CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The seismic vulnerability evaluation of existing buildings is a subject that has

recently attracted researchers to its importance for both recent and old existing
buildings. The rapid progress of the seismic design methods of buildings, by both
new research and seismic codes, has enabled buildings to be designed with improved
prospects of satisfactory behavior during earthquakes. At the same time, these
methods have left some doubts about the adequacy of existing buildings.

Many existing structures have been constructed without consideration of any seismic
provisions. Others have been designed according to the requirements of out- dated
seismic codes. The seismic capacity of many of these buildings may achieve only a
small percentage of the capacity required by the new codes.

The lack of good reinforcement detailing is another aspect that puts older
buildings in question. The need of adequate detailing, for seismic loading, was not
appreciable by early designers nor required by codes. This leaves a serious doubt
in the ductility level of the older buildings and their ability to absorb and
dissipate the energy created by earthquakes.

Building history and its actual state may also affect its seismic capacity. Cracks
due to different causes, deterioration of construction materials, poor quality
concrete, bad general state of the building and many other disadvantages seriously
affect the building performance under seismic loading, especially with the lack of
continuous maintenance.

In Egypt no considerations have been taken for seismic design of existing

buildings. This is attributed to the lack of the seismic provisions in the Egyptian
code as well as the fact that the Egyptian designer does not appreciate the seismic
design requirements. This has led to the presence of buildings having high risk
level, where highly vulnerable structures inevitably lead to high seismic risk
even in areas of low or moderate seismicity, which is the case for Egypt.

Seismic evaluation of existing buildings, however, is of particular importance for

the assessment of the vulnerability of a particular building or a certain category
of building as well as for the screening of buildings in an area. Strengthening and
repair of existing buildings is another aspect that necessitate building
evaluation.

The assessment of the seismic vulnerability of existing buildings needs well

qualified and experienced engineers who can judge carefully the adequacy of the
building capacity to resist seismic excitations. Experience of s trained engineers
are not satisfactory for the evaluation and prediction of the building performances
under complicated seismic loading. Many configurations, stiffness and/or mass
distributions methods of building strengthening that may be statically satisfactory
cause serious problems under seismic excitations. Therefore, an evaluation method
that accounts for the most important dynamic characteristics and performance of the
building and be can systematically applied by engineers having minimum dynamic
experience is seriously needed.

Many evaluation methodologies have been presented to estimate the seismic

vulnerability of existing buildings. Some of these methodologies are simplified and
depend, to a great extent, on the engineering judge menu On the other hand, others
are very detailed and need more sophisticated analysis.

Some of these methods tend to evaluate the seismic capacity of the building
qualitatively. The Field Evaluation Method proposed by Culver et al [23] and the
excision Factor Analysis Method proposed by the General Services Administration
[36] are examples of the qualitative evaluation approach.

Many other procedures have been developed to evaluate the seismic capacity of
existing buildings depending on analytical investigation of the studied building.
Among these methods is the method proposed by Whitman et al, 1980, [74] who have
proposed an evaluation procedure based on the clastic response of a single degree
of freed in structural idealization which approximates the first mode response
only.

Aoyama, 1981, [11] has presented a three level evaluation procedure. The first
level is simple and more conservative whilst the third level is more detailed and
reliable.

Kalevras, 1982, [43] has presented a methodology to evaluate the building seismic
capacity depending on a new criterion. His method is based mainly on the most
important causes of the understrength and overstress. Kalevras presented an
evaluation of the values of the understrength and overstress parameters based on
the inspection and investigation of more than 800 undamaged and damaged buildings
during previous earthquakes.

Brunsdon and Priestley, 1984 [16] have investigated the expected seismic
performance of reinforced concrete buildings constructed between 1935 and 1975 in
New Zealand. They proposed an analytical procedure for the evaluation based on th
The demand calculation of the capacity-to-demand ratio for the individual elements
values are obtained by applying the equivalent lateral force obtained according to
the seismic code. On the other hand the capacity values are obtained according to
section dimensions and material properties.

Zezhen, 1986, [78] developed a simplified methodology for the seismic evaluation of
existing buildings. His methodology depends on comparing the actual wall to floor
area with a corresponding demand value determined according to empirical equations
presented by the Chinese Seismic Code.

A methodology, ATC-14, has been presented by the Applied Technology Council (ATC)
[12] in 1987. This method is applied to six different building structural systems
with two evaluation levels for areas of low and medium or high seismicity the
methodology depends on predefined sers of statements that identify the items of
concern during the evaluation. As a criterion of the building safety the
recommended safety conditions should be satisfied by the evaluated buildings

The purpose of the present work is to develop a methodology for the evaluation of
the seismic vulnerability of existing reinforced concrete buildings This evaluation
methodology aims to express quantitatively what is known only qualitatively such
that it can deal, in a simplified way, with the complicated dynamic characteristics
of the building and quantify is seismic risk. The method is developed so that it
takes the most important parameters affecting the building seismic performance and
is programmed to be used and applied by engineers having minimum dynamic
experience. The actual tate of the building, its configurations in plan and
elevation, mass and stiffness present distributions in plan and elevation, pounding
between adjacent buildings, reinforcement detailing and seismicity and site
conditions are the main parameters that are considered in the proposed methodology.

Different evaluation approaches are presented and discussed in Chapter 1 where

distinction is made between the qualitative and quantitative methods of evaluation.
These evaluation methods are discussed in terms of the evaluation procedure and the
different parameters considered in each of them. A comparison between these
methodologies is also presented, where a hypothetical building is chosen and is
evaluated by the available methodologies. Conclusions and discussions regarding the
evaluation approaches are presented.

Dynamic characteristics pertinent to earthquake response are considered in Chapter

2. Detailed discussion of the effect of the considered parameters on the building
seismic performance is presented. Description of each parameter is introduced,
followed by its effect on the dynamic characteristics through two approaches. The
first is its effect as observed in previous earthquakes whilst the second approach
is a conglomerate of many research programmers investigating the parameter. From
this discussion it is realized that the different parameters have different effect
levels on the building response to seismic loading. Some of these parameters have
minor or local effects whilst the others have predominant effects on the overall
response of the building.

A proposed methodology for the evaluation of the seismic vulnerability of existing

reinforced concrete buildings, containing all the discussed and studied parameters,
is presented in Chapter 3. The basis of the evaluation method and the procedure of
the evaluation as well as discussion of the steps of building inspection is
presented. This is followed by the description of the different parameters used in
the evaluation procedure and the values recommended for each of them.

A brief description of the main parts of the developed computer program of the
proposed methodology is presented in Chapter 4. In this chapter the details of the
evaluation items in the program along with the input and output features are
described.

In Chapter 5, an evaluation of several buildings that experienced different levels

of damages in previous earthquakes is performed. The results obtained from the
evaluation methodology is then compared with the level of damage detected by each
studied building to calibrate the proposed methodology. Two typical Egyptian
buildings are then evaluated to present an example of the seismic risk of a certain
class of Egyptian buildings.

Finally, a brief discussion of the developed work together with the main
conclusions are presented.
1.1 Introduction

Several seismic vulnerability evaluation methods have been proposed. Some of

these methods tend to evaluate the seismic vulnerability of the structure
quantitatively depending on the experience and the judgement of the evaluating
engineer(s). Others depend on analytical procedures to study the adequacy of the
building capacity. Some of these methodologies introduce one level procedure while
others introduce more than one level depending on the building conditions and
importance. The approaches of the evaluation methods as well as a discussion of the
available current methods and a brief comparison between them are presented in the
following sections.

2.1
- Several Methods have been proposed.
- Some methods are quantitative & depend on experience and judgement of the
evaluating engineer.
- Others depend on Analytical Procedures. Some methods introduce One Level
Procedure while others introduce more than One Level.

3.1
- Many building characteristics be statically adequate or even preferable may
seriously affect its seismic response.
- In this chapter the most important characteristics that affect the building
seismic response will be discussed.