(Publisher of Peer Reviewed Open Access Journals)
Navigation

International Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Exploration (IJATEE)

ISSN (Print):2394-5443    ISSN (Online):2394-7454
Volume-9 Issue-88 March-2022
Full-Text PDF
Paper Title : Rapid visual screening vulnerability assessment method of buildings: a review
Author Name : Siddharth and Ajay Kumar Sinha
Abstract :

Seismic vulnerability assessment of any building is done to evaluate the expected damage from future earthquakes. The vulnerability assessment is a time-consuming procedure and difficult as well. Rapid visual screening (RVS) method is a quick and efficient process to identify and rank the buildings. This study describes and compares the outcome of previous researches on conventional RVS methods. This paper summarizes the comparative study among various RVS methods used around the world. Methods have been evolved on the basis of prevalent geographical conditions The various methods for RVS have different scoring patterns. The method differs with different parameters such as load path, no. of stories, weak stories, torsion, pounding effects etc. The comparison chart is drawn for the damageability scales of different countries. The limitations and advantages of various RVS methods have also been discussed. The review of the traditional method can help in the derivation of new techniques in the field of vulnerability study using fuzzy logic and artificial intelligence.
Keywords : Vulnerability, Rapid visual screening methods, Damageability, PERA.
Cite this article : Siddharth , Sinha AK. Rapid visual screening vulnerability assessment method of buildings: a review. International Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Exploration. 2022; 9(88):326-336. DOI:10.19101/IJATEE.2021.874605.
References :
[1]Glaister S, Pinho R. Development of a simplified deformation-based method for seismic vulnerability assessment. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. 2003; 7(spec01):107-40.
[Google Scholar]
[2]Coskun O, Aldemir A, Sahmaran M. Rapid screening method for the determination of seismic vulnerability assessment of RC building stocks. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 2020; 18(4):1401-16.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[3]Cockburn G, Tesfamariam S. Earthquake disaster risk index for Canadian cities using Bayesian belief networks. Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards. 2012; 6(2):128-40.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[4]Hill M, Rossetto T. Comparison of building damage scales and damage descriptions for use in earthquake loss modelling in Europe. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 2008; 6(2):335-65.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[5]Alam N, Alam MS, Tesfamariam S. Buildings seismic vulnerability assessment methods: a comparative study. Natural Hazards. 2012; 62(2):405-24.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[6]Jain SK, Lettis WR, Arlekar JN, Ballantyne D, Chaubey SK, Dayal U, et al. Preliminary observations on the origin and effects of the January 26, 2001 Bhuj (Gujarat, India) earthquake. EERI Spec Earthq Report, EERI Newsletter 2001.
[7]Kazama M, Noda T. Damage statistics (summary of the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku earthquake damage). Soils and Foundations. 2012; 52(5):780-92.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[8]Miyamoto HK, Gilani AS, Wada A. The 2011 eastern Japan earthquake: facts and reconstruction recommendations. Proc. 15 WCEE. 2012.
[Google Scholar]
[9]Daniell JE, Khazai B, Wenzel F. Uncovering the 2010 Haiti earthquake death toll. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences Discussions. 2013; 1(3):1913-42.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[10]Rai DC, Murty CV. Effects of the 2005 Muzaffarabad (Kashmir) earthquake on built environment. Current Science. 2006; 90(8):1066-70.
[Google Scholar]
[11]Kumar RP, Murty CV. Earthquake safety of houses in India: understanding the bottlenecks in implementation. Indian Concrete Journal. 2014.
[Google Scholar]
[12]Thakur VC. Reassessment of earthquake hazard in the Himalaya and implications from the 2004 Sumatra–Andaman earthquake. Current Science. 2006; 90(8):1070-2.
[Google Scholar]
[13]Bilham R, Gaur VK, Molnar P. Himalayan seismic hazard. Science. 2001; 293(5534):1442-4.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[14]Rai DC. Review of documents on seismic evaluation of existing buildings. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India. 2005.
[Google Scholar]
[15]Calvi GM, Pinho R, Magenes G, Bommer JJ, Restrepo-vélez LF, Crowley H. Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology. 2006; 43(3):75-104.
[Google Scholar]
[16]Guéguen P, Michel C, LeCorre L. A simplified approach for vulnerability assessment in moderate-to-low seismic hazard regions: application to Grenoble (France). Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 2007; 5(3):467-90.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[17]Spence R, So E, Jenny S, Castella H, Ewald M, Booth E. The global earthquake vulnerability estimation system (GEVES): an approach for earthquake risk assessment for insurance applications. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 2008; 6(3):463-83.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[18]Tesfamariam S, Saatcioglu M. Seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete buildings using hierarchical fuzzy rule base modeling. Earthquake Spectra. 2010; 26(1):235-56.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[19]Ningthoujam MC, Nanda RP. Rapid visual screening procedure of existing building based on statistical analysis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2018; 28:720-30.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[20]Jain SK, Mitra K, Kumar M, Shah M. A proposed rapid visual screening procedure for seismic evaluation of RC-frame buildings in India. Earthquake Spectra. 2010; 26(3):709-29.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[21]Erberik MA. Seismic risk assessment of masonry buildings in Istanbul for effective risk mitigation. Earthquake Spectra. 2010; 26(4):967-82.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[22]Bhalkikar A, Kumar RP. A comparative study of different rapid visual survey methods used for seismic assessment of existing buildings. Structures 2021; 29: 1847-60. Elsevier.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[23]https://bmtpc.org/topics.aspx?mid=549&Mid1=552. Accessed 14 January 2022.
[24]Murty CV, Rai D, Kumar H, Mitra K, Bose AK, Koushik HB, et al. A methodology for documenting housing typologies in the moderate-severe seismic zones. Lisbon, SN. 2012.
[Google Scholar]
[25]Federal emergency management agency (US), editor. Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a handbook. Government Printing Office; 2017.
[Google Scholar]
[26]Hassan AF, Sozen MA. Seismic vulnerability assessment of low-rise buildings in regions with infrequent earthquakes. ACI Structural Journal. 1997; 94(1):31-9.
[Google Scholar]
[27]Gulkan P, Sozen MA. Procedure for determining seismic vulnerability of building structures. Structural Journal. 1999; 96(3):336-42.
[Google Scholar]
[28]Yang Y, Goettel KA. Enhanced rapid visual screening (E-RVS) method for prioritization of seismic retrofits in Oregon. Portland, OR, USA: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries; 2007.
[Google Scholar]
[29]Sucuoğlu H, Yazgan U, Yakut A. A screening procedure for seismic risk assessment in urban building stocks. Earthquake Spectra. 2007; 23(2):441-58.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[30]Yadollahi M, Adnan A, Zin RM. Seismic vulnerability functional method for rapid visual screening of existing buildings. Archives of Civil Engineering. 2012:363-77.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[31]Karbassi A, Nollet MJ. Development of an index assignment procedure compatible with the regional seismicity in the province of Quebec for the rapid visual screening of existing buildings. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 2008; 35(9):925-37.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[32]Municipality IM. Earthquake master plan for Istanbul. Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Istanbul. 2003.
[Google Scholar]
[33]Yakut A. Preliminary seismic performance assessment procedure for existing RC buildings. Engineering Structures. 2004; 26(10):1447-61.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[34]Demartinos K, Dritsos S. First-level pre-earthquake assessment of buildings using fuzzy logic. Earthquake Spectra. 2006; 22(4):865-85.
[Google Scholar]
[35]Jain S, Mitra K, Kumar M, Shah M. A rapid visual seismic assessment procedure for RC frame buildings in India. In proceedings of the 9th US national and 10th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering, Toronto, ON, Canada 2010.
[Google Scholar]
[36]Tezcan SS, Bal IE, Gulay FG. P25 scoring method for the collapse vulnerability assessment of R/C buildings. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers. 2011; 34(6):769-81.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[37]Ilki A, Comert M, Demir C, Orakcal K, Ulugtekin D, Tapan M, et al. Performance based rapid seismic assessment method (PERA) for reinforced concrete frame buildings. Advances in Structural Engineering. 2014; 17(3):439-59.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[38]Joshi GC, Ghildiyal S, Rautela P. Seismic vulnerability of lifeline buildings in Himalayan province of Uttarakhand in India. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2019.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[39]Adam C, Furtmüller T, Achs G. Seismic assessment of historical brick-masonry buildings in Vienna. In Proc. of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering 2012 (pp. 24-8).
[Google Scholar]
[40]Achs G, Adam C. Risk assessment of historic residential brick-masonry buildings in vienna by rapid-visual-screening. In III ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering 2011.
[Google Scholar]
[41]https://www.preventionweb.net/files/7543_SHARPISDRFLOOR120081209171548.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2022.
[42]https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/DHS/ARCHIVES/fema310.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2022.
[43]https://nehrpsearch.nist.gov/static/files/FEMA/PB2007111312.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2022.
[44]Harith NS, Jainih V, Ladin MA, Adiyanto MI. Assessing the vulnerability of Kota Kinabalu buildings. Civil engineering and architecture. 2021; 9(5A):68-77.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[45]National Research Council of Canada. Institute for Research in Construction. Manual for screening of buildings for seismic investigation. 1993.
[Google Scholar]
[46]Tischer H, Mitchell D, Mcclure G. Comparison of north american seismic screening methods applied to school buildings. Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture. 2012; 6(7):799-811.
[Google Scholar]
[47]Sinha R, Goyal A. 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. 2004:1-9.
[Google Scholar]
[48]BIA. The assessment and improvement of the structural performance of earthquake risk buildings-draft for general release.
[Google Scholar]
[49]Joshi GC, Kumar R. Preliminary seismic vulnerability assessment of Mussoorie town, Uttarakhand (India). Journal of Building Appraisal. 2010; 5(4):357-68.
[Google Scholar]
[50]Arya A. Rapid visual screening of RCC buildings. New York: UNDP. 2003.
[Google Scholar]
[51]Ishack S, Bhattacharya SP, Maity D. Rapid visual screening method for vertically irregular buildings based on seismic vulnerability indicator. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2021.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[52]Takahashi A, Tago S, Ilki A, Okada T. Seismic capacity evaluation of existing reinforced concrete buildings in turkey (effect of retrofit). In proceedings of world conference on earthquake engineering, Canada: Vancouver 2004 (pp. 1-6).
[Google Scholar]
[53]Islam N, Roy KS, Islam K, Imran M, Hoosain A. Seismic vulnerability assessment of existing reinforced concrete residential buildings by Japanese method. In first international conference in advances in civil infrastructure and construction materials 2015.
[Google Scholar]
[54]https://www.nzsee.org.nz/db/PUBS/2006AISBEGUIDELINESCorr3_(incl_2014_updates).pdf. Accessed 14 January 2022.
[55]Marotta A, Sorrentino L, Liberatore D, Ingham JM. Vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry churches following the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. 2017; 21(6):912-34.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[56]UNDP/UNIDO, Post-earthquake damage evaluation and strength assessment of buildings under seismic conditions. 1985.
[57]Benedetti D, Petrini V. On the seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings: an evaluation method. a method for evaluating the seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings. The Construction Industry. 1984 (149): 66-74.
[Google Scholar]
[58]Angeletti P, Bellina A, Guagenti E, Moretti A, Petrini V. Comparison between vulnerability assessment and damage index, some results. In proceedings of the world conference on earthquake engineering 1988 (pp. 181-6).
[Google Scholar]
[59]Barbat AH, Moya FY, Canas J. Damage scenarios simulation for seismic risk assessment in urban zones. Earthquake Spectra. 1996; 12(3):371-94.
[Google Scholar]
[60]https://emidius.mi.ingv.it/GNDT2/Pubblicazioni/Lsu_96/vol_1/schede.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2022.
[61]Fortunato G, Funari MF, Lonetti P. Survey and seismic vulnerability assessment of the baptistery of san giovanni in Tumba (Italy). Journal of Cultural Heritage. 2017; 26:64-78.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[62]En BS. 1-1. Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures–part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization. 2004.
[Google Scholar]
[63]Ademovic N, Hadzima-nyarko M, Zagora N. Influence of site effects on the seismic vulnerability of masonry and reinforced concrete buildings in Tuzla (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 2022; 20(5):2643-81.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[64]Shendkar MR, Pradeep KR, Mandal S, Maiti PR, Kontoni DP. Seismic risk assessment of reinforced concrete buildings in Koyna-Warna region through EDRI method. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions. 2021; 6(3):1-25.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[65]Villar-salinas S, Guzmán A, Carrillo J. Performance evaluation of structures with reinforced concrete columns retrofitted with steel jacketing. Journal of Building Engineering. 2021.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[66]Satish D, Lalith PE, Anand KB. Seismic vulnerability assessment of city regions based on building typology. In national conference on structural engineering and construction management 2020 (pp. 443-52). Springer, Cham.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[67]Bektaş N, Kegyes-brassai O. Conventional RVS methods for seismic risk assessment for estimating the current situation of existing buildings: a state-of-the-art review. Sustainability. 2022; 14(5):1-40.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[68]Aldemir A, Guvenir E, Sahmaran M. Rapid screening method for the determination of regional risk distribution of masonry structures. Structural Safety. 2020.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[69]Aung MM, Aye MN. Seismic safety assessment of existing low-rise rc buildings with rapid visual screenings and preliminary evaluation methods. ASEAN Journal on Science and Technology for Development. 2021; 38(1):29-36.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[70]Jha S, Pal S. Prioritizing buildings for seismic retrofit on the basis of RVS score. In advances in construction materials and sustainable environment 2022 (pp. 779-91). Springer, Singapore.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]