrete CMU CMU 4 8 10x10 240 120 13.3
16 Ed’s House 35 25 2 wood CMU CMU 2 8 None 90 70 8.2
17 DeLeon 23 43 2 Steel Concrete Concrete 2 6 8x8 123 92 9.2
House wood

S281
 S282
Table 1. Continued

Floor
Wall Column Lineal Lineal Ft Area=
Roof Transverse Long Damage Thickness Size Ft Long. Transverse Structural
No. Use Length Width Levels const. walls walls Level1 (inches) (inches) (approx.) (approx.) Element Area
18 Tengue’s 48 37 2 Steel=wood Concrete Concrete 2 6 8x8 168 111 12.7
House
19 Guest House 54 50 1 Steel CMU CMU 1 8 None 200 190 10.4
20 Guest House 41 28 1 Steel CMU CMU 1 6 None 79 135 10.7
Residence
21 Fish Hatchery 50 35 2 Concrete CMU CMU 3 6 8x8 170 100 13.0
Guest House
22 Wood Shop 30 20 1 Steel=wood CMU CMU 3 6 Wood 4x4 60 40 12.0
23 Daniel’s 40 40 1 Steel= Concrete Concrete 2 8 12x10 80 80 15.0
House wood?
24 University 40 60 2 Concrete CMU infill Stone infill 3 CMU-6 12x12 210 120 12.5
Bldg A Stone-8
University 60 80 Steel CMU Stone infill 5 CMU-6 12x12 160 140 27.4
Bldg B Stone-8
25 English 20 30 1 Concrete CMU infill CMU infill 3 6 8x8 60 90 8.0
Academy
26 Church 80 43 1 Steel=wood CMU CMU 2 8 None 129 160 17.9
27 Admin. Bldg. 40 29 1 Steel CMU CMU 0 6 None 76 130 11.3

L. HOLLIDAY AND H. GRANT

1
Damage Index for Each Building at Christianville
0-no visible damage
1-small cracks in walls
2-large cracks in walls
3-some damage to structural systems
4-extensive damage
5-collapse or near collapse
HAITI BUILDING FAILURES AND A REPLICABLE BUILDING DESIGN FOR IMPROVED EARTHQUAKE SAFETY S283

Figure 4. Kindergarten Building.

damaged by the earthquake (Figure 6). The occupants were able to escape the building, but
the building cannot be repaired cost-effectively. The building was constructed of a hybrid sys-
tem of reinforced concrete beams and columns with CMU block walls between the columns.
The columns were not detailed to function as moment resisting frames. The CMU walls were
not sufficient to resist lateral loads and cracked in the typical x-pattern observed in failed shear
walls (Figure 7). There were several deficiencies found in the building that were also seen in
other two-story buildings on the campus. The deficiencies were as follows:

Figure 5. High School Building.

S284 L. HOLLIDAY AND H. GRANT

Figure 6. Medical Apartments Building.

• There was very little steel reinforcement in the masonry walls and there was no
steel reinforcement around doors and windows (Figure 8). The massive foundation
was also under-reinforced (Figure 9).
• The CMU blocks used to make the walls were of poor quality. There was insuffi-
cient portland cement used to make the blocks, and samples tested had an average
compressive strength of 722 psi.
• The upper floor is built out to the overhang from the first floor, making the building
larger on the upper floor. This also means the walls on the upper floor are not in

Figure 7. Medical Apartments Building with typical x-shaped wall shear failures.
HAITI BUILDING FAILURES AND A REPLICABLE BUILDING DESIGN FOR IMPROVED EARTHQUAKE SAFETY S285

Figure 8. Medical Apartments Building (notice lack of reinforcement in walls and around
window).

line with the shear walls on the lower floor and created an inverted pyramid shape.
• Openings created short column conditions (Figure 10).
• Columns lacked sufficient stirrups to resist shear forces.
Fish Hatchery Guest House
The Fish Hatchery Guest House (Figure 11) was also under construction at the time of
the earthquake and had many of the same deficiencies as the Medical Apartments Building.

Figure 9. Medical Apartments foundation (unreinforced stone packed with concrete).

S286 L. HOLLIDAY AND H. GRANT

Figure 10. Failure of short column condition in Medical Apartments Building.

It also contained a concrete stair rail that was attached to the structure with small steel dow-
els. The stair rail collapsed and could have injured people if the building had been occupied
(Figure 12). Retrofit techniques were explored (ATC 1996) for both the apartment buildings
since they are both standing, were newly constructed, and represented a substantial invest-
ment, but unfortunately the materials are too weak to attach a fiber wrap or other material.
Kindergarten School Building
The Kindergarten School Building (Figure 4) normally housed nearly 100 toddlers daily
but fortunately the earthquake hit after school hours and the building was completely empty

Figure 11. Fish Hatchery Guest House with typical x-shaped shear wall cracks.
HAITI BUILDING FAILURES AND A REPLICABLE BUILDING DESIGN FOR IMPROVED EARTHQUAKE SAFETY S287

Figure 12. Stairwell in Fish Hatchery Guest House.

when it collapsed. The building consisted of a heavy concrete flat roof system with rein-
forced concrete columns and stone infilled walls. The building was 120 feet long and con-
tained no lateral load resisting system in the longitudinal direction. The roof was made of a
concrete slab nearly 12 inches deep and it was supported by skinny concrete columns,
approximately 6 inches x 6 inches. In the transverse direction there were masonry shear
walls separating the classrooms, but in the longitudinal direction there was only stone infill
between the columns. The steel doors and door frames were the only things holding up por-
tions of the building after the earthquake (Figure 13).

High School Building

The High School Building (Figure 5) usually housed choir practice and other extracur-
ricular activities in the early evening, but fortunately, choir practice was canceled on 12 Jan-
uary, and no one was in the High School Building when it collapsed during the earthquake.
This two-story building was approximately 140 feet x 48 feet. The columns were not
detailed to function as part of a moment resisting frame system and the shear walls between
S288 L. HOLLIDAY AND H. GRANT

Figure 13. Kindergarten Building, held up by the steel doors.

them were insufficient (Figure 14) which resulted in most of the first floor columns buck-
ling. Similar to those in the Kindergarten Building, the longitudinal shear walls were com-
posed of infilled walls made of large stones grouted together with concrete—a heavy and
brittle system with low strength.

Wood Shop
The Wood Shop was a small, lightweight building. It was once an open building, but
CMU block walls were added to enclose the building. The walls were unreinforced and not
attached to the foundation, the columns or the roof. The walls had no structural tie to the
building structure. These walls fell, and it was fortunate that no one was working in the
building at the time of the earthquake (Figure 15).

BUILDINGS THAT PERFORMED WELL

There were several buildings on the campus that performed well during the earthquake.
Generally, one-story buildings with light steel roofs performed the best. The Administration
Building (CMU bearing walls with a light steel roof) had no visible damage. Several other
buildings constructed of CMU walls with a light steel roof, such as the Guest House, FCO
House, Guest House Residence, Daniel’s House, and Wilkins Elementary School, had only
HAITI BUILDING FAILURES AND A REPLICABLE BUILDING DESIGN FOR IMPROVED EARTHQUAKE SAFETY S289

Figure 14. High School Building column, notice the smooth bars.

minor cracks. These buildings were constructed of the same materials as other buildings at
Christianville. They were constructed of 8-inch CMU block. It is not possible to know the
reinforcement or detailing of these buildings since no records were kept and reinforcing can
only be seen in the buildings that have failed. It is reasonable to assume they were built
with the same detailing practices as other buildings at Christianville, but because they had
lighter roofs, and fewer stories, there was less lateral force demand on the lateral load resist-
ing systems.

Figure 15. Wood Shop Building.

S290 L. HOLLIDAY AND H. GRANT

DAMAGE TRENDS
None of the buildings at Christianville were designed or constructed with engineering
assistance. The damage trends indicate which nonengineered buildings offered better sur-
vivability. Several survivability trends can be seen from the buildings and their performance
during the earthquake.
Trends in poor performance:
• Buildings without lateral load resisting systems failed catastrophically and would
have caused fatalities if the buildings were occupied.
• Two- and three-story buildings performed worse and in some cases failed. The
two- and three-story buildings with concrete roofs were more likely to fail. This
was especially true when concrete roofs were used in conjunction with CMU block
infilled walls.
Trends in good performance:
• There were no failures in one-story buildings with lightweight roof systems (except
the Wood Shop walls which were added later and not tied to the building).
• Buildings with reinforced concrete walls (6 to 8 inches thick) performed better than
reinforced concrete columns with CMU infilled walls (8 inches thick).

A NEW MEDICAL CLINIC DESIGN

The medical clinic was badly damaged and would have been expensive or impossible to
repair. In addition to the earthquake damage, the building did not meet the needs of the
busy clinic for daily use and patient flow and the administrators of the clinic decided to
rebuild. Many building systems were explained to the administrators including confined
masonry, but ultimately they narrowed their decision to two building systems. The first
option explored was to import a pre-engineered steel building and brick the outside of the
bare steel frames with local block. The clinic administration decided against this option
because they were wary of bringing such an important purchase through Haitian Customs,
who have a reputation for assessing fees on imports based on how badly the owners want
the contents. The second building system considered is to build the building of CMU block.
The administrators preferred this option because it is made wholly of materials available in
Haiti. This option was chosen, but the quality of the block would have to be improved to
ensure this construction method is structurally sound. The block from previous construction
projects on the campus was tested (Holliday 2011) and had compressive strengths of 545
psi to 1,135 psi (Table 2) as compared to typical U.S. CMU block with a tested ultimate
compressive strength of about 2,500 psi. CMU blocks from various vendors in Haiti were
purchased and sent to OU for testing and had similarly poor ultimate compressive strengths
(Table 2). The administrators decided to purchase a block maker and make their own block
with the guidance of the OU team. The Haitian made block maker is shown in Figure 16.
The OU team helped the administrators improve the mix design for the block (MSJC 2006,
Mindness 2003, Schneider 1994) and improve curing and the CMU block compressive
strength increased to 1,568 psi average. The average compressive strengths are based on
only two samples and many more samples will need to be tested to ensure the quality of the
blocks. The blocks are shown in Figure 17. The medical clinic design (ACI 2004, AISC
HAITI BUILDING FAILURES AND A REPLICABLE BUILDING DESIGN FOR IMPROVED EARTHQUAKE SAFETY S291

Table 2. CMU block compressive strength test results from buildings at Christianville and
locally purchased samples

Sample description Compressive strength (psi)

Block samples from the Medical Apartments Building

Sample 1 745
Sample 2 545
Sample 3 1135
Block samples from the Fish Guest House
Sample 1 890
Sample 2 555
Samples from Ed and Pat’s House
Sample 1 655
Sample 2 (mortar) 1908
Samples of Haitian locally purchased CMU block
Sample 1 (made of local Marl aggregate) 470
Sample 2 (made of river rock aggregate) 493
Sample 3 1538
Sample 4 1282

Figure 16. Haitian block making machine.

S292 L. HOLLIDAY AND H. GRANT

Figure 17. Freshly made CMU block.

Code: 2006 International Building Code

Dead load: self weight of the structural components and roofing material
Collateral load: 5 psf
Roof Live load: 20 psf
Wind load: 150 MPH, Exposure C, I¼1.15
Seismic: Ss¼157.0%g, S1¼61.0%g
Seismic Use group IV
Seismic Design Category D
Site Class D
Table 3. CMU block sample compressive strength test results after improved mix and curing at
Christianville

Sample description Compressive strength (psi)

Sample 1 1198
Sample 2 1937
HAITI BUILDING FAILURES AND A REPLICABLE BUILDING DESIGN FOR IMPROVED EARTHQUAKE SAFETY S293

Figure 18. Medical Clinic elevations.

S294 L. HOLLIDAY AND H. GRANT

2005, IBC 2006, MSJC 2006, Vulcraft 2008, American Wood Council 2005) is based on
CMU compressive design strength of 1,000 psi.
The new clinic will be 46 feet wide by 103 feet long, a single story, and is shown in
Figure 18. The structural system is CMU shear walls (8 inches thick), with a steel truss roof
system. The building is designed for the following design loads (ASCE 2006, IBC 2006):
The dead weight of the building was calculated to be 258,000 lbs. There were no maps
for the values of SS and S1 for Haiti in the IBC building code, so the values the U.S. Army
Corp of Engineers United Facilities Criteria (U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 2011) were
used. The seismic base shear coefficient was 58% (IBC 2006). Applying this coefficient to
the weight gives seismic shear load of 150 kips. This building will be used as a template for
design guidelines that, if followed, would result in better-performing buildings during an
earthquake. This includes the structural details and construction practices.

BUILDING DESIGN GUIDELINES

As a building gets larger, the weight of the building also increases. This means the seis-
mic forces the building will experience during an earthquake will also increase, and these
loads need to be carried through the structural systems to the foundation. These structural
systems include the roof diaphragm, which must be stiff and strong enough to distribute the
load evenly between the shear walls; the shear walls, which carry the load to the foundation;
and the ties between the roof system and the walls. Without engineering design, the size of
this clinic is as large as should be attempted without site- and building-specific designs. The
roof diaphragm and spacing of the shear walls limit the size of the building. The building
was designed as follows:
• The walls were designed for the design wind loads based on the IBC (International
Building Code) and then analyzed to determine their shear capacity based on the
standard wall reinforcement. The standard wall reinforcing is two #4 bars at 24 inches
on center vertically and 36 inches on center horizontally (Figure 19). It was deter-
mined that each direction would require 90 feet of shear walls (considering 8 feet of
continuous wall without openings as a shear wall). This is approximately one third of
the length of the perimeter length. The amount of shear walls required for other build-
ing geometries was also checked and a value of one third the perimeter in shear walls
is sufficient, as long as shear walls are at least 8 feet in length without openings.
• The roof diaphragm is 20-gauge, 1.5-inch B panel welded laps. This deck has a dia-
phragm capacity sufficient as long as shear walls are spaced less than 13 feet apart
in the longitudinal direction and 16 feet in the transverse direction.
• The trusses were spaced at 4 feet on center. The 20-gauge roof panel is sufficient in
strength and can span 4 feet even for the high wind load cases; therefore, purlins
were not required, and the deck can be attached directly to the trusses. The connec-
tion of the roof to the shear wall is also critical to transfer earthquake loads to the
shear walls. To achieve this, the trusses were attached to the walls with welded
embed plates.
• The foundation was detailed as a continuous footing around the perimeter walls
and thickened slabs under the interior walls (Figure 20). The footing also ties firmly
to the wall with interlapping reinforcement. This is a standard foundation in many
HAITI BUILDING FAILURES AND A REPLICABLE BUILDING DESIGN FOR IMPROVED EARTHQUAKE SAFETY S295

Figure 19. Wall details.

S296 L. HOLLIDAY AND H. GRANT

Figure 20. Footing details.

parts of the world but a radically different foundation from the rest of the buildings
on the campus, which are unreinforced stone footings.
In addition to the main lateral force-resisting systems, other important items were
detailed. For example, at all openings:
• For openings up to 8 feet clear, provide an 8 inch deep bond beam with 8 inches of
bearing on either side. Provide longitudinal reinforcement of four #4 bars and no
stirrups are required.
• For openings between 8 feet clear and 16 feet clear, provide a 16-inch deep bond
beam with 16 inches of bearing on either side. Provide longitudinal reinforcement
of four #4 bars with #4 ties at 16 inches on center.
• For the masonry jamb under the lintel at each side of the opening, provide two #4
bars vertical reinforcing in solid grouted cells.

CONCLUSIONS
Working together with Christianville, the OU team hopes to improve the way the orga-
nization builds its buildings in the future. When talking to aid workers and volunteers at
Christianville, they stated that they always thought some of their building practices were
flawed but didn’t have the expertise to definitely point out flaws. In the future, they will be
able to construct buildings on their own and know that if they stay within the design guide-
lines, their buildings will be safe to occupy in an earthquake or strong winds. These guide-
lines can be formalized into an assembly manual that will help Haitians build one-story
CMU block buildings prescriptively, much like residential houses in the United States are
designed.
HAITI BUILDING FAILURES AND A REPLICABLE BUILDING DESIGN FOR IMPROVED EARTHQUAKE SAFETY S297

REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2008. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-08) and Commentary (ACI 318R-08), Farmington Hills, MI.
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2004. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI318R-05), an ACI Standard Reported by ACI Commit-
tee 318, Farmington Hills, MI.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), 2005. Steel Construction Manual, 13th
Edition, Chicago, IL.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2006. ASCE7-05 Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures, Danvers, MA.
American Wood Council, 2005. National Design Specification for Wood Construction 2005
Edition, Washington, D.C.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1996. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Build-
ings, Volumes 1 and 2, Report No. ATC-40, Redwood City, CA.
Build Change, 2006. Earthquake-Resistant Design and Construction Guidelines, Littleton, CO.
Holliday, L., Grant, F. H., and Ramseyer, C., 2011. Masonry block construction in Haiti, 8th
International Conference on Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures, September 2001,
Chianciano Terme, Italy.
International Code Council (ICC), 2006. International Building Code, Country Club Hills, IL.
Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC), 2006. Building Code Requirements and Commen-
tary for Masonry Structures (ACI 530-05=ASCE 5-05=TMS 402-05), Farmington Hills, MI.
Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC), 2006. Specification and Commentary for Masonry
Structures (ACI 530.1-05=ASCE 6-05=TMS 602-05), Farmington Hills, MI.
Mindess, S., Young, J. F., and David, D., 2003. Concrete, Second Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Vulcraft Group, 2008. Steel Roof and Floor Deck, Chemung, NY.
Schneider, R. R., and Dickey, W. L., 1994. Reinforced Masonry Design, Third Edition, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2011. Unified Facilities Criteria Structural Engineering (UFC)
3-301-01 January 2010, updated January 2011.
(Received 13 September 2010; accepted 16 June 2011)