Sunteți pe pagina 1din 23

EARTHQUAKE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS FOR THE CYCLONE

SHELTERS IN BANGLADESH

ASHUTOSH SUTRA DHAR*


Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and
Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh

MEHEDI AHMED ANSARY


Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and
Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh
and

A B. AFIFA IMTIAZ
Former Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of
Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Abstract:

Pre-earthquake visual screening methods were developed for rapid evaluation of


earthquake vulnerability profiles of the existing building stocks. The evaluation includes
identification, inventorying and ranking of buildings in a region according to the
vulnerability. A method developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) is generally used for rapid assessment of seismic vulnerability of structures.
Another method was employed for assessing the seismic vulnerability of structure in
Turkey after the 1999 earthquake. This method used two levels of seismic assessments
where a street survey was used regarding the structural form at the first level and more
rigorous information of the buildings were used at the second level. Both of the methods
are evaluated in this paper with reference to the multipurpose shelter structures in a
disaster prone district of Bangladesh. The evaluation revealed the importance of
revisiting the existing visual screening methods for the vulnerability assessment of the
structures. Detailed analysis using finite element method was also used for evaluation of
the multi-purpose shelter structures.

Keywords: earthquake risk assessment, structural vulnerability, rapid visual screening,


multi-purpose shelters
1. Introduction

Visual screening method is used for rapid evaluation of earthquake vulnerability of


building stocks for prior repairs or rehabilitations. The methods have simplified the
structural assessment where evaluation is predominantly based on preliminary
observations of the structures. A detail analysis of each individual structure would
otherwise be required for the assessment, which would be almost impossible. In the
visual screening method, vulnerability score of the structure is first calculated based on
visual observations. The structures found as vulnerable (score smaller than a threshold
value) are then considered for detailed analysis. However, the vulnerability scores
obtained using various methods sometime appear misleading, indicating the importance
of revisiting of these methods.

In this paper, two visual screening methods are evaluated with respect to the structures
used for sheltering peoples and livestock during disasters in a disaster prone city, Cox’s
Bazar, of Bangladesh. Cox’s Bazar is a most disaster prone city in Bangladesh where
over 450 shelters, widely known as cyclone shelters, were built across the district in
difference phases after a devastating cyclone in 1991. Many of the shelters were
developed with multi-purpose objectives where the structures are used for other purposes
(commercial or as schools) throughout the years and as shelters during a disaster. Despite
the structures were initially built as cyclone shelters, these are currently under
consideration for multi-hazards applications. The shelters were successfully used for
evacuation during a Tsunami warning issued on 12 September 2007. Cox’s Bazar falls in
a high seismic risk zone in Bangladesh, requiring evaluation of the seismic vulnerability
of these structures.

2. Review of the Visual Screening Methods

2.1. Method of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)


Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the United States developed a
method for rapid assessment of seismic vulnerability of structures. FEMA Rapid Visual
Screening (RVS) of buildings for potential seismic hazards originated in 1988, with the
publication of the FEMA 154 Report (FEMA 154, 2002). It is a “sidewalk survey”
approach that enables users to classify buildings into two categories such as 1) acceptable
as to risk to life safety and 2) seismically hazardous. The seismically hazardous buildings
should be evaluated in more detail by a design professional experienced in seismic
design.
The Data Collection Form of FEMA-RVS method includes building information
such as its use, size, material etc., a photograph of the building, sketches, and other data
related to seismic performance. Basic Structural Hazard Scores based on Lateral Force
Resisting System for various building types are provided on the form, and the surveyor
circles the appropriate one. The surveyor modifies the Basic Structural Hazard Score by
identifying and circling Score Modifiers related to the observed performance attributes.
These are then added (or subtracted) to obtain a final Structural Score, ‘S’. Figure 1
illustrates the FEMA-RBS scoring system.

The score below which a structure is assumed to seismically hazardous is termed as


“cut-off” score. The value of “cut off” score and choice of RVS form depends on the
seismic zonation of the area. It is suggested that buildings having a score “S” less than
the “cut-off” score should be investigated by an experienced seismic design professional.
If the obtained “final score” is greater than the “cut-off” score the building should
perform well in a seismic event. A score of 2 is used in this study as a “cut-off” score
based on the location of the site in the seismic zonation map (BNBC 1993). Cox’s Bazar
is located in a high seismic zone in Bangladesh.

2.2 Turkish simple survey procedure (Sucuoglu and Yazgan, 2003)

The Turkish Simple Survey procedure is a two level risk assessment procedure
which has been proposed on the basis of statistical correlations obtained by employing a
database of 477 damaged buildings surveyed after the 1999 Düzce earthquake (Sucuoglu
& Yazgan, 2003). The first level incorporates recording of building parameters from the
street side and in the second level, these are extended by structural parameters measured
by entering the ground story.
The method is based on several building parameters that can be easily observed or
measured during a systematic survey. The basic scoring for both the levels are based on
the Height of the building (number of stories) and Local Soil Conditions where three
intensity zones are specified in terms of associated PGV (Peak Ground Velocity) ranges.
The first level (street survey procedure) involves the observation of the parameters,
the number of stories above ground, presence of a soft story, presence of heavy overhang,
apparent building quality, and presence of a short column.
In the second level the parameters of first level are confirmed or modified through
closer observations. Then a sketch of the framing plan at the ground story is made and the
dimensions of columns, concrete and masonry walls are measured. The added parameters
in this stage are pounding between adjacent buildings, topography effect, plan
irregularity, redundancy, and strength index. The consistency in distribution of lateral
loads to the frame members is judged by redundancy. The strength index represents the
influence of size of the vertical members, material strength, frame geometry, lateral
support system etc. The results of the Level - II procedure can be used to determine the
potential status of the selected buildings, and to further short-list the buildings requiring
detailed vulnerability assessments. Detail procedure of the two level seismic risk
assessment procedure is available elsewhere (Sucuoglu and Yazgan, 2003) and therefore
not discussed further in this paper.
Once the vulnerability parameters of a building are obtained from two-level
surveys, the seismic performance and vulnerability scores are calculated as illustrated in
Figure 2. The final seismic Performance Score (PS) is obtained by using Equation (1).

PS = (Initial Score) - (Vulnerability Parameter) X (Vulnerability Score) (1)

A “cut-off” performance score of 50 has been suggested for both survey levels
(Sucuoglu and Yazgan, 2003).
2.3 Comparative overview

Turkish simple survey procedure was developed based on a survey of damaged


reinforced concrete (RC) buildings due to Düzce earthquake in Turkey in 1999. Thus the
method appears mostly applicable for RC buildings. The FEMA-154 RVS considers 15
different types (timber frame, steel frame, RC, masonry) of structures. Data collection
form in FEMA RVS method includes building information (use, size etc), photograph,
sketches, pertinent data related to seismic performance. Turkish simple survey procedure
requires few simple structural and geotechnical parameters as well.

Basic scores in FEMA-RVS are based on average expected ground shaking levels
for the seismicity region and the lateral force resisting system of structure where soil
condition acts as a negative performance modifier and higher number of stories in a
building acts as a positive modifier on the scoring system. In Turkish simple survey
method, basic scores are based on the intensity of ground motion (Zoning is represented
by PGV range of the locality) and the variation of building stories. This method considers
buildings up to 7 stories where the increasing number of stories reduces the performance
score by influencing almost all other vulnerability parameters negatively. Pounding
effects and apparent quality of the building as well as the structural characteristics,
Redundancy and Stiffness Index, act as weighted vulnerability parameters in the scoring
system.

The advantages of FEMA-RVS method are simplicity, relatively low cost to


gather the required field data, provision of effective estimates for determining future
emergency planning or mitigation, effectiveness of the process for detailed evaluations.
In spite of the benefits, this method has some shortcomings. It provides generalized
results only in terms of structural score and without any explanation or specification for
particular building type. Turkish survey procedure is also simple. However, the Level-II
survey requires more rigorous survey to obtain information of the structural system.
3. Structures Investigated

Multipurpose cyclone shelter buildings in the district of Cox’s Bazar were selected for
seismic vulnerability assessment presented in this study. The cyclone shelters are the
structures developed under the Multipurpose Cyclone Shelter Program by the
Government of Bangladesh in 1993 after the great cyclone of 1991. There are 455
cyclone shelters in different places of the district (Uddin and Yasmin, 2005), which serve
for sheltering people during cyclones (or other disasters) and are used as schools or food
storage at other times. The shelters are usually two to three storied buildings with the
ground floor as open (soft story). Most of the structures are of rectangular and V shaped.
Others are of irregular shapes. Few other buildings are generally used for residential or
commercial purposes and are utilized as shelters during disaster. These buildings are
termed herein as “other buildings”. Figure 3 shows typical cyclone shelter structures in
Cox’s Bazar. Each shelter is capable of accommodating approximately 1000 to 1200
peoples during a disaster. Table 1 lists the structures considered for seismic vulnerability
assessment using the visual screening methods.

4. Assessment by FEMA Method

A total number of 302 buildings have been analyzed using Rapid Visual Screening (RVS)
methods. Figure 4 shows summary of the calculated RVS score for different buildings.
Considering Cox’s bazar as a high Seismic Risk zone, the cut off value for the FEMA
method was considered as 2. None of the calculated scores for the buildings was found to
touch the cut off value. Thus, all of the buildings were found seismically vulnerable and
require detailed analysis for the further assessment of risk. In fact, the basic score for the
pre-engineered RC building recommended in FEMA-RVS method is only 1.6, which is
less than the cut off score. The score reduce further after being modified by the negative
parameters. This is one of the reasons for the FEMA RVS score to be less. The major
parameters contributing to the scoring for the structures are mainly, the height,
irregularities of the buildings and type of the soil underneath. Most of the shelter
structures in Cox’s Bazar were less than 4-storey buildings, and hence the irregularities
were the parameters that contributed on the scores. The Cyclone Shelters have some
common forms in shape. Most of structures are of regular shapes (square, rectangular or
circular), few are of “V”-shape and few other have irregularities vertically or in plan
(Figure 3). Almost all the shelters have open ground floors or soft/weak story, imposing
vertical irregularity which is the major factor contributing to the reduction of the scores
significantly. The score of a regular shaped building without soft story was calculated to
be 1.2, while the score of a “V”-shaped (only plan irregularity) building was 0.7. The
score of a building having soft story with vertical irregularity or both (including plan
irregularity) was less than or equal to 0.4 (Figure 4-b).

For the other buildings, the calculated FEMA-RVS scores ranged between 0.4 and
1.4 (Figure 4-c). Few mid-rise buildings which have stories greater than 3 obtained a
positive score modification of 0.2, resulting in the higher score.

While the vulnerability score from the RVS method does not provide any specific
information about the severity of damage of the buildings from an earthquake, the
European Macroseismic Scale (EMS 1998) provides a tool to relate the RVS score with
the severity of damage. Table 2 shows damage classification with FEMA RVS Scores
according to EMS (1998). However, it should also be noted that the damage potential of
the buildings depends on a number of factors that are not accounted in the RVS
procedure. As a result, the implications should only be used as indicative to determine the
necessity of carrying out simplified vulnerability assessment of the buildings. These
results can also be used to determine the necessity of retrofitting the buildings where
more comprehensive vulnerability assessment may not be feasible.

5 Assessments by Turkish Method

5.1 Level – I Survey


Shelters structures described above have also been analyzed using Turkish Simple
Survey Method of visual screening that includes two levels of survey (Level - I and Level
– II). The assessment was made considering the soil zonation of Cox’s Bazar that fall in
Zone - 1 (60<PGV<80) according to the method. Figure 5 shows performance scores
(PS) of the structures according to Level – I survey. A wide variation of performance
scores (from less than 50 to 90) was obtained for this method of evaluation compared to
the FEMA-RVS method for the same structures. In this method, different vulnerability
parameters are considers as a variable related to the height of the building that modify the
basic score. The positive or negative score modifications are the weighted multiplications
of the number of stories of the buildings. As a result, the performance scores were found
high for low-rise buildings compared to the high-rise structures, in spite of the presence
of negatively influencing vulnerability parameters.

Figure 5-a reveals that none of the Cyclone Shelters scores less than the “cut-off” score
(i.e. 50), indicating that the structures are not seismically vulnerable while FEMA-RVS
method indicated all the structures as seismically vulnerable (score less than the “cut-off”
score of 2.0). A few (around 5%) of the other Buildings scored less than 50 (the “cut-
off” score). Thus almost all buildings can be considered as safe according to the Level-I
survey of the Turkish Simple Survey Procedure. Figure 5b reveals that the buildings with
less than 50 of the performance score are mid-rise building (4 to 6 storey buildings). The
study reveals that the taller the buildings the higher the negative parameters in this
method and thus the lower the scores becomes.

5.2 Level – II Survey

The Turkish Simple Survey procedure recommends that the building should be
evaluated using Level-II survey only if it is found unsafe in the Level-I survey. However,
the buildings are evaluated using Level-II survey and compared with the Level-I survey
to demonstrate the difference of results from the two levels of survey.
Figure 6 compares the scores of the buildings according to Level-I and Level-II
survey. Number of buildings with lower performance score were less and the number of
buildings with higher performance score were more in the Level-II survey compared to
the Level-I survey. Thus more buildings were found seismically not vulnerable.
However, in few cases, score in the Level-II survey were less than the score in the Level-
I survey. Figure 7 shows a comparative view of the calculation of the scores using the
two levels of survey for such a building. For this building, performance score at the Level
I and Level II surveys were calculated to be 85 and 80, respectively. Both of these scores
however indicates that the building is not seismically vulnerable. FEMA method
provided a score of 0.7 for the building, indicating the building as vulnerable to
earthquake. Thus, FEMA method and the Turkish Simple Survey method provided
opposite conclusions regarding seismic vulnerability of the structures.

6. Evaluation using Detailed Analysis

In a detailed seismic analysis, the mode shape, that shows how a building moves back
and forth during an earthquake, are determined along with the frequency of motion for
each mode. The frequency, also known as natural frequency is generally given by

1 k
f = (2)
2π m

where k is the stiffness and m is the mass of the system.

If the natural frequency matches with the frequency of earthquake load, a resonance will
occur and the motion will be significantly amplified that may result in the collapse of the
structure. The natural frequency is also related to the deflections of structures under
dynamic forces and is used for calculation of the base shear force for analysis of the
structures. For excitation frequency less that the natural frequency, the lower the
frequency of excitation forces the less would be the deflection. The reverse would be
applicable if the frequency of the excitation force is greater than the natural frequency of
the structure.

For structure under earthquake load, motion of the foundation soil acts as the excitation
force. Thus, if natural frequency of structure matches the natural frequency of soil, the
structure is expected to collapse under the earthquake load. Natural frequency of the soil
in the study area (Cox’s Bazar) was estimated based on detailed geotechnical
investigation and application of one-dimensional theory of shear wave propagation using
a computer program ‘SHAKE”. Figure 8 and Figure 9 show a typical subsoil profile and
fundamental frequencies across the study area. Fundamental frequency of the study area
was found to vary from 3 to 15 Hertz.

The inverse of the frequency is termed as the 'Time Period' that state about the time
required for an undamped system to complete one cycle of free vibrations. The time
period is also used, instead of the frequency, for evaluating of a structural system under
dynamic load. The Time Period for structural system is compared with that for soil to
examine if a resonance would occur. The time period of the structure or foundation can
be obtained through measurement using Microtremor equipment or detailed structural
analysis.

Design codes recommend using of an empirical equation to calculate the time period. In
Indian Standard (IS) Criteria for Earthquake Resistant design of Structures, the period T
is calculated as (IS ..):

T = 0.1 N (3)

where N is the number of floors above base. The Building Standard Law of Japan (BSLJ)
uses the following formula for the fundamental period of building:

T=h(0.02+0.01α) (4)
where h is the building height and α the ratio of the total height of steel construction to
the height of the building. National Building Code of Canada (NBC, …) also
recommends Equation (3) for calculating the time period. However the codes states that
the fundamental period T, calculated using any of above equations is shorter than the
actual period and thus provides a conservative estimate for the base shear. The code
equations are generally calibrated to give a period lower than the actual by about 10%-
20% (Amanat and Hoque, 2005). Codes also specify that design time period, if a greater
value is obtained from detailed analysis, should not be longer than the value estimated
using the empirical equations (Equation 3 or 4) by a certain factor. The factor specified in
UBC is 1.3 for high seismic zones and 1.4 for other zones. These restrictions are imposed
to safeguard against unreasonable assumptions in the rational analysis, which may lead to
unreasonably long periods and hence un-conservative values of base shear.

Detailed analysis of the structure was performed using the structural analysis software
“ETAB”. Figure 10 shows 1st mode shape of a Rectangular shaped cyclone shelter.
Natural time period for that mode was calculated to be 0.35 sec. Natural period for Mode
shape 2 (deflection in other orthogonal direction) was also calculated to be 0.35 sec, since
the building has similar geometry in the other (perpendicular) direction. First modal and
second modal deformation of the V-shaped cyclone shelter is shown in Figure 11 and 12.
Natural periods for the two modes are found approximately to be the same (0.29 sec)
despite the geometries are different in two perpendicular directions. However, a negative
modification factor was considered in the RVS evaluation for this type of structure due to
plane irregularity. The detail analysis did not indicate any negative impact. It is also to be
noted that natural period for the V-shaped shelters are less than the rectangular shelters.
Less time period for V-shaped shelter can be due to less number of storeys for the shelter
(2-storied) with reference to the rectangular shelter (3 storied). Figures 13 and 14 show
the mode shapes 1 and 2 of an irregular shaped cyclone shelter. The irregular shaped
shelter showed natural period of 0.51 sec and 0.5 sec respectively for the two mode
shapes, which are greater than both of the V-shaped and Rectangular shaped cyclone
shelters. In comparison with the rectangular structure with same number of story (Figure
10), the irregular structure appears to be less stiff as indicated by the greater natural
period. Other buildings were also analyzed using FE analysis but not included in this
paper for brevity.

FEMA-RVS scores and natural time periods are compared for different types of the
cyclone shelters in Table 2. It is revealed that RVS score is the highest for rectangular
shaped structure with no soft storey while the lowest for the V-Shaped structures. Thus
the V-Shaped shelter is expected to be the worst under earthquake load. However, the
detailed analysis showed the lowest natural time period for V-Shape Shelters, indicating
it as the most laterally stiff structure that should perform better under earthquake load
compared to the other structures. Thus the FEMA method was found to provide a very
conservative estimate of the seismic vulnerability and the calculated RVS score may
indicate a greater risk of the building than the actual. Besides, the contrary conclusion of
the different methods indicates that a revision of the RVS methods is required
incorporating the influence of other necessary parameters.

7. Conclusion

The visual screening method is used for rapid assessment of seismic vulnerability of the
structures. In this paper, two methods of pre-earthquake visual screening were used for
seismic vulnerability assessment of cyclone shelter structures in Bangladesh. One of the
methods was developed by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the
United States. The other method was developed in Turkey after the 1999 earthquake
(called herein as the Turkish Simple Survey Procedure). The Turkish Simple Survey
procedure used two levels of seismic assessments where a street survey was used
regarding the structural form at the first level and more rigorous information of the
buildings were used at the second level.

Seismic vulnerability scores calculated using the FEMA method for all of the
buildings was found to be less than a “cut-off” score, indicating the buildings as
seismically vulnerable. However, the performance scores calculated using the Turkish
Simple Survey procedure indicated the building as not seismically vulnerable. Level-II
survey was generally found to provide higher scores compared to the Level-I survey of
the Turkish Simple Survey method. However, Level-I survey provided lower
performance scores than the Level-II survey in few cases. Opposite conclusion from the
two methods for the same structures indicates the necessity of revisiting the existing
visual screening methods for the vulnerability assessment of the structures. Based on
detailed analysis using finite element method, FEMA visual screening method was found
to provide conservative evaluation of the seismic vulnerability of the structures presented
in this study. Finite element analysis showed better structural performance under lateral
load for few of the structures compared to the others, while FEMA-RVS scores were less
for those structures.

8. Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the funding of this research project by United Nation Office for
Project Service (UNOPS) through Comprehensive Disaster Management Program
(CDMP) of the Ministry of Disaster Relief and Rehabilitation of Bangladesh
Government.

References

Amanat K.M. and Hoque E. (2006) A Rationale for Determining the Natural Period of
RC Building Frames Having Infill, Engineering Structures, Vol 28 (2006), pp495-502,

BNBC (1993), Bangladesh National Building Code, Public Work Department, The
Government of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh.

BSLJ (2009). The Building Standard Law of Japan, The Building Center of Japan,
Tokyo, CD-ROM

FEMA154, 2002. Rapid Visual Screening of Building for Potential Seismic Hazards: A
Hand Book
EMS (1998) European Macroseismic Scale, Macroseismic Intensity Scale. Classifications
used in the European Macroseismic Scale (EMS). European Seismological Commission,
Editor G. Grünthal, LUXEMBOURG 1998

IS 4326, 1993, Indian Standard Code of Practice for Earthquake Resistant Design and
Construction of Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

NBC (2005) National Building Code of Canada, National Research Council Canada

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

Uddin, A. M. K. and Yasmin, A. (2005). District Information-Cox’s Bazar. Water


Resource Ministry, Water Resource Planning Organization, People’s Republic of
Bangladesh Government.
Table 1: Cyclone Shelters' Information of Cox's Bazar (After CEGIS, 2004)

No of
Shape of Structure No. Funding Authority
Storey
Rectangular 76 3 Saudi Arabia
Irregular 1 3 Save The Children
Irregular 1 3 Scotland
V Shape 1 2 Secours
Rectangular 1 3 The Netherlands
V Shape 1 2 UNICEF
V Shape 1 2 USAID
V Shape 1 2 VDPC
V Shape 2 2 World Visions
V Shape 1 2 IDB
Rectangular 19 2 ADB
V Shape 1 2 Bangladesh German Samprity
Rectangular 1 2 Bangladesh Welfare Association
V Shape 23 2 BDRCS
V Shape 1 2 BGS
Irregular 14 2 BRAC
V Shape 21 2 Caritas
V Shape 36 2 CCDB
Rectangular 1 3 CIDA
Irregular 1 2 DPHE
Irregular 4 2 EC
V Shape 4 2 Germany
Irregular 1 3 Glasgow
Irregular 8 3 Government of Bangladesh
Irregular 6 3 Gono Shasthya Sheba
V Shape 1 2 Heep
Irregular 3 3 IDA
Irregular 18 2 IFAD
Irregular 15 2 JICA
Others 52 4 to 5
Table 1: Probable Damage implications from RVS
RVS Probable Damage Classifications for Reinforced
Score Damage Concrete Buildings (Following EMS)
1.2<S<2 Very High Grade 1: Low Damage (No major
Probability of structural damage, susceptible to
Grade 1 Damage more non-structural damages)
Probability of fine cracks in plaster over
frame members or in walls at the base or
in partitions and infill
0.7<S<1.2 High Probability Grade 2: Moderate damage (Slight
of Grade 2 structural damage, moderate non-
Damage and structural damage)
Very High Cracks in columns and beams of frames
Probability of and in structural walls. Cracks in
Grade 1 Damage partition and infill walls; fall of brittle
cladding and plaster. Falling mortar
from the joints of wall panels.
0.4<S<0.7 High Probability Grade 3: Substantial to Heavy
of Grade 3 Damage (Moderate structural
Damage and damage, heavy non-structural
Very High damage)
Probability of Cracks in columns and beam-column
Grade 2 Damage joints of frames at the base and at joints
of coupled walls. Spalling of concrete
cover, buckling of reinforced bars.
Large cracks in partition and infill
walls, failure of individual infill panels.
S≤0.4 High Probability Grade 4: Very Heavy Damage
of Grade 4 to (Heavy structural damage, very
Grade 5 Damage heavy non-structural damage)
and Very High Large cracks in structural elements with
Probability of compression failure of concrete and
Grade 3 Damage fracture of rebars; bond failure of beam
reinforcing bars; tilting of columns.
Collapse of a few columns or of a
single upper floor.
Grade 5: Destruction (Very heavy
structural damage)
Collapse of ground floor parts (e.g.
wings) of the building.
Table 2: RVS Score and Natural time period for cyclone shelters

RVS Score RVS Score Natural Time Natural


Building Type with soft without soft Period from Period from
storey storey Analysis (sec) code (sec)
Rectangular 0.2 1.2 0.35 0.3
V-Shape -0.3 0.7 0.29 0.2
Irregular (Gono -0.3 0.7 0.5 0.3
Sasthya Seba)
Irregular (JICA) -0.3 0.7 0.2 0.2

Figure 1: Sample RVS Scoring Form (FEMA-154, 2002)


Figure 3: Three Distinctive Shapes of Cyclone Shelters responsible
for respective Variations in Scores

Figure 2: Tables and General Equation of Turkish Procedure


(Sucuoglu & Yazgan, 2003)
(a) Building Shapes Variation (b) RVS Score Variation (c) RVS Score Variation
for Cyclone Shelters for Cyclone Shelters for other Buildings
Figure 4: RVS Score Variations for the Surveyed Buildings

(a) Turkish (Level-I) Score (b) PS (Level-I) vs. Story for other
Variation Buildings
Figure 5: Turkish (Level-I) Scoring Variations for the Surveyed Buildings

Figure 6: Comparison of (Level-I & Level-II)


scoring
Figure 7: Scoring Systems of RVS and Turkish Method

S N

Figure 8: A typical subsoil profile


Figure 9: Fundamental frequencies of soil across the study area
Fig 10: Mode Shape 1 for Rectangular Shaped Cyclone Shelter (Period 0.35 sec)

Fig 11: Mode Shape 1 for V Shaped building Fig 12: Mode Shape 2 for V Shaped
building
(Period 0.29 sec) (Period 0.289 sec)

Fig 13: Mode Shape 1 for Irregular Fig 14: Mode Shape 3 for Irregular
Shaped Building (Period 0.51 sec) Shaped Building (Period 0.5 sec)

S-ar putea să vă placă și