3/18/2018

Pre‐Earthquake Inspection of Existing Buildings Rapid Visual Screening Procedure (RVS)
(Pre‐earthquake Evaluation of Buildings)
RAPID VISUAL SCREENING OF EXISTING BUILDINGS
References: 
Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings For Potential 
Seismic Hazards ‐ Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA154/155) & Applied Technology Council
(ATC 21) 

Bohol EQ 2013
: LOIUHGR6/RSH]IDVHSISLFH
3ULQFLSDO(QJLQHHU: 6/2 3(=(QJLQHHULQJ6HUYLFHV
3DVW3UHVLGHQW$6(3

Rapid Visual Screening Procedure (RVS) Rapid Visual Screening Procedure (RVS)

‐ Used by Private Organizations, Government  Target Audience:
Agencies and the US Army Corps of 
Engineers to evaluate more than 70,000 Local Building Officials
buildings in the US (ATC 2002)
Professional Engineers
‐ Used by JICA/PHIVOLCS during the MMEIRS Registered Architects
Building Owners
‐ Used by the DPWH TF Building Inspection  Emergency Managers
to evaluate more than 2,000 buildings in MM
Interested Citizens
 3/18/2018

Rapid Visual Screening Procedure (RVS) Rapid Visual Screening Procedure (RVS)
Sidewalk Survey of a Building using Data 
A first step in giving concerned local  Collection Form which enables the user to
governments and citizens guidance in categorized buildings such as :
developing a practical approach to a  ‐ those acceptable as to risk to life safety
very serious problem!! ‐ those that may be seismically hazardous
and should be evaluated in more 
Preliminary Screening Phase for identifying detail by a design professional 
hazardous buildings. experienced in seismic design to 
determine, if in fact, they are 
seismically hazardous

The purpose of RVS is to identify potentially RVS Application > Frame Structure 
hazardous (vulnerable) buildings such as:   • Large window span
1. older buildings designed and constructed   • Openings on many  sides
• Apparent column‐beam        
before the adoption  of adequate seismic 
grid patterns
design and detailing requirements
2.    buildings on soft or poor soils
3. buildings having performance characteristics 
that  negatively influence their seismic 
response 
 3/18/2018

RVS Application > Wall Structure 
• Small window span
• At least two mostly‐solid walls
• Relatively thick load‐bearing walls

'DWD&ROOHFWLRQ)RUP

+ DUP RQL]HG)RUP IRU

5DSLG9LVXDO6FUHHQLQJ
RI%XLOGLQJVIRU
3RWHQWLDO6HLVP LF
+ D]DUGV(4 53)RUP
%DVHGIURP )(0 $

3UHYDLOLQJ%XLOGLQJ7\SHVLQWKH3KLOLSSLQHVDV
KDUP RQL]HGE\83,&(DQG3,&($6(3GXULQJWKH
(DUWKTXDNH 6HYHUH: LQG9XOQHUDELOLW\: RUNVKRS
FRQGXFWHGE\3KLYROFVLQ0 DUFKDW7DJD\WD\&LW\
 3/18/2018

Soil Type E is the  
default type.

For one‐ or two‐ story

buildings with roof height
equal to or less than 7.5
m. (25 ft) assume Soil
Type D if soil conditions
are not known. 
 3/18/2018

Falling Hazards

3UHYDLOLQJ%XLOGLQJ7\SHVLQWKH3KLOLSSLQHV

Bohol EQ 2013
 3/18/2018

: /5² Z RRGOLJKWIUDP HUHVLGHQWLDORU

FRP P HUFLDOEXLOGLQJOHVVWKDQRU
HTXDOWRVP
: /² Z RRGOLJKWIUDP HUHVLGHQWLDORU
Bohol EQ 2013
FRP P HUFLDOLQGXVWULDOEXLOGLQJP RUH
WKDQVP
: /5² EDP ERRUHVLGHQWLDOEXLOGLQJ

1 HJURV2 ULHQWDO(4 

Bohol EQ 2013
 3/18/2018

6 VWHHOP RP HQWUHVLVWLQJIUDP HV

6/² VWHHOP RP HQWUHVLVWLQJIUDP H
WRVWRULHV

60 ² VWHHOP RP HQWUHVLVWLQJIUDP H

WRVWRULHV

6+ ² VWHHOP RP HQWUHVLVWLQJIUDP H

WRVWRULHV

Steel Moment‐Resisting Frame

S1
Basic  6/² VWHHOEUDFHGIUDP HWRVWRULHV
score: 
2.8 60 ² VWHHOEUDFHIUDP HWRVWRULHV

6+ ² VWHHOEUDFHIUDP HWRVWRULHV

 3/18/2018

6 6WHHO%UDFHG)UDP HV
S2 = steel braced frames

%DVLFVFRUH


6 OLJKWP HWDOEXLOGLQJV

6/² VWHHO/LJKWP HWDOEXLOGLQJ

 3/18/2018

6 VWHHOIUDP HVZ LWK

FRQFUHWHVKHDUZ DOOV
6/² VWHHOIUDP HZ LWKFRQFUHWHVKHDUZ DOO
WRVWRULHV

60 ² VWHHOIUDP HZ LWKFRQFUHWHVKHDUZ DOO

WRVWRULHV
6+ ² VWHHOIUDP HZ LWKFRQFUHWHVKHDUZ DOO
WRVWRULHV

&: 6/5² FRQFUHWHKROORZ EORFNVZ LWKOLWWOH &/² FRQFUHWHP RP HQWUHVLVWLQJIUDP H

UHLQIRUFHP HQWVDWJURXQGIORRUDQG WRVWRULHV
HLWKHUZ RRGRUOLJKWP HWDODWXSSHU
IORRU WRVWRULHV &0 ² FRQFUHWHP RP HQWUHVLVWLQJIUDP H
WRVWRULHV
&+ %/5² FRQFUHWHKROORZ EORFNVZ LWKOLWWOH
UHLQIRUFHP HQWVWRVWRULHV &+ ² FRQFUHWHP RP HQWUHVLVWLQJIUDP H
WRVWRULHV
 3/18/2018

&RQFUHWH0 RP HQW5HVLVWLQJ
)UDP H

& FRQFUHWHP RP HQW C1

UHVLVWLQJIUDP HV

C2 = concrete shear wall buildings

&/² FRQFUHWHVKHDUZ DOOEXLOGLQJWRVWRULHV

&0 ² FRQFUHWHVKHDUZ DOOEXLOGLQJWRVWRULHV
&+ ² FRQFUHWHVKHDUZ DOOEXLOGLQJWRVWRULHV
&9² FRQFUHWHVKHDUZ DOOEXLOGLQJWRVWRULHV
&(² FRQFUHWHVKHDUZ DOOEXLOGLQJWRVWRULHV
&6² FRQFUHWHVKHDUZ DOOEXLOGLQJVWRULHV DERYH
 3/18/2018

&&RQFUHWH6KHDU: DOO

&/² FRQFUHWHVKHDUZ DOO IUDP HEXLOGLQJ

WRVWRULHVP D\GLIIHULQWKHWZ R
SULQFLSDOGLUHFWLRQV
&0 ² FRQFUHWHVKHDUZ DOO IUDP HEXLOGLQJ
WRVWRULHVP D\GLIIHULQWKHWZ R
SULQFLSDOGLUHFWLRQV

3& WLOWXSEXLOGLQJV
3&/² FRQFUHWHSUHFDVWWLOWXSEXLOGLQJ
WRVWRULHV
 3/18/2018

PC2 = precast concrete frames

3&/² FRQFUHWHSUHFDVWEXLOGLQJ WRVWRULHV

3&0 ² FRQFUHWHSUHFDVWEXLOGLQJ WRVWRULHV

Precast/prestressed concrete buildings failed due
3&3UHFDVW&RQFUHWH)UDP H To inadequate connections     

1986 Armenia EQ
 3/18/2018

50  UHLQIRUFHGP DVRQU\EXLOGLQJV
Z LWKIOH[LEOHGLDSKUDJP V
50 /² FRQFUHWHKROORZ EORFNVZ LWKIOH[LEOH
GLDSKUDJP WRVWRULHV

50 /² FRQFUHWHKROORZ EORFNVZ LWKULJLG

GLDSKUDJP WRVWRULHV
50 0 ² FRQFUHWHKROORZ EORFNVZ LWKULJLG
GLDSKUDJP WRVWRULHV

50 5HLQIRUFHGP DVRQU\EXLOGLQJVZ LWK

ULJLGGLDSKUDJP V
850 /² EULFNVWRVWRULHV

856/² VWRQHROGVW\OHODUJHVWRQHEORFNV
Z LWKRXWVWHHOUHLQIRUFHP HQWV
 3/18/2018

850  EULFNV 856/² VWRQHROGVW\OHODUJHVWRQHEORFNVZ LWKRXWVWHHO

UHLQIRUFHP HQWV

%DVLF6WUXFWXUDO+ D]DUG%6+ 6FRUH² GHSHQGVRQ

WKHW\SHRIEXLOGLQJDQGLWLVDP HDVXUHRIWKH
SUREDELOLW\RIFROODSVHRIWKHEXLOGLQJ
 3/18/2018

3(5)2 50 $1 &(0 2 ',),&$7,2 1 )$&72 56 3(5)2 50 $1 &(0 2 ',),&$7,2 1 )$&72 56

3HUIRUP DQFH0 RGLILFDWLRQ)DFWRUVRU0 RGLILHUV²

IDFWRUVWKDWP RGLILHVE\SHQDOWLHVRUERQXVHVWKH
%6+ VFRUH7KHVHIDFWRUVDUHDVVRFLDWHGZ LWKWKH
VWUXFWXUDOSHUIRUP DQFHRIHDFKEXLOGLQJW\SH,W
DFFRXQWVIRUWKHSHUFHLYHGGHILFLHQFLHVRUVWUHQJWKV
VXFKDVGHVLJQOHYHODJHFRQGLWLRQDQG
FRQILJXUDWLRQ

6FRUH0 RGLILHUV
7<3,&$/'(),&,(1 &,(62 )%8,/',1 *6 9HUWLFDO,UUHJXODULWLHV
$%DVLF&RQILJXUDWLRQ3UREOHP 
9HUWLFDO,UUHJXODULWLHV
buildings with 
6RIWVWRUH\
$IWHU)(0 $
setbacks, hillside 
6HWEDFNV buildings, and 
+ LOOVLGHEXLOGLQJ buildings with 
6KRUW&ROXP Q(IIHFW soft stories 
: HDNFROXP Q6WURQJEHDP
$IWHU)(0 $
3RXQGLQJ
/DUJH&DQWLOHYHUV
 3/18/2018

Vertical Configuration Problems: Soft Storey

Soft Story Failure Mechanism

Vertical Configuration: Short Column Effect

Short Column Effect
 3/18/2018

TYPICAL DEFICIENCIES OF BUILDINGS Plan Configuration: Non –symmetrical plan
B. Plan Irregularities 

Plan Configuration: Non –symmetrical plan Plan Configuration: Asymmetry in Stiffness
 3/18/2018

Plan Configuration: Asymmetry in Stiffness

Torsional Forces

Performance Modification Factors Performance Modification Factors
The Philippine Seismic Code was issued by the
Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines 
(ASEP) in 1972. Before 1972, it is assumed that 
“Pre‐Code” = applicable to buildings designed Structural Engineers adopted the US code in the 
and constructed prior to the initial  design of buildings.  However, the applicability of 
adoption and enforcement of seismic  this US Code (first issued in 1941) could not be 
codes applicable for that building type. verified. Therefore, it is assumed that the default 
year is 1972.  
Buildings constructed before 1972 have no
applicable seismic provisions
 3/18/2018

PERFORMANCE MODIFICATION FACTORS
Post‐Benchmark Year – refers to the year
the substantially improved seismic
codes were adopted. 
For reinforced concrete: 1992 – the 
year NSCP 4th Ed. was issued  Performance Modification Factors

For structural steel: 1992 (NSCP 4th Ed) 
For wood: 1981 (NSCP 2nd Ed.) 

Final Structural Score

If Final Score is 2.0 & below, Detailed
Evaluation (Second Level) is required

If Final Score is above 2.0, Detailed
Evaluation is not required. No further 
action is necessary
 3/18/2018

+ DUP RQL]HG)RUP IRU

5DSLG9LVXDO6FUHHQLQJ
RI%XLOGLQJVIRU Sketch
3RWHQWLDO6HLVP LF
+ D]DUGV(4 53)RUP
%DVHGIURP )(0 $
s

If S > 2 : Detailed Evaluation is not required

If S <= 2 : Detailed Evaluation is required

Comments

6XP P DU\ Why Detailed Evaluation is necessary?

Buildings found inadequate based on FEMA 
154 Procedure (PICE/ASEP EQRP), rating<=   To avoid declaring unsafe buildings as safe.
2.0, must be elevated to the second level of 
screening (Detailed Evaluation). To avoid declaring safe buildings as unsafe.

Detailed Evaluation may be done through 
verification of As‐built conditions, site soil
condition, structural computations, etc.  
 3/18/2018

7 KDQ N\RXIRU\RXUDWWHQ WLRQ 

WORKSHOP FOLLOWS