RAPID VISUAL SCREENING FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION OF RC

HOSPITAL BUILDING

AN INDEPENDENT STUDY

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

Requirements for the award of the degree

Of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY

In

Structural and Construction Engineering

By
PUJARI PADMA RAO
(Roll No. 15217010)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Dr B R AMBEDKAR NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
JALANDHAR 144011
November 2016

DR BR AMBEDKAR NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

JALANDHAR
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CANDIDATES DECLARATION

I here certify that the work which is being presented in this independent study
entitled RAPID VISUAL SCREENING FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION
OF RC HOSPITAL BUILDING , in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the award of the degree of Master of Technology (Structural & Construction
Engineering) submitted in the Department of Civil Engineering of the institute
is an authentic record of my own work carried out during a period JulyNovember 2016 under the supervision of Mr. Davinder Singh, Assistant
Professor and Dr Rizwan A. Khan, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, Dr B R Ambedkar National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar.

Date...

Signature of the candidate

This is to certify that the above statement made by candidate is correct to the
best of our knowledge.
(Mr Davinder Singh)

(Dr Rizwan.A. khan)

Assistant Professor

Assistant Professor

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my deep sense of gratitude to Mr. Davinder Singh, Assistant

Professor and Dr Rizwan Ahmad Khan, Assistant Professor ,Department of
Civil Engineering, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar National Institute of Technology,
Jalandhar, for their excellent guidance and whole hearted involvement during
my Independent Study without their invaluable suggestions, meticulous efforts,
versatility and untiring guidance, this report would not have been feasible. I am
also indebted to them for their encouragement and moral support and sparing
their valuable time in giving me concrete suggestions and increasing my
knowledge through fruitful discussions throughout the course of my study.
I owe thanks to library staff of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar National Institute
of Technology, Jalandhar for their full cooperation in providing the necessary
literature.
Most importantly, I would like to give God the glory for all of the efforts
I have put into this project, and deeply obliged to my parents, my brother
uplifting me when I am down, for pushing me when I want to stop, and for
teaching me how to tackle every situation of life either its up or down, for
showing me the right direction out of the blue, for their continuous
encouragement to keep me moving even at the oddest of times.

PUJARI PADMA RAO

ABSTRACT
Hospitals must be fully operational in the event of an emergency after an earthquake to
protect the lives of patients and health workers as well as to provide emergency care and
medical treatment to the subsequently increased number of patients who will be driven to
healthcare facilities.
Surveys performed in the aftermath of recent earthquakes have shown that the performance
of hospitals and their functionality after an earthquake are related not only to structural
damage but also to damage that occurs to nonstructural elements and medical equipment.
For a large-scale mapping of the seismic risk to hospitals, it is impossible to proceed with
advanced methodologies; simplified methodologies are thus required. These methodologies
must consider the performance of nonstructural elements and equipment.
In this work, a rapid visual screening method is proposed to determine a Safety Index for
hospital buildings. The newly developed procedure provides a risk index by evaluating the
main parameters that affect the vulnerability of buildings during a systematic sidewalk
survey. The procedure has been applied to two Italian hospitals located in different seismic
areas, and the results are compared with a similar index obtained from a push-over analysis.

CONTENTS
Page No.
Candidates declaration
Acknowledgement
Abstract
Contents
CHAPTERS
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1
1.1.Rapid visual screening ...................................................1
1.2 International practices in RVS .. ...2
1.2.1 RVS methodologies in the US...2
1.2.2 FEMA154

....2

1.2.3 FEMA154-1988(first edition).,.2

1.2.4 FEMA 154-2002(second edition)......3
1.2.5 RVS in Greece ..........3
1.2.6RVS in Canada ......3
1.2.7 RVS IN JAPAN...4
1.2.8 RVS IN New Zealand ......4
1.2.9 RVS in In 4
2. Literature Review...............................................................................................................5
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................... ........................................5

3 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME............................................................................8
3.1 General...............................................................................................................................8

4 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................10
5 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................12

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rapid visual screening

Rapid visual screening (RVS) is a qualitative evaluation procedure used in the seismic
vulnerability assessment of buildings. The procedure can be implemented relatively quickly
on a large building stock for identifying potentially hazardous structures without the high
costs of the detailed seismic analyses of individual buildings.
Different methods for seismic evaluation of existing buildings have developed in various
countries. Most of the methods follow three level assessment procedures or something quite
similar to it namely,
(a) Phase-I: Rapid visual screening,
(b) Phase-II: Preliminary assessment, and
(c) Phase-III: Detailed evaluation.

Flow chart of RVS of buildings

1.2 International Practices in RVS

RVS can be very valuable to prioritize the buildings to be further studied so that technical and
other resources could be most effectively utilized. The procedure involves side walk survey
either without entering the building or doing so for a short duration only (15-45 minutes).
RVS is useful when the number of buildings to be evaluated is large, since even non
engineers may collect data and assign scores. However, uncertainty and non availability of
the details can result in widely differing interpretations of the criteria by different individuals
leading to inconsistent results.
1.2.1 RVS Methodologies in the USA
A number of guidelines were developed by the federal emergency management agency
(FEMA) in the USA for seismic risk assessment and rehabilitation of buildings. These
includes FEMA 178(1992) published in 1989 and revised in 1992, FEMA 310(1998)
developed as revised version of FEMA 178, FEMA 154(2002) for rapid visual screening
of buildings. The RVS method was originally developed by the applied technology council
(ATC) in the late 1980s and published in 1988 in the FEMA 154 Report. FEMA 310 includes
a process for seismic evaluation of existing buildings, with the introduction of an analysis
procedure for screening, preliminary evaluation and detailed evaluation.
1.2.2 FEMA 154
The basis of FEMA 154 is the ATC 13 report (ATC: 13-1988) on earthquake damage
evaluation data for facilities in California which includes background information, detailed
description of methodology used to develop the required earthquake damage/loss estimates,
inventory information and damage probability matrices for different facility types and
estimates as well as the time required to restore damaged facilities to their pre-earthquake
usability. These were developed by a project engineering panel composed of senior level
specialists in earthquake engineering.
1.2.3 FEMA: 154 -1988 (First edition)
In developing a handbook on rapid visual screening of seismically hazardous buildings, ATC
evaluated procedures, recommended a rapid screening procedure and developed
supplementary information on heavy debris removal and urban rescue. The basic structural
hazard scores in the first edition of FEMA 154 were calculated using (1) expert-opinion
damage probability matrices from the ATC-13 report, earthquake damage evaluation data for
California (ATC,1985) modified for use in regions outside of California and (2) ground
motion maps provided with the NEHRP recommended provisions for the development of
seismic regulations for new buildings (BSSC,1985), which specified effective peak
acceleration ground motion having a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years.
FEMA: 155-2002, performance modification factors (PMF) developed in the first edition
were related to significant deviations from the normal structural practice or conditions, or had
to do with the effects of soil amplification on the expected ground motion. Deviations from
the normal structural practice are varied and numbers are quite large for different building
types. Many of these cannot be detected from the street on the basis of a rapid visual
inspection. On account of this, and based on querying of experts and checklists from ATC 14,
a limited number of most significant factors were identified. These factors were limited to
those having an especially severe impact on seismic performance. Those that could not be
readily observed from the street were eliminated. The PMFs were assigned values, based on

judgment, such that when applied to the basic structural hazard scores, the resulting modified
score would approximate the probability of major damage given the presence of that factor.
As discussed in FEMA: 155-2002, the PMFs in the first edition were based on engineering
judgment, lacked analytically basis.
1.2.4 FEMA: 154 -2002 (Second edition)
Several significant changes and enhancements were incorporated in the second edition of the
FEMA 154 handbook as follows: An updated scoring system, formatted as in the scoring
system in the first edition and consisting of a. New Basic structural hazard scores based on
(1) the HAZUS methodology and fragility curves (NIBS,1999) for low rise buildings and
assuming soil type B and (2) new maximum considered earthquake seismic design spectral
acceleration response values (developed by the USGS and building seismic safety council),
which are based on ground motion having a 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years,
adjusted to incorporated the 2/3 reduction factor specified in the FEMA 319 handbook for the
seismic evaluation of buildings-A pre standard (ASCE,1998); And b. Performance
modification factors were renamed as score modifiers c. New scores modifiers were proposed
for midrise building, high rise buildings, plan irregularity, vertical irregularity, pre-code
buildings, post-benchmark buildings, soil type C, soil type D, soil type E. One of these
modifiers was based on calculations to reflect the HAZUS fragility curves and methodology.
The vertical irregularity was left to judgment.
A comparison between the performances score modifiers of FEMA and the earthquake
engineering building characteristics listed in ATC 13 (1985) reveals the rationale for the
judgment of practicing engineers that led to the performance modification factors in FEMA
154 first edition and retained in the second edition (2002) with changes in the numerical
values of the same. These have been summarized in table 5.1. An important change was in
the score modifier in FEMA 1st Edition were less than zero implying penalties. This was
indicative of judgment of that time that the vulnerability of high rise buildings to earthquakes
was higher that low rise buildings. Hence, score modifiers for the midrise and high rise
buildings is generally positive in the second edition indicating advantages given for the better
design and construction that these buildings are likely to possess.
1.2.5 RVS in Greece
A fuzzy logic based rapid visual screening procedure was developed in Greece (Demartinos
and Dritsos, 2006) for the categorization of buildings into five different damage grades in the
event of future earthquake. The method was developed on 102 buildings affected by 1999
Athens earthquake. The above based RVS proposed a probabilistic reasoning method that
treats the structural properties of a building in a holistic way and gives a score that represents
possible damage in the case of major seismic event, defined as earthquakes that produce
ground accelerations equivalent to the values provided by the relevant codes. The evaluation
of output variables through the fuzzy inference process involves the evaluation of all fuzzy
rules that make up the system. For the sake of simplification, the developers of this method
have proposed grouping of input variable to a set of four intermediate variables which are
evaluated through fuzzy inference processing of the input variables. The damage score is
evaluated through a fuzzy inference system. Higher damage scores indicate greater
vulnerability.
1.2.6 RVS in Canada
The method is based on a seismic priority index which accounts for both structural and nonstructural factors including soil conditions, building occupancy, building importance and

falling hazards to life safety and a factor based on occupied density and the duration of
occupancy.
1.2.7 RVS in Japan
The procedure is based on seismic index for total earthquake resisting capacity of a storey
which is estimated as the product of basic seismic index based on strength and ductility
indices, an irregularity index and time index. The evaluation is based on very few parameters
and lacks clarity regarding ranking of buildings based on a scoring or rating system.
1.2.8 RVS in New Zealand
The New Zealand code recommends a two stage seismic performance evaluation of
buildings. The initial evaluation procedure involves making an initial assessment of
performance of existing buildings against the standard required for a new building. A
percentage new building standard of 33 or less means that the building is assessed as
potentially earthquake prone in terms of the building act and a more detailed evaluation of
it will typically be required. The process requires the expertise of earthquake engineers to
yield quality results.
1.2.9 RVS in India
Rapid Visual Screening of Himachal Pradesh
There have been some efforts in India towards developing RVS methods. Sinha and Goyal
have proposed a methodology for RVS of 10 different types of buildings. The procedure
requires identification of the primary structural load carrying system and building attributes
that are expected to modify the expected seismic performance for the lateral load resisting
system under consideration. Building types have grouped into six vulnerable classes based on
European Macro seismic scale (EMS) recommendations. Likely damage to structures have
been categorized in different grades depending on their impact on the seismic strength of
buildings and the damage levels used have been sourced from EMS.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to present an overview on Rapid Visual Screening of RC
Buildings and also to briefly review different journals regarding RVS of buildings.
2.2 Literature Review
Singh et.al (2005) The vulnerability assessment in Uttaranchal, India developed a
methodology for loss estimation based on building and population loss . A GIS based tool
was developed for primarily population loss estimation. The research was broadly concluded
that in a predominantly residential area, population distribution and census sources.
Durgesh C. Rai et.al (2005) Preliminary evaluation based on IITK-GSDMA guidelines were
carried out on 30 representative multistoried RC buildings. The study revealed that large
openings, horizontal and vertical projections, presence of soft and weak storeys and short
column effects are major weaknesses in the buildings at Kanpur from seismic safety point of
view. This study concluded that strict enforcement mechanisms for implementation of IS
codes.
Sucuoglu et al (2007) proposed a simple screening procedure for three- to six-story
substandard concrete buildings in Turkey; the procedure is calibrated with field data
compiled after the 1999 Duzce Earthquake. The method assigns a Basic Score to different
RC-frame buildings depending on the number of stories and the seismic zone. Vulnerability
coefficients consider the presence of soft stories, apparent quality, and heavy overhangs.
Seismic vulnerability assessment in the city of Tehran (Keya Mitra, 2008) was done based on
database collection and damage estimation for buildings for two earthquake scenarios. A
visual survey was carried out to identify the condition of buildings and type of occupancy.
Seismic building damage for earthquake
scenarios were derived from HAZUS software ranging from slight to complete degree of
damage. Most of the buildings in the study area were found to be vulnerable considering the
two earthquake scenarios. The recommendation of the study was that to secure lives and
property in the study area.

Wallace and Miller (2008) followed the RVS methodology proposed in FEMA154 to
identify potential seismic hazards for Oregon's public facilities, including schools, hospitals,
fire stations, and emergency response centers.
Keya Mitra et.al (2008) This study is an implementation of the earthquake master plan for
Istanbul metropolitan area in the Zeytinburnu district with a population of 240,000 and more
than 16,000 buildings. As a part of seismic vulnerability of existing building, a multi stage
seismic safety assessment was performed.

Keya Mitra et.al (2008) The evaluation of seismic vulnerability of existing residential
building in the city of Basel, Switzerland was undertaken to improve the assessment of
seismic hazard, to investigate the vulnerability of the built environment. Since no major
damaging earthquake has occurred in Switzerland
in recent years, vulnerability functions from observed damage patterns were not available. A
simple evaluation method based on engineering models of the building structures suitable for
the evaluation of a larger number of buildings was therefore proposed. The study concluded
that it was not feasible to evaluate
each individual building in a large area, even though large number of buildings could be
evaluated in the study. Hence a classification of buildings was proposed to allow the
extrapolation of the results for the use of earthquake scenario.
Jain et al (2010) developed a rapid visual screening procedure for RC-frame buildings in
India based on damage surveys after the 2001 Bhuj Earthquake. A set of six vulnerability
parameters is used in the proposed method: presence of basement, number of stories,
apparent quality of maintenance, re-entrant corners, open stories, and short columns.
Performance scores are also assigned for the seismic zone and soil type.
Srikanth et.al (2010) Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) was conducted around 20,000 buildings
in Gandhidham and Adipur cities. Though, construction practices are varied, about 26% of
buildings were predominantly RCC type and 74% of masonry structure were found. RVS
score of these structures reveal that in general buildings are of low quality and further
evaluation and strengthening of buildings is recommended. The procedure adopted in this
study is three tier methods, i.e., rapid visual screening, preliminary assessment and detailed
assessment.
Yadollahi et al (2012) proposed an RVS method to evaluate the seismic vulnerability score
(SVS) according to the following Equation.
SVS:d1.Vbds+ d2.Vsbt + d3 .Vvpi +d4.Vppc+d5 .Vbso where Vbds is the vulnerability of
buildings against earthquakes in a specific location Vsbt is the vulnerability of the types of
structures Vvpi is the vulnerability due to vertical and plan irregularities Vppc is the
vulnerability due to pre-code/post-benchmark and Vbso is the vulnerability due to the soil
type. The parameters d1, d2., d5 are the weights of the vulnerability factors that contribute
to the seismic vulnerability of the building. All relative scores are assigned based on expert
judgments.
Lucksiri et al (2012) the research has been focused on wood-frame dwellings with plan
irregularities. The SAPWood software was used to perform a series of nonlinear time-history
analyses for 480 representative models, covering different combinations of plan shapes,
numbers of floors, base-rectangular areas, shape aspect ratio, area percentage cutoffs,
window and door openings, and garage doors. The evolutionary parameter hysteresis model
was used to represent the loaddisplacement relationship of structural panel-sheathed shear
walls and a 10 parameter CUREE hysteresis model for gypsum wallboard sheathed walls.
Ten pairs of ground motion time histories were used and scaled to four levels of spectral
acceleration at 0.167, 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 g. An average seismic performance grade for each
model was generated based on the predicted maximum shear wall drifts. Five seismic
performance grades: 4, 3, 2, 1, and 0, are associated with the 1% immediate occupancy drift
limit, 2% life safety limit, 3% collapse prevention limit, 10% drift, and exceeding 10% drift,
respectively.

A seismic screening procedure was developed by the National Research Council of Canada.
The procedure provides a Seismic Priority Index that considers structural factors as well as
nonstructural factors. The considered parameters include seismicity, soil conditions, type of
structure, building irregularities, building importance, and falling hazards of nonstructural
elements. The score assigned to each factor is related to the year that the building was built.
For example, a concrete moment-resisting frame building built before 1970 assumes a score
of 2.5, whereas the same structure is assigned a score equal to 1.5 if it was built after 1970.
The New Zealand code recommends a two-stage evaluation process for the seismic
assessment of buildings. The initial evaluation procedure (IEP) involves an initial assessment
of the performance of existing buildings against the standards required for a new building.
For each existing building, the percentage of met requirements regarding the standards for
new building (%NBS) is determined. A %NBS of 33 or less means that the building is
assessed as potentially earthquake prone and that a more detailed evaluation is required.

CHAPTER 3
MODELLING AND ANALYSIS/EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY
3.1 General
To obtain a reliable evaluation of the existing structures, a push-over analysis was performed
for the two hospitals. A push-over analysis allows engineers to account for nonlinear
behavior when modeling seismic actions as equivalent static loads. For existing buildings,
according to EC8. The push-over analysis can be performed without any specific
requirements. The objectives of the analysis are to assess the seismic capacity of structures
from a global and local perspective. Both linear and nonlinear analyses were performed by
SAP2000. Relatively simple three-dimensional mathematical models were chosen.
Two case studies on RC_1and RC_2 in Italy with different seismic hazards.
RC_1 BUILDING
The building is composed of 15 blocks each separated from one another by joints and the
distance between adjacent buildings is approximately 7 cm. In this work, block L was
analyzed. The block is 33.8 21 m in the plan and has a total height of 23.8 m and a typical
inter-story height of 3.4 m. According to EC8, it is classified as non regular both in elevation
and in plan; fck=25Mpa and fy=375Mpa. Permanent and live loads are considered to be equal
to 5.4 and 3 KN/m2,

Fig1 .3d view of rc_1

RC_2 BUILDING
The examined structure is a part of a building Composed of 3 blocks disconnected by
approximately 10-cm joints. The block is 54.4 26.8 m in the plan with a total height of 21.6
m and has an inter-story height of 3.6 m. According to EC8, the block isclassified as non
regular both in the elevation and in the plan; fck and fy are15 and 380MPa.
The permanent and live loads were considered to be 6.7 and 3 KN/m . Confidence factor=1.2
for both.

Fig2.3d view rc_2

CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS
In this chapter inferences drawn based on the above studies
The RVS methodology is a method that can be used to quickly identify potentially hazardous
buildings via a sidewalk survey. In this paper, an RVS method for the RC hospital buildings
is proposed. The method, based on questionnaires, has been developed to map the seismic
risk of critical facilities, such as hospital buildings, on a territorial scale.
A set of six vulnerability indices are used to identify seismic risks to hospitals. To evaluate
the Safety Index (SI), the structural vulnerability and the vulnerability of nonstructural
elements as well as organizational aspects are considered. In addition, the parameters based
on Exposure and Hazard is considered when evaluating the Safety Index of hospital
buildings. All the scores assigned to the vulnerability parameters for the evaluation of the SI
are based on expert judgments.
Screening results can be used to help prioritize the facilities for seismic retrofitting. In
addition to the final scores, the building occupancy, role in the post-earthquake relief effort,
community financial need, and effect on the community should be considered. Before the
buildings are retrofitted, a detailed structural evaluation should be conducted by a registered
engineer.
The pushover analysis provides the important parameters like performance point, max base
shear, max top displacement and also capacity curve of the structures.

REFERENCES
1. Singh P., (2005), Population Vulnerability for Earthquake Loss Estimation using
Community Based Approach with GIS: Urban Infrastructure Management, Master of
Science, International Institute for Geo Information Science and Earth Observation,
Netherlands.
2. Durgesh C. Rai .Review of Documents on Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings.
IITK-GSDMA-EQ03-V1.0, Kanpur, India,2005.
3. Jain S.K., (2005), The Indian Earthquake Problem, Current Science, Vol.89 (9), pp.
1464-1466.
4. Sucuoglu H, Yazgan U, Yakut A. A screening procedure for seismic risk assessment
in urban building stocks. Earthq Spectra 2007;23:44158.
5. Keya Mitra (2008), Assessing Urban Fabric Against Natural Disasters: A Case Study
of Seismic Vulnerability of Kolkata, Ph.D Thesis, Department of Architecture, Town
and Regional Planning, Bengal Engineering and Science University, Shibpur, India.
6. Wallace NM, Miller TH. Seismic screening of public facilities in Oregon's western
countries. Pract Period Struct Des Constr 2008;13:18997.

7. Jain SK, Mitra K, Kumar M, Shah M. A proposed rapid visual screening procedure
for seismic evaluation of RC-frame buildings in India. Earthq Spectra 2010;26: 709
29.
8. Srikanth Terala and Pradeep Kumar Ramancharla, (2010), Rapid Visual Survey of
Existing Buildings in Gandhidham and Adipur Cities, Kachchh, Gujarat, Proc. of
International Symposium on the 2001 Bhuj Earthquake and Advances in
Earthsciences and Engineering, Gujarat, India.
9. FEMA 154, 1988. Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards
- A Handbook, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C.
10. FEMA 154/July, 1988. ATC-21, Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential
seismic hazards: A handbook, Applied Technology Council, CA.
11. FEMA 310, 1998. Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings A Prestandard,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C.

1. NRCC. Manual for screening of buildings for seismic investigation. Ottawa: National
Research Council Canada; 1993.

2. NZSEE. Assessment and improvement of the structural performance of building in

earthquake. New Zealand: New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering; 2006.

3. Yadollahi M, Adnan A, Zin RM. Seismic vulnerability functional method for rapid
visual screening of existing buildings. Arch Civ Eng 2012;LVIII(3):36377.

4. Lucksiri K, Miller TH, Gupta R, Pei S, Van De Lindt JW. A procedure for rapid
visual screening safety of wood-frame dwellings with plan irregularity. Eng Struct
2012; 36:3519.

5. PAHO/WHO. Hospital safety index, guide for evaluators. Washington, DC: Pan
American Health Organization and World Health Organization; 2008.
6. Lang DH, Verbicaro MI, Singh Y. Seismic vulnerability assessment of hospitals and
schools based on questionnaire survey; 2009[Kjeller].
7. WHO/NSET. Guidelines for seismic vulnerability assessment of hospitals;