FACULTY OF CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL

ENGINEERING CIV

CIV580/CIV680
Structural assessment of existing reinforced concrete building
Rapid visual screening for seismic evaluation of RC building in old city lefkosa

GROUP 1:
SADAF IMAD RASHID-20234102
AVYAN DHEYAA NAEEM-20235813
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED AWAD-20235983
GLOIRE SIMPLICE JUNIOR-20234560
ABDULLAH AHMED ABED-20234380
Assoc . Prof . DR. RIFAT RESATOGLU
*CONTENTS:
1-INTRODUCTION
……………………………………………………………..
2-LITERATURE REVIEW..
……………………………………………………...
3-
METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………..
4-RESULTS AND
DISCUSSIONS………………………………………………
5-CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………...
6-
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………
1-INTRODUCTION:

Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) is a method for quickly assessing the

possible seismic risk associated with a building. Because of their
strength and longevity, reinforced concrete structures are frequently
employed in construction; but, in order to guarantee their safety during
earthquakes, they must undergo seismic examination. Buildings are
normally given a grade or score that indicates their relative sensitivity to
seismic risks based on these variables plus a visual evaluation.
Guidelines for the design, building, and upkeep of reinforced concrete
structures in Cyprus' seismically active area are provided by the Cyprus
Building Code. There are three methods used to evaluate the construct :
Al-bayrak et al.,2015 FEMA P-154,2002 Yakut et al,2014.
2-LITERATURE REVIEW:

Jain et al. (2010) said that potential events with earthquakes are primarily
associated with left-side faults. Some of them proposed a method to evaluate the
building safety of hospitals in seismic areas, and it correlates well with stress
analysis. Others have evaluated the seismic performance of Indian buildings,
focusing on the importance of substructures in withstanding seismic forces. the
buildings of Istanbul was classified in terms of earthquake vulnerability,
highlighting GIS-based screening of urban buildings.

Alam et al. (2012) they analyzed the impact of earthquakes on buildings using
AHP, with the aim of developing effective visual inspection methods. Numerous
quick evaluation techniques have drawbacks, like unclear score values or
thresholds, estimations that are either too high or too low for a building's strength
and vulnerability to damage, or omissions of other relevant information.

Rahman et al., (2015) The study conducted the city of Dhaka in Bangladesh on
more than 350 buildings, and the visual examination of seismic assessment was
applied to them. The study used a combination of earthquake and fire hazards to
determine the most vulnerable condition of buildings. The study focused on
incorporating uncertainty factors into the rapid visual screening process for
buildings to assess seismic hazards
3-METHODOLOGY:

The RVS procedure uses a methodology based on viewing the building from the outside .
•First selected area to assess (old city) lefkosa .
•then the methods are also selected .
• then the screening process are made considering the all parameters of every method uses , the
score and parameters are recorded the calculated the earth risk scores and status of every method
•A data collection form is used which includes space for documenting information identifying
the building.
* THE SESMIC VULNERABILITY THAT WE USED :
1-Building Age
2- Soft Story
3-Vertical Irregularity
4-Short Column
5-Topographic Effect
6-Heavy Overhangs
7-Plan Irregularity
8-Pounding Effect
9-Type Of Structure
10- Number Of Stores
11- Pre-code
12-Soil Type
13-Post-benchmark
14-Structural System
15-Additional Story
figure 1:Al-bayrak et al,2015 RVS form method Figure 2 :Yakut et al,2014. RVS form
method
Figure3 : FEMA p-154,2002 RVS form method
4- RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS :
This section compares three different rapid assessment methods for
assessing the earthquake vulnerability of buildings . The methods are , the
FEMA-154,2002 Rapid Visual Inspection Method, and the Yakut et
al,2014. and Al-bayrak et al,2015 Performance Evaluation Procedures.
FIELD WORK PICTURES

SOFT STORY
Plan irregulation

HEAVY OVERHANG

Short column
Risk factors for B1

Risk factors of Al-bayrak Risk factors of Yakut methods

methods
Short column 5- Apparent 10-
Quality
Soft story 5- Plan Irregularity 5-
Visual quality 5- Short Column 5-
Heavy overhang 5- Heavy Overhang 10-
Age of building 10- Soft story 10-
Floor level. 15-
Building AD
Risk factors of FEMA P 154,2002
methods
Basic Score 3
Plan Irregularity 0.5-
Mid Rise --
Plan Irregularity 0.6-

NOTE: FEMA P 154,2002 methods an S score of 2 is suggested

as a “cut-off”, based on present seismic design criteria. Using
this cut-off level, buildings having an S score of 2 or less should
be investigated by a design professional experienced in seismic
design
 According to the Yakut et al,2014 .method, calculated the Performance scores of the
buildings based on the seismicity of the building’s location and considering all other
parameters reflecting its properties.
Table 1 : Risk level for Yakut et al,2014 method figure 4 : Risk level , Yakut et al,2014
1 65
2 30
3 50
4 85
5 50
6 85
7 40
8 30
9 70
10 75
11 15
12 85
13 85
14 85
15 30

Table 2 : observed performance score , Yakut et al,2014

Table3: risk scores Yakut et al,2014 method
After conducting a visual inspection and referring to the requirements required by the Al-
bayrak et al,2015 method.
Table 4: Risk level Al-bayrak method
1 100
2 100 Figure 5: risk level , Al-bayrak
3 105
4 110
5 105
6 105
7 100
8 100
9 100
10 105
11 78
12 110
13 105
14 115
15 100

Table 5 :earthquake risk scores

Table6: risk scores al-bayrak method
FEMA P-154,2002 : Table 7: Risk level FEMA P-154 method
During the screening process, trained individuals or engineers evaluate
various aspects of the building, such as its architectural features,
construction materials, and structural elements. They look for signs of
potential vulnerability, such as inadequate reinforcement, poor construction
quality, or structural irregularities.

Figure 5: Risk level, FEMA P- 154,2002

 Table 8 : risk scores FEMA P -154,2002 method:

NOMBER OF BULDING B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15

Basic Score 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Mid/High Rise _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0.2 _ _ _ _

Structural System C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1

Number Of Stories G+1 G+2 G+2 G+1 G+2 G+1 G+2 G+2 G+1 G+1 G+3 G+1 G+1 G+1 G+2

Vertical Irregularity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Plan Irregularity -0.5 -0.5 0 -0.5 0 0 0 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 0 -0.5 0 -0.5 0

Pre-code 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Post-Benchmark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Soil Type C -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6

Soil Type D
Soil Type E

Age of the Building 1970 1975 1965 1975 1973 1976 1968 1965 1970 1967 1964 1960 1976 1978 1975

Final Score 1.9 1.9 2.4 1.9 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.9 2.4 1.9 2.6 1.9 2.4 1.9 2.4

Status High High High High High High High High High High Moderate High High High High

Final score B1 = 3-0.5-0.6

= 1.9
DISCUSSION :
*Across all assessments,( FEMA's) method consistently highlighted the highest levels of risk,
identifying 14 structures as particularly high risk. This result is primarily due to the parameters
used(Basic Structural Hazard Score).

*through which the condition of the buildings is determined

*The final result of the buildings depends on the evaluation of their condition by the specialized
team, such as the presence of the (number of floors, vertical irregularity, irregularity of the plan,
the age of the building, etc.,).

*In order to further enhance safety, the aim is to clearly identify these vulnerable structures and
integrate remedial measures within the same framework or objective. This may include focusing
on enhancing or modifying identified structures to effectively mitigate associated risks.

*and the condition of the buildings is determined according to the final result and compared to
the following table8 :
2.5 High
C1 3 Moderate
4.4 LOW
Figure 6: the final ratio for al methods (Yakut et al,2014 Al-bayraket al,2015 FEMA P-154,2002)
5-CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, this study compared three rapid assessment methods,
namely FEMA P-154,2002Al-bayrak et al,2015 and Yakut et
al,2014.
The results were almost the different . indicating differences in their
methods and results. These variances highlight how crucial it is to
choose a suitable approach depending on the particular environment
and goals of the seismic vulnerability assessment.
When computing the Finals scores , the FEMA P-154,2002
assessment method ignores certain factors, such as the presence of
soft stories and short columns vertical irregularity but have , pre-
code , post-benchmark , plan irregularity ,soil type .
6-REFERENCES:
*(1)-Sinha, Ravi, and Alok Goyal. "A national policy for seismic vulnerability
assessment of buildings and procedure for rapid visual screening of buildings for
potential seismic vulnerability." Report to Disaster Management Division,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Hindistan (2004)

*(2)-K. Xu, L.C. Tang, S.L. Ho, M.L. Zhu, "Fuzzyassessment of FMEA for engine
systems." Reliability Engineering and system safety, Volume 75, issue 2002, pp
17-29.

*(3)- H. Sucuoğlu, U. Yazgan, Simple survey procedures for seismic risk

assessment in urban building stocks. In: S. T. Wasti, G. Ozcebe editors. Seismic
Assessment and Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, Vol 29, Earth and
Environmental Sciences: Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, 2003, pp. 97-118.

*(4)-Yakut, A., Ilki, A., Erberik, M. A., & Sucuoglu, H. (2014). Preface. In
Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering (Vol. 26,Issue June).

*(5)-Vidal, N., Klaeschen, D., Kopf, A., Docherty, C., Huene, R., & Bialas, J.
(2013). Seismic images at the convergence zone from south of Cyprus to the
Syrian coast, eastern Mediterranean. Tectonophysics, 609, 1- 14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2013.09.010
*(6)-Perrone, D., Aiello, M. A., Pecce, M., & Rossi, F. (2015). Rapid visual
screening for seismic evaluation of RC hospital buildings. Structures, 3(March),
57–70

*(7)-Jain, S. K., Mitra, K., Kumar, M., & Shah, M. (2010). A proposed rapid visual
screening procedure for seismic evaluation of RC-frame buildings in India.
Earthquake Spectra, 26(3), 709–729

*(8)-Alam, N., Alam, M. S., & Tesfamariam, S. (2012). Buildings’ seismic

vulnerability assessment

*(9)-Dya, A. F. C., & Oretaa, A. W. C. (2015). Seismic vulnerability assessment of

soft story irregular buildings using pushover analysis. Procedia Engineering, 125,
925–932

*(10)-Rahman, N., Ansary, M. A., & Islam, I. (2015). GIS based mapping of
vulnerability to earthquake and fire hazard in Dhaka city, Bangladesh.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 13(September), 291–300.

*(11)Albayrak, U., Canbaz, M., & Albayrak, G. (2015). A rapid seismic risk
assessment method for existing building stock in urban areas. Procedia
engineering, 118, 1242-1249.