STUDY ABOUT THE SEISMIC VULNERABILITY OF HEALTH CARE OBJECTS IN

ALBANIA Eng. Egla LUCA

Abstract
This theses is focused on the seismic performance of four existing hospitals (the Mother
Teresa university center in Tirana) built in Tirana- Albania before 1970.The study paid attention
in the seismic assessment of an RC hospital build in Tirana before 1989, designed with KTP-89
(Albanian Seismic Code). This assessment is compared with the results that Euro-Code-8
provides to us for this category of buildings. The study also is related to the evaluation of
building damages at the existing hospitals.
The seismic vulnerability of a structure can be described as it susceptibility to damage by
ground shaking of a given intensity. The aim of a vulnerability assessment is to obtain the
probability of a given level of damage to a given building type in a scenario earthquake.
Vulnerability analysis comprises a good knowledge of all basic steps in developing a
structure, which are: environmental, design and checking its behavior versus different hazards
events
This study focuses on the vulnerability assessment through empirical and analytical
methods of existing hospitals in Tirana
One of the reasons to have higher safety level of the building is the number of the people
being inside the building while the earthquake occurs, especially when these are hundreds of sick
persons.
That is why the buildings that belong to Healthcare System are considered to have a
higher level of safety then usual buildings, which in the vulnerability analysis terms means that
they are more vulnerable toward predicted phenomena such as earthquake.
So, it is very important to know as much as possible about their behavior in case of
earthquakes. This means to consider an actual building, its real reinforcement and real state, and
then performing a detailed analysis in order to obtain the real capacity or the real strength of the
building, independent from the predicted hazardous event for its respective site, but that derives
from the manner it was reinforced or the manner it was built, or simply saying, from the code in
which was based the construction procedures.
Vulnerability analysis has a particular importance for the estimation of damages
regarding the essential facility buildings, and it is necessary to understand as much as possible
their behavior in case of earthquakes.
Introduction
Empirical methods are an easy and efficient way to see the reaction of a building in the
case of an earthquake.
The methods used in this study are: 1) the Rapid visual survey (RVS- FEMA 154) 2) the
Turkish method 3) the Italian method 4) The Japanese method
1. Rapid visual screening (RVS) of buildings for potential seismic hazards
Rapid visualization method is designed to be implemented without any structural
calculations. Its main purpose is to identify older buildings with poor seismic performance.
The procedure requires that the evaluator identifies the main structural system that will
withstand lateral loads and to identify attributes that modify building seismic work on these
lateral loads. The result of the screening procedure is a final result that could go above 10 or
below 0. If the result is 2 or less, a detailed assessment is recommended.
2. The Turkish method to estimate the seismic vulnerability
1

Once points are determined by both levels of observation, I determine the final score. A
general equation for calculating the results of performance (SP) can be formulated as follows:
1.Number of Stories 2. Existence of a soft Story 3. Existence of heavy Overhangs 4 .Apparent
building quality 5.Existence of short Columns 6. Pounding between adjacent buildings 7.
Topographic effects8.Local Soil Conditions
PS = (Initial Score (Vulnerability score) X (Vulnerability parameter)
PS<50 Vulnerable Structure
3. The Italian method
The Vulnerability Index Method is a score methodology that punctuates buildings based in
eleven assessed parameters. The detection of these parameters, as well as the score
assignment for each of them are the results of post-earthquake surveys by means of the First
Level Assessment Form. The second level assessment form describes the eleven
parameters used to identify the primary structural system and its intrinsic significant
seismic related deficiencies, and the qualification criteria for each of the parameters. The
parameters are:1. Resisting System Type and Organization, 2. Resisting System Quality , 3.
Conventional Resistance, 4. Location and Soil Condition, 5. Diaphragms, 6. Plan
Configuration, 7. Vertical Configuration, 8. Connectivity between elements, 9. Low
Ductility Structural Members, 10. Non-structural Elements, 11. Preservation State
The Italian method has eleven parameters, which have been identified by one to three evaluation
ratios A (optimal) to C(unfavorable). I v, the global index of each building, is estimated using the
following formula: I v =K i *Wi
4. The Japanese method
The seismic resistance of a system should be modified by taking into account the irregularity of
structural configuration and the deterioration of structural properties with age. Therefore,
structural seismic capacity index Is of a structure is expressed as
I s= Eo*Sd*T
where Sd : configuration index, T : age index. Configuration index Sd takes into consideration ill
effect on the response by (a) distribution of lateral stiffness and resistance in plan shape, (b)
distribution of stiffness along height, (c) distribution of story heights, and (d) existence of
basement. Age index T recognizes the deterioration in earthquake resistance by (a) existing
cracks, (b) observed deflection, (c) uneven settlement caused by foundation deformation, (c)
neutralization of concrete, and (d) rust on reinforcement, which must be determined on the basis
of the investigation of building conditions at the building site. Seismic performance of the
building is represented by the seismic coefficient of performance, Is, which should be calculated
for each floor.
After estimating the seismic vulnerability with empirical methods, for one of the
hospitals I did an analytic assessment of the vulnerability. The chosen hospital is the only one
with reinforced concrete frame structure
The analytical methodology used in this case to evaluate the buildings reaction under an
earthquake is the non-linear pushover analyzes.
Static pushover analysis is an attempt by the structural engineering profession to evaluate
the real strength of the structure and it promises to be a useful and effective tool for performance
based design.
The objects that are taken into consideration are the Pathological hospital, the
Neurological hospital, the Mental health hospital and the Infectious Disease Hospital.

The Infectious Disease Hospital is part of the University Hospital Center Mother
Teresa". It is a 5 story building built in1966, with a maximum height of13.45m. It has a mixed
system partially frame system and partially masonry system.
The Pathological hospital is built in Tirana- Albania in 1970. The hospital is a six floor
building, with a frame system, designed with Albanian earthquake code of that time KTP-78.
The ground acceleration of this area is 0.2m/s2
The Neuro-Psychiatric (Neurological Mental health hospital) hospital is also part of the
University Hospital Center "Mother Teresa". It consists of two buildings, the Hospital of
Neurology and Psychiatry. It was built in 1973. This hospital is a building with 4 floors above
ground and one underground floor, half height, with an overall height of 13.56 m.
Objectives and Scope
This thesis work is meant to give to the reader a detailed defined procedure on how to
judge and to define the level of vulnerability of a structure or of structure type.
The aim of this master thesis is to make clear the procedure on how to decide and to
judge for the vulnerability of the chosen structure type versus one accepted hazard phenomena..
It is obvious that to reach this aim, first, must be explained the way it is defined the capacity of
one structure, its different performance points to different demand spectra and to different design
code requirements. Then, it can be judged around the structure type state, means, obtaining the
capacity spectrum for the structure type taken under consideration that is a result from the
designing code in force at the time the structure was built.
After obtaining the capacity spectrum, different demand spectra must be taken in
consideration, which will produce the desired performance points, and based on them, as a
function of the previously accepted or defined level of damage states, from this complete
analysis of the structure type, can be, estimated the level of damage that the structure type will
suffer.
If one specific predicted phenomenon will occur, the kind of structure type that is taken
under consideration in the analysis, will suffer the levels of damage with the respective
probability values that are given from the analysis
In this study I compare the results that these four empirical methods and also the analytic
one give for the seismic vulnerability of these buildings
Methodology
The various methods for vulnerability assessment that have been proposed in the past for
use in loss estimation can be divided into two main categories: empirical or analytical, both of
which can be used in hybrid methods
Each vulnerability assessment method models the damage on a discrete damage scale;
frequently used examples include the MSK scale (Medvedev and Sponheuer, 1969), the
Modified Mercalli scale (Wood and Neumann, 1931) and the EMS98 scale (Grnthal, 1998). In
empirical vulnerability procedures, the damage scale is used in reconnaissance efforts to produce
post-earthquake damage statistics, whilst in analytical procedures this is related to limit-state
mechanical properties of the buildings, such as inter- story drift capacity.
The first step that I followed to estimate the seismic vulnerability of the health care
institutions is by using the survey methods, such as the Rapid Visual Survey - FEMA-154, the
3

Turkish, Italian and Japanese methods for assessing the seismic vulnerability in an empirical
way. To estimate the seismic vulnerability of the object with these kinds of methods, I followed
all the hints given in the corresponding manuals, I did photos, questionnaires, site visits, etc.
These methods are just the first step to assess the probability for damage in a case of catastrophic
phenomena, but they are not the completely trustable. For further confirmation I used the
analytical method such as the push over analyses
The methodology used in this case to evaluate the buildings reaction under an earthquake
for the analytical method is the pushover analyze. Pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear
procedure in which the magnitude of the structural loading is incrementally increased in
accordance with a certain predefined pattern
Application
All the buildings that are taken into consideration in this study have more or less the same
characteristic because the period in which they were build, the projection code used in that
period, the materials, etc. The hospitals, due to all the facts that I mention before, have low steelreinforcement ratios, providing poor ductility, there are no lateral reinforcement such as shear
walls or steel bracing, the concrete used in the buildings is a very poor one (170kg/cm2), the slab
is with S.A.P panels (perforated concrete slab) , some of the slabs are monolith. The substructure
is with plinks under the columns. This information is taken from the original project, offered
from the Central Technical Archive of Albania.
All these information helped me for the empirical and analytical assessment of the
vulnerability. The building quality and also the materials used are an essential part of the study.
I did a detailed evaluation of the actual condition of the chosen buildings. For each of them I
used the four empirical methods and the analytical method that I explained before. These
methods are not sufficient enough to get a precise assessment of the building condition and its
seismic vulnerability. So to complete my study I did also an analytical estimation of the hospitals
using softwares and study visits. This process starts with the creation of a digital model of the
object. After creating the model in computer programs such as SAP2000 and defining the
properties and acceptance criteria for the pushover hinges, we locate the pushover hinges on the
model by selecting one or more frame members and assigning them one or more hinge properties
and hinge locations, defined the pushover load cases, run the basic static analysis, displayed the
pushover curve, and displayed the capacity spectrum curve
From these curves I took the target displacement, t, at each floor levelwich is calculated
in accordance with equation: t = C 0 C 1 C 2 C 3 S a (Te 2 /42 ) g
These curves define also the force-deformation criteria of the hinges in the object that I
studied used in pushover analysis. There are five points labeled A, B,C, D, and E are used to
define the force deflection behavior of the hinge and three points labeled IO, LS and CP are used
to define the acceptance criteria for the hinge. (IO, LS and CP stand for Immediate Occupancy,
Life Safety and Collapse Prevention respectively.) The values assigned to each of these points
vary depending on the type of member as well as many other parameters defined in the ATC-40
and FEMA-273 documents.

Method

Pathological Hospital

Mental health Hospital

Neurological hospital

Infectious Disease
Hospital

RVS-FEMA
154

1.2<2 Vulnerable

1.2<2 Vulnerable

1.2<2 Vulnerable

-0.3<2 Vulnerable

Turkish
Method

Ps=36 Vulnerable

Ps=100 Non
Vulnerable

Ps=250 Non
Vulnerable

Ps=44 Vulnerable

Vulnerability
Index

Iv=15 Vulnerable

Iv=12 Vulnerable

Iv=19 Vulnerable

Iv=27 Vulnerable

Japanese
Method

0.3<Is<0.6
Vulnerable

N/A

N/A

N/A

Analytical
Method

LS-CP

N/A

N/A

N/A

The performance point of the Pathological Hospital and the Maximum displacement (t=
C0 C1 C2 C3 Sa (Te2/42 ) g =4.98cm)

Conclusion
Seismic vulnerability analyses of RC Building structure and mixed structures Hospitals,
which belong to the health care system of Albania located in Tirana is compute in this thesis. A
detailed procedure is used, in order to have reliable results.
Below I will try to emphasize some of the main conclusions regarding to this master
thesis.
Capacity of the structure can be obtained directly by performing Pushover analysis
Response Spectra as a combination of the seismic requirements and soil category are
different for KTP-89 and EC-8 requirements. As they use different seismic inputs
(KTP-89use intensity scale and EC-8 use ground acceleration), it is worthy to
emphasize that a considerable difference exist in response spectra. Referring to our
building, it have to support a seismic force 38% bigger if EC-8 requirements will
apply;
Visual methods are very fast and very low cost.
The fastest method that shows the real situation of hospitals is the method proposed
by FEMA, Rapid Visual Assessment RVS.
RVS has based its assessment on the height of the structure, the design code of the
buildings, the land category and what is more important, and the object category.

 Another method that can be used very effectively for structures in Albania, is the
Index Vulnerability or the Italian method. This method gives trustful results, which
can be proven by methods such as the Japanese, RVS and Analytical one.
One empirical method that needs to be revised for its application in Albania is the
Turkish Method. This method appears contradictory in the results that it provides to
us after analyzing the Neurologic and the Mental Health Hospital. This method gives
a very important role to the story numbers, but ignoring other elements such as the
material, etc.
From the analytical analyze, the objects that I took under consideration, designed with
Albanian projection code KTP-78, with a ground acceleration ag/g=0.005 behave like
residential building. According to the push-over analyze, the performance point of the
hospitals is between Life Safety (LS) and CollapsePoint (CP) instead of being
between Immediate Occupancy (IO) and Life Safety, this related to the category that
the buildings belong.

Bibliography
Albanian design codes (1952, 1963, 1978, 1989) and their updated versions.
ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, Paper No. 472, Vol. 43, No. 3, September 2006,
pp. 75-104 Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the
past 30 years
Benedetti and Petrini, 1984; GNDT, 1993 GNDT (Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai
Terremoti)
Sucuoglu, H. And Yazgan, U. (2003). Simple Survey Procedures for Seismic Risk.
Assessment in Urban Building Stocks.
Seismic Assessment and Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, 97-118, NATO Science
Series, IV/29, Editors: S.T. Wasti and G. Ozcebe, Kluwer
National Report of Commission for the Seismology and Physics of the Earths Interior,
Ankara 2007.
Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards A Handbook Second
Edition - March 2002. FEMA National earthquake hazards reduction program Second
Edition. FEMA 157
Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo, Series B, Vol. ,XLVII, October 2000, pp. 5
- 28.Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Buildings By Shunsuke
OTANI,
FEMA 440 -IMPROVEMENT OF NONLINEAR STATIC SEISMIC ANALYSIS
PROCEDURES- Prepared by:Applied Technology Council (ATC-55 Project)
16- Applied Technology Council. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete
Buildings. Report No.ATC-40
Building Seismic Safety Council. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings, FEMA-273, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.,
1997