Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
) Damage assessment
* Damaged or collapsed buildings
^ Estimated from 480.000 damaged or collapsed dwellings
** Heavy damaged or collapsed buildings
From table I, one can see that, after destructive earthquakes, the number of buildings to be
inspected can easily be in the range of 80-100.000. Consequently procedures should be
adequately predisposed.
1.2. Temporal dimension
The time evolution of usability and damage inspections is influenced by the number of building
to be inspected, by the number of surveyors at disposal and by the time required for each
inspection.
In figure 1 and 2 the probability density function and the cumulative distribution function of the
time lag between the event and the inspections during Umbria-Marche 97 earthquake (only
Umbria Region, 45.000 buildings, epicentral intensity I
o
=IX MCS) and Pollino 98 earthquake
(18.000 buildings, epicentral intensity I
o
=VI-VII MCS). Blue lines refers to the whole number of
buildings, while pink lines to the only unusable buildings.
From figure 1, the long time required for the inspections after Pollino earthquake appears. About
56% of the buildings were inspected within one month, while in Umbria-marche, in the same
time, 87% of the buildings were inspected. It must also be taken into account the fact that in
Umbria-marche earthquake three main shocks obliged to repeat many usability inspections.
In Japan usability assessment seems to be performed more quickly, due to the fact that
usability and damage survey are performed separately. Japanese procedures requires to
complete the usability assessment in few days (3 days), but the assessment usually takes one
or two weeks, still less than in Italy. However the time required to complete both usability and
damage assessment is not significantly lower than in Italy. As an example in Kobe post-
.
8
earthquake emergency view assessment and reconnaissance report took 3 days, quick
inspections and usability assessment 2 weeks and damage inspections 2 weeks. The time
required for usability inspections is significantly lower than in Italy, but the total required time,
more than one month, is not so different than in Umbria-Marche earthquake, taking also into
account the need of repeated inspections due to multiple shocks.
1.3. Spatial dimension
Buildings located in epicentral areas are usually inspected before than the buildings locate in
non epicentral areas. There is then a spatial-temporal interaction during the inspections. In Italy
the buildings, and hence the area, to be inspected is not established in advance, while in Japan
is selected in advance and this is more effective in terms of the inspection planning.
Umbria '97
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 4 8
1
2
1
6
2
0
2
4
2
8
3
2
3
6
4
0
4
4
4
8
5
2
5
6
6
0
Tempo di ritardo del sopralluogo dall'evento (gg)
F
T
r
e
Tutti
Inagibili
Umbria '97
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0 4 8
1
2
1
6
2
0
2
4
2
8
3
2
3
6
4
0
4
4
4
8
5
2
5
6
6
0
Tempo di ritardo del sopralluogo dall'evento (gg)
f
T
r
e
Tutti
inagibili
Pollino '98
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 4 8
1
2
1
6
2
0
2
4
2
8
3
2
3
6
4
0
4
4
4
8
5
2
5
6
6
0
Tempo di ritardo del sopralluogo dall'evento (gg)
F
T
r
e
Tutti
Inagibili
Pollino '98
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
048
1
2
1
6
2
0
2
4
2
8
3
2
3
6
4
0
4
4
4
8
5
2
5
6
6
0
Tempo di ritardo del sopralluogo dall'evento (gg)
f
T
r
e
Tutti
inagibili
Figure 1. Pdf and Cdf of time lag between the
event and the inspection. Umbria 97.
Figure 2. Pdf and Cdf of time lag between the
event and the inspection.. Pollino 98.
.
9
5. PROCEDURES AND FORMS
Both Italy and Japan prepared and tested procedures and forms for post-earthquake usability
and damage assessment.
5.1. Procedures
In Italy the building inspections are performed on citizen demand addressed to the Mayor of the
Municipality. Inspection requests are then redirected to the Center for the coordination of the
damage survey, usually located in epicentral area. Surveyors inspect the buildings and results
are collected each day at the coordination Center. If suggested by the surveyors, the Mayor of
the Municipality promulgate evacuation decrees or limited use decrees. Countermeasures
suggested by the surveyors, when inserted in the Mayor decree, are compulsory. Usually Fire
Brigade is in charge of countermeasures. No posting system is adopted. Damage is assessed
again by the designers when Governmental financial contributions for the building repair and
strengthening depend on damage level.
In Japan inspections are performed only for buildings with 2-3 stories and more than one owner.
Buildings to be inspected are selected after a rapid post-earthquake building screening. Due to
the citizen's privacy, the results of usability inspections are to be considered only a suggestion
for the citizens. Countermeasures proposed by the surveyors are compulsory only if public
safety is involved. A posting system, reflecting the building usability classification, is adopted.
The buildings inspected to assess usability are then inspected to assess the damage. After the
damage classification, the repair, upgrade or demolishing of the damaged buildings is
suggested to the owner. The suggestion, unless public safety is involved, in not compulsory for
the building owner.
In figure 3 and 4 the Italian and Japanese procedures are reported.
Figure 3. Italian usability and damage assessment procedure
Inspection request
Inspection
Damage and usability
Partially
usable
Temporary
unusable
Unusable(exte
rnal risk)
Unusable Usable after
measures
Usable
Measures
Strengthening Design
Strengthening Works
.
10
Figure 4. Japanese usability and damage assessment procedure
5.2. Forms
The Italian form for damage and usability evaluation is reported in the following pages. The form
is the same for usability and damage evaluation, because usability and damage evaluation is
performed at the same time. The form has 3 pages, the 4
th
page deals with instructions.
The Japanese form for usability is reported in figure 5 and differs from the damage evaluation
form, reported in figure 6, as the evaluations are performed at different times. Each form is one-
page form. Main differences in forms and procedures are summarised in table 4
Table 4. Main differences in forms and procedures
Usability and
damage
evaluation
Inspections Results of usability
inspection
Posting Numb. of pages
in the form
Italy Simultaneous On demand Compulsory if a
Mayor decree is
promulgated
No One form, 3
pages
Japan At different
time
On previously
selected
buildings
Compulsory only if
public safety is
involved
Yes 2 forms, each
one 1 page
Building selection
Usability Inspection
Short term use
Danger Caution Safety
Damage classification
Long term use
Design
Strengthening Repair Re-use Demolition
Measures
Works
Existing build.
assessment
.
Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
DIPARTIMENTO DEI SERVIZI
TECNICI NAZIONALI
Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
DIPARTIMENTO NAZIONALE DELLA PROTEZIONE CIVILE
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
GRUPPO NAZIONALE PER LA
DIFESA DAI TERREMOTI
N G
D T
1 LEVEL FORM FOR POST-EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE AND USABILITY ASSESSMENT
AND EMERGENCY MEASURES IN RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
(AeDES 05/2000)
SECTION 1 Building identification
Province: ___________________________ Surveyor |__|__|__| day month year
Form n.|__|__|__|__| Date__|____|____|__|
Municipality:
___________________________
Istat Reg. Istat Prov. Istat Municip. Aggregate num. Building num.
Locality:
___________________________ |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__
|
|__|__|__|
Istat Locality code
|__|__|__|__|
Tipo carta
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Istat Census code
|__|__|__|
N carta
|__|__|__|__|
Land Register Foglio |__|__|__ Allegato |__|__|
Number |__|__|__|__|
Particelle
|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|
Address
1 Street
2 Road
3 Alley
4 Square
5 Other
Building location 1 Isolated 2 Internal 3 End 4 Corner .
Building name or
owner name |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
Code Use
|S | | |
Sketch of structural aggregate and building location
SECTION 2 Building description
Metrical data Age Use
Use Numb.of
units in
use
Utilisation in
percentage
Occupants
Total
number of
stories
Average
interstory
height
[m]
Average floor area
[m
2
]
Costruction
age and
strengthening
[max 2]
A Residential
|__|__|
1 9 1 2.50 A 50 I 400 500 1 1919
B Production
|__|__|
A > 65%
2 10 2 2.503.50 B 50 70 L 500 650 2 19 45 C Business |__|__|
B 3065%
3 11 3 3.505.0 C 70 100 M 650 900 3 46 61 D Offices |__|__|
C < 30%
4 12 4 > 5.0 D 100 130 N 900 1200 4 62 71 E Public |__|__|
D Non in use
5 >12 E 130 170 O 1200 1600 5 72 81
F Storage
|__|__|
E In constr.
6 Undergr. stories F 170 230 P 1600 2200 6 82 91 G Strategic |__|__|
F Unfinished
7
A 0 C 2
G 230 300 Q 2200 3000 7 92 01 H Turistic
|__|__|
G Abandon
8
B 1 D 3
H 300 400 R > 3000 8 2002
Ownership A Public B Private
INSPECTION DATA
Request code |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
100 10 1
0 0 0
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5
6 6 6
7 7 7
8 8 8
9 9 9
.
Istat Province |__|__|__| Istat Municip. |__|__|__| Surveyor N|__|__| Form N|__|__|__|__|__| Date__|____|____|__
SECTION 3 Building Type (multichoice; max 2.)
A B C D E F G H
1 Unknown
SI
2 Vaults without ties
G1 H1
3 Vaults with ties
4 Flexible floors
NO G2 H2
5 Semirigid floors
6 Rigid floors
G3 H3
Without
ties or tie
beams
Irregular layout
or bad quality
(stones, pebble,..)
Regular layout
and good quality
(Hwen stones, bricks,..)
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
With ties
or tie
beams
Without
ties or tie
beams
With ties or
tie beams I
s
o
l
a
t
e
d
c
o
l
u
m
n
s
Masonry buildings
Vertical
structures
Horizontal Structures
M
i
x
t
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
e
d
Irregular Regular
A B
1
Plan and
elevation
2
Cladding
distribution
R.c. or steel structures
R.c. frames
R.c. shear walls
Steel frames
REGULARITY
Roofs
1 Heavy and thrusting
2 Heavy and non thrusting
3 Light and thrusting
4 Light and non thrusting
SECTION 4 Damage to Structural Elements and existing emergency measures
A B C D E F G H I L A B C D E F
1 Vertical structures
2 Horizontal structures
3 Stairs
4 Roofs
5 Claddings and partitions
6 Pre-existing damage
N
o
n
e
R
e
m
o
v
a
l
T
i
e
s
R
e
p
a
i
r
B
a
r
r
i
e
r
o
r
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
Damage level
and extension
Structural
component -
Pre-existing damage
>
2
/
3
1
/
3
-
2
/
3
<
1
/
3
>
2
/
3
1
/
3
-
2
/
3
<
1
/
3
>
2
/
3
1
/
3
-
2
/
3
<
1
/
3
D4-D5
Very Heavy
D2-D3
Severe
D1
Light
DAMAGE
(1)
EXISTING EMERGENCY MEASURES
N
u
l
l
P
r
o
p
p
i
n
g
(1) - The damage extension must be filled only if the corresponding damage level is present in the building.
SECTION 5 Damage to Non-structural Elements and existing emergency measures
A B C D E F G
1 Falling of plaster, coverings, false-ceilings
2 Falling of tiles, chimneys...
3 Falling of ledges, parapets, canopies
4 Falling of other internal or external objects
5 Damage to hydraulic or sewage plant
6 Damage to electric or gas plant
None Removal Propping Repair No entry
EXISTING EMERGENCY MEASURES
PRESENT
Damage
Barrier or
protection
SECTION 6 Falling objects from other buildings and existing emergency measures
Building Entry road Lateral roads No entry
Barriers or passing
protection
A B C D E
1 Object falling from adjacent buildings
2 Lifelines damage