Development of an index assignment procedure compatible with the regional seismicity in the province of Quebec for the rapid visual screening of existing buildings

Karbassi, Amin; Nollet, Marie‐José

doi:10.1139/l08-041

Cited by 20 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Building in large area General technical Heuristic Heurisitc Carreno et al (2006) Mitigation programme Inventory data Tesfamariam & Wang(2011) Global/regional risk analyis Economic Index Karbassi & Nollet (2008) Urban /Mega cities studies Social Index Microzonation Sucuoglu & Yazgan (2003) Portfolio of buildings Maps Davison and Shah (1997) Resource allocation Miyasato et al (1986) Financing/insurance Fruta et al (1991) IV Screening…”

Section: Classification Of Seismic Risk Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Seismic Risk Management: A System-Based Perspective

Vahdat

Smith

Amiri

2014

Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The deployment of seismic risk management is fraught with issues of complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty which pose critical challenges in assessing, modelling and management. The complexity of earthquake impacts and the uncertain nature of information necessitate establishing a risk management system to address the risk of many the effects of seismic events in a reliable and realistic way. This study was launched to review and criticize appropriate risk assessment methods for different seismic applications focusing on general characteristics from a systems perspective. The outcome of this study demonstrates the importance of a system perspective, providing a deeper insight into the background characteristics and the potential challenges involved within seismic risk management. This allows users to compare various systems and to choose the most appropriate approach according to the scope, size, accuracy and complexity of the application.

show abstract

Section: Classification Of Seismic Risk Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, great amount of uncertainty can be imported into the model due to variability between the observed and actual data. Other shortcomings of screening models are addressed in the literature (Rojhan 1986;Karbassi and Nollet 2008). The scoring model and its weight are pre-set and provided for facilities in California.…”

Section: Screening Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic Risk Management: A System-Based Perspective

Vahdat

Smith

Amiri

2014

Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These curves are deemed appropriate for the Canadian context with some rare exceptions, as for example old cut-stone masonry buildings (Karbassi and Nollet 2008). To further assess if these curves are appropriate for school buildings in Quebec, fundamental periods from ambient vibration measurements taken at over 70 school buildings were compared to the linear elastic part of the capacity curves for concrete shear wall and frame with infill wall building types.…”

Section: Development Of the School Screening Tool For The Province Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adapting a rapid seismic screening method for the evaluation of school buildings

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The poor seismic performance of schools has made their assessment and retrofit a priority in moderate and high seismic zones. Given the large building inventory to evaluate, rapid seismic screening methods are often implemented to prioritize detailed interventions. This paper describes schools' specific characteristics to be considered when applying these procedures, and shows how the FEMA154 approach can be modified to consider them. The adapted method is a score assignment procedure based on the following six essential characteristics: seismicity, lateral load resisting system, construction year, potential structural weaknesses (or irregularities), potential for pounding of adjacent buildings, and local soil conditions. The method is illustrated with case studies, applied to 101 school buildings in Quebec. Results show that most of the parameters considered influence the final scores. In particular, the treatment of structural weaknesses and potential for pounding proved effective in differentiating the likely seismic performance of the buildings. Résumé :Les performances sismiques des écoles étant mauvaises, il est impératif de les évaluer et de les mettre à jour dans les zones de sismicité modérée ou élevée. Étant donné le nombre important d'édifices à inspecter, des méthodes rapides d'évaluation sismique sont souvent mises en oeuvre afin de donner la priorité aux interventions minutieuses. Le présent article décrit les caracté-ristiques spécifiques des écoles devant être prises en considération lors de l'application de ces procédures et explique comment la méthode FEMA154 peut être modifiée pour tenir compte de ces caractéristiques. La méthode adaptée est une procédure de notation basée sur les six principales caractéristiques suivantes : la sismicité, le système de résistance aux charges latérales, l'année de construction, les éventuelles faiblesses (ou irrégularités) structurales, le risque de martèlement avec des bâtiments contigus et les conditions locales de sol. La méthode est illustrée par des études de cas portant sur 101 bâtiments scolaires au Québec. Les résultats montrent que la plupart des paramètres pris en compte influent sur les évaluations finales. Le traitement des faiblesses structurales et du risque de martèlement, en particulier, s'est révélé efficace pour différencier la performance sismique supposée des bâtiments. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

show abstract

“…The median of these maximum values was calculated for each region and used for the score calculations. The median values and the basic structural hazard scores and modifiers were recalculated [34] considering the seismicity of Québec's cities and towns as specified in the 2005 edition of the NBC [35], considering the same spectral acceleration limits for the three seismicity regions.…”

Section: Procedures Behind Score Calculationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of North American Seismic Screening Methods Applied to School Buildings

Tischer¹,

Mitchell²,

McClure³

2012

JCEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An ongoing project at McGill University is aimed at developing an adapted seismic screening method for schools in the province of Québec, Canada. As part of this project the "FEMA154 Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazard" and the "NRC92 Manual for Screening of Buildings for Seismic Investigation" were used to assess 102 school buildings located in the city of Montréal. Results for both methods are in reasonable agreement, with 65% of the buildings requiring a detailed evaluation according to FEMA154 and 50% according to NRC92. Findings highlighted the particular characteristics of educational facilities: they are low rise buildings with high incidence of structural irregularities. Accounting for them in the screening phase is essential, and is better achieved by NRC92. However, this method is largely based on expert opinion, which makes it difficult to update, while FEMA154 uses a rational methodology for calculating vulnerability scores based on the capacity spectrum approach. The FEMA154 analytical procedure allows updating and adapting the method to its use outside its intended scope.

show abstract

Development of an index assignment procedure compatible with the regional seismicity in the province of Quebec for the rapid visual screening of existing buildings

Cited by 20 publications

References 9 publications

Seismic Risk Management: A System-Based Perspective

Seismic Risk Management: A System-Based Perspective

Adapting a rapid seismic screening method for the evaluation of school buildings

Comparison of North American Seismic Screening Methods Applied to School Buildings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About