Rapid Screening of Buildings for Seismic Retrofit Assessment Murat Saatcioglu PhD,P.Eng. Professor and University Research Chair Department of Civil Engineering.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Simon Foo, Edward Morofsky & Brian Kyle
Advertisements

Job Hazard Analysis I. Speaker’s Notes:
The World Bank and Building Codes: Challenges and Opportunities Sanjaya Bhatia GFDRR, World Bank.
Museum Presentation Intermuseum Conservation Association.
Risk Assessment and Mapping Experiences through DIPECHO in Central Asia Regional Consultative Meeting November 2009 Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic.
During the semester Introductions Basics of earthquakes History and Recording Damaging Earthquakes and Understanding seismic exposure Undertaking loss.
EV Safety GTR Task Force Group #2 – Low Electric Energy #5 EVS GTR Status Briefing May 13, 2014.
Y.P. Wang 1, W.H. Liao 2 and C.L. Lee 2 1 Professor of Civil Engineering 2 Research Assistant Professor of NHMRC National Chiao-Tung University Y.P. Wang.
INPO Update CMBG Meeting June 2013
2013 Northwest Hydro Operators Forum 1 Risk-Informed Decision Making – FERC Perspective David Lord, P.E., D2SI Dam Safety Risk team – Portland, Or Natural.
FACILITY SAFETY: Creating a Safe and Secure Environment in the Community Health Center Presented by Steve Wilder, BA, CHSP, STS Sorensen, Wilder & Associates.
Chile Observatories Earthquake Readiness Workshop La Serena, Chile December Seismic Retrofit of Existing Observatories Chile Observatories Earthquake.
ATHENS 12 th of April, M. Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria Bulgarian seismic design codes and civil construction.
A project undertaken by TRANSIT NEW ZEALAND in conjunction with OPUS INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS LIMITED APEX PROJECT MANAGEMENT LIMITED and REGIONAL BRIDGE.
RECOVERY and RECONSTRUCTION after the PAKISTAN EARTHQUAKE CHOOSING OPTIONS THAT WILL FACILITATE LONG-TERM RECOVERY THE OCTOBER 8, 2005 DISASTER.
Contents : Introduction. Rapid Visual Screening.
Safe Cities 1 Principles and components of urban disaster risk reduction Session 2 World Bank Institute Fouad Bendimerad, Ph.D., P.E.
Bridge Vulnerabilities Oct What puts bridges at risk? Ability to withstand seismic forces and displacements.
Keck Telescope Seismic Upgrade Design Support - Progress Report Frank Kan Andrew Sarawit 4 May 2011 (Revised 5 May 2011)
IRENG07 1 Seismic Consideration Discussion for The Interaction Region Fred Asiri-SLAC.
Modeling Seismic Response for Highway Bridges in the St. Louis Area for Magnitude 6.0 to 6.8 Earthquakes J. David Rogers and Deniz Karadeniz Department.
During the semester Introductions Basics of earthquakes History and Recording Damaging Earthquakes and Understanding seismic exposure Undertaking loss.
Abstract Earthquakes are hazardous to people and the economy. Potential loss impacts include lives, homes, office buildings, manufacturing plants, schools,
PURPOSE OF DFMEA (DESIGN FAILURE MODE EFFECTS ANALYSIS)
LEADERS 2006 International Course on Development and Disasters November 20 – December 01, Ocho Rios, Jamaica. RISK REDUCTION Presenter: Aston Brown.
Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment
Reducing Vulnerability to Disasters in India GOI-USAID Disaster Management Support Project Fritz Institute Conference on Performance & Preparedness: Lessons.
Hazards Analysis. The Next 55 Minutes... l Overview of Hazards Analysis l Scenarios for EPCRA and RMP l Resources.
Lisa Wood, CISA, CBRM, CBRA Compliance Auditor, Cyber Security
Open Data for Resilience John Crowley. To use science, technology & innovation to inform decision making and reduce the vulnerability of the developing.
Compliance Performance Measure Proposals and Preliminary Trends Greg Pierce – Chair, Performance Measures Task Force Compliance and Certification Committee.
Disaster Reduction and Development in Developing Country Dr . Yoshiaki KAWATA Director and Professor Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University.
Real World Applications of USGS EQ Science: Stacy Bartoletti Degenkolb Engineers Structural Engineers Association of Washington Cascadia Region Earthquake.
Office of Facilities Deferred Maintenance UTSA Strategic Resource Planning Council Deferred Maintenance UTSA Strategic Resource Planning Council March.
VULNERABILITY OF BUILDINGS TO EARTHQUAKE GROUND SHAKING GENERALIZED VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS BASED ON CHANGES IN A BUILDING’S ELEVATION AND FLOOR PLAN.
FEMA Nonstructural Earthquake Hazard Mitigation Training
Ricardo A. Alvarez IHRC/FIU SHMPAT PDM1 SHMPAT Meeting July 21-22, 2003.
Chris Tokas S.E. Manager, Hospital Seismic Retrofit Program Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development Status of the California Hospital Seismic.
LIQUEFACTION FAILURE OF FOUNDATION - STRUCTURE COLLAPSE.
D&B Business Information Reports Wednesday 22 nd July 2009 CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY This material is confidential and proprietary to Dun & Bradstreet.
Assessing and Counseling Older Drivers Identifying and Assessing the Medically Impaired Driver.
Seismic Decision Research and Function Assessment on Power Supply System Chunguang Liu, Xing Jin Institute of Engineering Mechanics(IEM), CSB
OPENQUAKE Mission and Vision It is GEM’s mission to engage a global community in the design, development and deployment of state-of-the-art models and.
Sendai Earthquake, March 11, 2011.
THE LOW DOWN ON RISK ASSESSMENT HOW SAFE ARE OUR CITIES?
Annex I: Methods & Tools prepared by some members of the ICH Q9 EWG for example only; not an official policy/guidance July 2006, slide 1 ICH Q9 QUALITY.
Overview of the “Recommended LRFD Seismic Design Specifications for Highway Bridges” Ian M. Friedland, P.E. Bridge Technology Engineer Federal Highway.
NFPA 1600 Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs.
How to prepare Report for Ship Security Assessment December 2003 December 2003 ClassNK.
Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
S3.1 session day 3 1 training delivered by Oxfam GB, RedR India and Humanitarian Benchmark; January 2012, Yangon, Myanmar approved by the Advisory.
Earthquake Site Characterization in Metropolitan Vancouver Frederick Jackson Supervisor – Dr. Sheri Molnar.
SEISMIC ASSESMENT of SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL using FRAGILITY CURVES
Risk Assessment.
Utah County Elementary Schools Seismic Hazards Survey Azimuth Engineering Ashley Blood, Cody Hatch, Amy Fredrickson Problem Statement: Many geologists.
Technology & Analytics
BRIDGES MOST IMPORTANT GEOTECHNICAL EFFECT- LIQUEFACTION
Risk Assessment Maps for Seaside OR
Flooding Walkdown Guidance
Design of Hybrid Structures All interested are welcome!
Health Risk = Consequences X Probability (Likelihood)
The Features of a Product or System
GE 6757 TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT
This presentation document has been prepared by Vault Intelligence Limited (“Vault") and is intended for off line demonstration, presentation and educational.
Effect of Earthquake on Fire Protection Systems
Crisis Planning & Strategy: Using Earthquakes as a Case Study
Measure – V Facilities Update April 8th, 2019
Earthquake Hazard Chapter F5
Post Seismic Bridge Inspection
This presentation document has been prepared by Vault Intelligence Limited (“Vault") and is intended for off line demonstration, presentation and educational.
Presentation transcript:

Rapid Screening of Buildings for Seismic Retrofit Assessment Murat Saatcioglu PhD,P.Eng. Professor and University Research Chair Department of Civil Engineering The University of Ottawa Ottawa, ON

Why Seismic Screening?  Seismic retrofitting may be very costly  Before a decision is made, seismic assessment is required.  Before undertaking a detailed seismic assessment, a rapid screening of buildings may be in order.  NRC developed “Manual for Screening of Buildings for Seismic Investigation”

Seismic Screening  NRC Screening Manual is dated It has been revised recently at the request of PWGSC to conform to NBCC 2005 Seismic Hazard  Seismic screening provides a simple tool to a community or authority to easily identify buildings that might pose a risk of life or injury, or severe curtailment of community services in the event of a damaging earthquake

Seismic Screening  Seismic screening is conducted by a simple inspection without the cost of a detailed analysis of every building in a given region  Buildings that receive high score and is thus identified to be potentially hazardous require further investigation  NBCC Appendix K recommends that buildings that have seismic resistance of 60% and lower relative to the current code requirement may be retrofitted

Seismic Screening  The 60% value is a trigger value and does not indicate that seismically deficient buildings should be retrofitted to have 60% capacity  Once the decision to retrofit is made, it is advisable to improve the building performance up to the current standards expected from new buildings  Cost and performance should be weighed against each other before a decision is made

Seismic Screening The following has to be evaluated:  Seismicity(A): The maximum earthquake motion expected for the location of the building (seismic zone).  Soil Conditions(B): Soft soils amplify earthquake motions and damage buildings.  Type of Structure(C): The type of lateral force resisting system (LFRS) is important to assess potential seismic damage.

Seismic Screening The following has to be evaluated (Cont’d):  Building Irregularities(D): This applies primarily to weaknesses in configuration like soft storeys and captive columns.  Non-Structural Hazards(F): Non-load- bearing components of the building, such as block partitions, may fall on people or interfere with rescue operation.

Seismic Screening The following has to be evaluated (Cont’d):  Design NBC: Buildings designed to recent building codes are less vulnerable than buildings designed to older versions of the code.  Building Importance(E): The consequences of failure are more severe for post-disaster buildings and critical facilities. Also, risk in densely populated buildings is higher.

Seismic Screening Form

Seismic Priority Index Structural Index (SI) = A*B*C*D*E Non-Structural Index (NSI) = B*E*F Seismic Priority Index (SPI) = SI + NSI The scores should be used for the purpose of ranking SI or NSI of 1.0 to 2.0 indicate full compliance with the code. SPI < 10 indicates low priority SPI = 10 – 20 indicates medium priority SPI > 20 indicates high priority SPI > 30 potentially hazardous

Thank You….. Questions or Comments?