Few day ago, we knew by a oficial report that the only one modern building fell down in santiago was because it was not made in accordance to the chilean´s codes of construction. It building was not 10 year old.

I think in general terms you have reason the codes are not the only one explanation. Obviously, it have a relation with the chilean sismic culture and the better than haiti economical situation.

In last two decades, we have improved ours ecomonomical situation as Country. So we are improving ours codes because they were designed to allow to the people flee without the building collapsed. But this code´s does not guarantee that the building be fully useful after the earthquake. In this days, a lot of engenneer are suggesting improve the codes to ensure the building´s functionality after the earthquake. That is beacuse a lot building did not collapse but they are useless now. So the economical´s lost in infrastructure is very important.

Even if you wanted to avoid building code requirements, you won’t avoid what Mother Nature will do to you in a few months. A Haitian shack in Chile would leave you shivering at best. Adding insulation requires more lumber to hold it. Covering the insulation well on both sides so it can work and be protected from storms causes a wall to become a rigid block. Putting a ceiling below the roof (to keep the warm air in) adds more cross bracing for the walls.

If you’re not using wood for this, but instead using brick and concrete (whether from custom or termite avoidance), then even the thinnest walls become rock-like supports with several cross braces. Any wood rods or rebar reduce the brittleness of brick or concrete. Any interlocked rebar between the edges of walls and ceilings allow the structure to flex rather than crack apart and flatten.

The cold requires a more substantial structure. The more substantial structure can cause more injury if it falls on you, but this might not have happened if the earthquake was different or if the construction held the buildings together longer.

Another factor is whether many buildings in Haiti were so light that survival was easy, but that depends upon whether the threshold for injury/entrapment is so low that most Haitian homes had enough material to trap someone.

Engineers have been studying the effects of earthquakes on structures for a long time. California was an early pioneer after the destructive Long Beach earthquake of 1933. Many schools and houses collapsed, and engineers learned valuable lessons in how to build with such materials as brick and masonry. Strong building codes were passed, and strong building departments made sure that all structures were built to code with quality materials.

Even so, every modern earthquake is studied by engineer-earthquake-chasers if you will, who gather pictures and other evidence so that buildings can be designed to be even stronger than before. For instance, the Northridge California quake of 1994 taught engineers further lessons on how to improve welding techniques. This is very important in places where steel framing resists the lateral forces of earthquakes (ie, Los Angeles).

Now, as to the question of why so many buildings in Haiti collapsed, the answer is similar to the 2008 Sichuan Province earthquake in China: shoddy construction, low-quality materials, little or no earthquake engineering, lack of strong building codes, and building officials who may have been corrupt.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lets look at Concrete:
Reinforced-concrete is one of the best materials to resist earthquakes. The term reinforced refers to the reinforcing steel (rebars) inside the concrete. Concrete is made with bags of cement, water, clean sand, and aggregate which can be rounded or angular. It is incorrect to say “the cement was weak” when what you mean is “the concrete is weak”. In the early days of concrete, smooth rebars did not have ridges to improve bonding, and the steel had a lower strength. However, I would be quite surprised to learn that the reinforcing steel used in Haiti was “smooth” or “brittle”, or that this caused the many building failures.
A more likely reason is inadequate amount of steel. For instance, the importance of “stirrups” around the main rebars in areas of high stress. I would think that in a place like Haiti, the lack of enough steel in the concrete would be a major reason why structures came down, since steel is always the most expensive component in construction no matter where you build in the world. Concrete without steel (like masonry without steel) is a deadly substance in an earthquake.

What the hell is fundinding? This guy should slow down and get composed before he writes his opinion for the world to see.

Haiti has been colonized throughout their entire history. Their valuable resources have been consistently funneled out of that country since Chris Columbus enslaved them, oops I mean discovered them.

Chile had resources, such as rebar, available to them when they built their buildings while Haitians gathered all the mud they could find to just get out of the damn rain and provide a little shelter for their families.

The difference is is really that about the quality of resources because there are good and bad contractors in every market.

Plus everyone knows that Chileans are just better, cleaner and smarter than the Haitians.

INVESTIGATE 9/11- The building codes and fire protection on those buildings were more than adequate to keep those buildings standing.

Bottom line for Port au Prince is that it should not be rebuilt as it was at its present location — harbor notwithstanding — because if (likely when) it is, then 10 or 20 or 40 years down the line, this will all be repeated again.

-A geologist