Improved Tools for Disaster Risk Mitigation in Algeria ITERATE · identify the non-structural...

ECHO/SUB/2016/740181/PREV23 – ITERATE – Improved Tools for Disaster Risk Mitigation in Algeria

Project co-funded by ECHO – Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection

Improved Tools for Disaster Risk Mitigation in Algeria

ITERATE

Deliverable E.3

Guidelines for non-structural elements survey and inventory



Author IUSS Pavia Daniele Perrone Andre Filiatrault

Ricardo Monteiro Date December 2018

Review FEUP Smail Kechidi José Miguel Castro

Date December 2018



Table of Contents

1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................62. Non-structuralelementsclassification..................................................................................7

3. Non-structuralelementssurveyandinventory...................................................................93.1. SurveyFormforregionalscalestudies........................................................................................9

3.2. Survey form for assessment and mitigation of non-structural elements in singlebuildings..........................................................................................................................................................11

3.3. Surveyformforassessmentandretrofitofspecificnon-structuralelements..............13

4. Frameworkfortheexpectedlossestimationofnon-structuralelements.................144.1. Methodology.....................................................................................................................................14

4.2. Non-structuraldamagestatesandfragilityfunctions..........................................................16

4.3. Repaircostsandconsequencefunctions..................................................................................17

5. Conclusions..................................................................................................................................19

6. Bibliography................................................................................................................................20Appendix1............................................................................................................................................22

Appendix2............................................................................................................................................23



Table of Figures Figure 1. Classification of non-structural elements: a) Architectural components, b) Mechanical

equipment, c) Furniture, fixtures and contents.......................................................................... 7Figure 2. Classification of non-structural elements: a) Acceleration-Sensitive, b) Displacement-

Sensitive. ................................................................................................................................. 8Figure 3. Loss Estimation Framework [from O’Reilly et al. 2018]................................................. 15

Figure 4. Building Damage estimation process [from HAZUS Technical Manual 2012] ................ 16



Table of Tables

Table 1: Survey form at regional scale ........................................................................................... 10Table 2: Survey form for buildings ................................................................................................ 11Table 3: Median Values of the Drift ratios for drift-sensitive non-structural elements .................... 17

Table 4: Median Values of the for acceleration-sensitive non-structural elements .......................... 17

6



1. INTRODUCTION Recent major earthquakes pointed out the strategic role of non-structural elements after a seismic event. During many earthquakes that have struck densely built regions in the twentieth century (Filiatrault et al., 2001; Chock et al., 2006; Gupta and McDonald, 2008; Miranda et al. 2012, Perrone et al., 2018), it has been observed that non-structural elements significantly affect the reparation costs and the immediate functionality of buildings after an earthquake. Non-structural elements are not part of the load-bearing system but are nonetheless subject to the same dynamic environment of a building during an earthquake. Many typologies of non-structural elements can be founded in buildings based on their occupancy. According to Miranda and Taghavi (2003), non-structural elements represent most of the total investments in typical buildings. In hospital buildings, for example, the structures make up approximately only 8% of the total monetary investments while 44% and 48% is related to the non-structural and content costs, respectively. The damage observed during past earthquakes showed that damage in non-structural elements occurs for seismic intensities much lower than those required to produce structural damage. This is not surprising considering that non-structural elements typically incorporate primitive seismic design based on prescriptive empirical regulations and guidelines (Filiatrault and Sullivan, 2014). In addition to the direct losses, the damage to non-structural elements could also affects the indirect losses due for example to the downtime of a building. Some examples could be the destruction of computers/data, rupturing or failure of piping systems, and damage to HVAC systems. This interruption in functionality can be costly in terms of both money and life. For example, following the 2010 Maule Earthquake (Zareian et al. 2012), significant damage to fermentation tanks and stacked storage barrels were reported in wine factories. This damage caused the wine production to shut down for several weeks, with enormous consequences to the Chilean economy. Many efforts have been done in the last years to develop advanced or simplified methodologies in order to evaluate the earthquake related losses and to ensure a desired building performance for a given intensity of seismic excitation (Welch et al. 2014). The FEMA P-58 (FEMA, 2012a) methodology is probably the most developed procedure to perform the probabilistic seismic assessment of a building performance. In the FEMA P-58 framework, the influence of the non-structural elements is detailed taking into account the fragilities and consequence functions for many typologies of non-structural elements. The complexity of this methodology makes it not suitable for regional scale studies. For this reason, the one foreseen in HAZUS is preferred to predict the expected annual losses for a building portfolio (FEMA, 2012b). The HAZUS methodology allows to evaluate the expected annual losses of a building portfolio with a simplified approach. Despite some questionable assumptions, in particular for non-structural elements, this methodology is one of the most adopted tools for regional applications. This report describes a preliminary framework for the assessment of the seismic performance of non-structural elements of typical Algerian buildings. To this aim, Section 2 provides a general classification of the non-structural elements, while Section 3 suggests a procedure to generate a non-structural taxonomy by means of simple survey forms. Finally, despite not within the scope of the ITERATE project, a general framework to assess the expected annual losses ratio considering the influence of non-structural elements is described. In particular, the approach suggested by the HAZUS methodology is used as a starting point, providing some suggestions for its improvement.

7



2. NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS CLASSIFICATION Many typologies of non-structural elements can be found in buildings. For this reason, the development of a detailed non-structural taxonomy is the first step in loss estimation studies both for single buildings and building portfolios. According to FEMA E-74 (FEMA, 2011), there are three general categories that encompass the non-structural elements (Figure 1):

• Architectural Elements: Any form of architectural decoration including features such as partitions, ceilings, and veneers.

• Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Elements: Elements designed by engineers for necessary building functions. This category contains elements such as distribution systems, pumps, chillers, and transformers.

• Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment, and Contents: Any object or item that is not covered under the preceding two categories. This can vary greatly based on the structure’s usage. Examples include shelving, computers, storage racks, chemicals, hazardous materials, museum artefacts, and books.

a) b) c)

Figure 1. Classification of non-structural elements: a) Architectural elements, b) Mechanical equipment, c) Furniture, fixtures and contents.

For seismic damage assessment purposes, non-structural elements could be also classified based on the engineering demand parameter to which they are sensitive. Two categories are identified: “acceleration-sensitive” and “displacement-sensitive” non-structural elements (Figure 2). Damage to acceleration-sensitive non-structural elements is mainly caused by inertia forces arising from horizontal and/or vertical accelerations at various levels in the supporting structure, causing overturning or excessive sliding/displacement of the elements. Examples of acceleration-sensitive non-structural elements are suspended building utility systems, such as piping systems and cable trays, and anchored or free-standing building utility systems or contents. Damage to displacement-sensitive non-structural elements is mainly caused by inter-storey displacements or drifts in the supporting structure, causing excessive distortions in the elements. Examples of displacement-sensitive non-structural elements are architectural elements, such as windows, partitions, and other items that are tightly attached into the supporting structure. Most code-based seismic design provisions implicitly consider both acceleration-sensitive elements, by specifying equivalent static design forces, and displacement-sensitive elements, by imposing drift limits on the supporting structure or relative displacements limit between the elements and the supporting structure. Due to lack of information, current seismic design provisions are empirical in nature and lack clear definitions of performance objectives under specific seismic hazard levels (NIST, 2018).

8



a) b)

Figure 2. Classification of non-structural elements: a) Acceleration-Sensitive, b) Displacement-Sensitive.

The combination of the two classification approaches described above provides the key parameters required to develop a taxonomy for non-structural elements. This taxonomy could be implemented in loss estimation framework to increase the prediction capabilities of regional risk models. The three general categories provided by FEMA E-74 could be used to identify, based on the building occupancy, the non-structural elements that could be found in a building. For each of the non-structural elements identified according to this general classification, the engineering demand parameter governing the dynamic response should be defined according to the second classification approach. The information available in the structural and non-structural taxonomy should then be combined to obtain all the data required to develop the regional risk models.

9



3. NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS SURVEY AND INVENTORY The first step in the introduction of non-structural elements in the loss estimation framework consists in the preparation of a survey plan. The survey of facilities will help to identify the non-structural elements that may be vulnerable to earthquake damage, as well as to identify possible mitigation strategies. The survey plan can be organized in different levels based on the scope of the study. Three levels of survey can be identified:

1. Regional scale 2. Assessment and retrofit of single building 3. Assessment and retrofit of specific non-structural element.

In the next sections, a survey form is developed and proposed for each of the three survey levels. For regional scale studies, it is not possible to conduct detailed surveys in order to identify and quantify all non-structural elements, but a simplified procedure could be adopted. As will be discussed in detail in Section 3.1, a simple survey form is proposed in this project. The form was developed according to the FEMA 74 methodology already available in the U.S. (FEMA, 2005). Based on the data collected during the survey, it is possible to group the non-structural elements into several categories, such as drift- or acceleration-sensitive non-structural elements and to assign to each of them adequate fragility and consequence functions. Even though the ITERATE project is devoted to the disaster risk mitigation at the regional scale in Algeria, two more detailed survey schemes are provided in Sections 3.2 and 3.3. The proposed survey forms will be useful in the future for more detailed studies and to better understand the influence of the non-structural elements in the loss estimation framework. The application of the detailed procedures could also be useful to develop a more sophisticated database related to the non-structural elements that could be used to improve the prediction capabilities of the regional risk models. Appendix 1 reports the results of a preliminary investigation that has been carried out in order to identify the non-structural elements generally included in the building typologies identified in Deliverable DC1. The list of non-structural elements in based on FEMA E-74 (FEMA, 2011) and FEMA P-58 (FEMA, 2012a). FEMA E-74 is the more detailed document available worldwide for the reduction of the non-structural earthquake damage. In this document, survey and mitigation strategies are provided for many typologies of non-structural elements. From the results reported in Appendix 1, it is possible to state that for the building classes analyzed in this project, the non-structural elements database is independent from the building taxonomy defined in Deliverable DC1. This result is a direct consequence of the fact that the non-structural elements are mainly related to the building occupancy and not to the structural typology.

3.1. Survey form for regional scale studies The development of a non-structural elements’ inventory for regional loss estimation studies could significantly improve the prediction capabilities of regional risk models. The HAZUS methodology accounts for the economic losses related to non-structural elements as a percentage of the building replacement cost and distinguish between drift-sensitive and acceleration-sensitive non-structural elements. Following the same procedure, a simple survey form is proposed in this section in order to

10



approximately define the quantities and the costs related to the non-structural elements in typical building classes (Table 1).

Table 1: Survey form at regional scale

The data required to fill the form is the following:

- Address: This information is required for the identification of the building; - Inspector: Name of the technician/staff that performed the survey; - Building typology according to the taxonomy defined in DC1: This information is required

because a different replacement cost is associated to each building typology; - Occupancy: The building occupancy/use should be defined in this field; - Description: The name or a short description of each surveyed non-structural element should

be added; - Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP): This information is used to classify the non-

structural element based on the demand parameter at which they are sensible. Two option are provided according to the HAZUS and FEMA procedures: Drift-Sensitive and Acceleration-Sensitive;

- Approximate quantity per m2: An approximate quantification of the quantity of non-structural elements is required in order to evaluate their influence on the replacement costs;

- Approximate cost per m2: An approximate quantification of the costs of non-structural elements is required in order to evaluate their influence on the replacement costs;

11



- Mitigation details: In this field, it is required to specify if mitigation details, for the non-structural element under consideration, were implemented or not. This issue modifies the damage thresholds associated to the element;

- Notes: Any comment about the analyzed non-structural element.

3.2. Survey form for assessment and mitigation of non-structural elements in single buildings

A more detailed survey form is required to perform the assessment and the retrofit of non-structural elements of specific buildings. The results of detailed surveys could be used to verify the effectiveness of the taxonomy developed using the simplified approach as well as to populate the regional-scale form. Table 2 presents the survey form proposed for the assessment of the non-structural elements of a specific building. The data required in the form can be divided in three main typologies: general data for the classification and quantification of the non-structural elements, evaluation of the risk associated to the failure of the non-structural elements, and damage mitigation strategy.

Table 2: Survey form for buildings

The data requested in the survey form are listed below:

- Building Name and Address: This information is required for the identification of the building; - Inspector: Name of the technician/staff that performed the survey; - Building typology according to the taxonomy defined in DC1: This information is required

because at each building typology is associated a different replacement cost; - Occupancy: The building occupancy/use should be defined in this field; - Floor: Floor at which the non-structural element is installed;

LS PL LF NE PR ER

Signature:

Description Quantity Detail TypeAssociated Risk LevelUnitsFloor Room Approximate Cost

NON-STRUCTURAL INVENTORY SURVEY FORM

Building Name: ___________________________________________________________ Inspector: __________________________

Address: ________________________________________________________________ Date: _____________________________

Notes

Building typology according to the taxonomy defined in DC1:______________________ Occupancy: ________________________

12



- Room: Location of the non-structural element in the floor. This parameter is particularly useful for non-residential building in which each room is destined to a specific activity;

- Description: Name or short description of the surveyed non-structural element; - Quantity: Quantity of the non-structural element; - Unit: Units used to quantify the non-structural element (i.e. each, m, m2); - Approximate cost: Approximate quantification of the replacement cost associated to the non-

structural element; - Associated risk level: this information is used to evaluate the potential consequences of

earthquake damage to non-structural elements. Three consequences are identified: o Life Safety (LS): it is the risk of direct injury by failure of the item o Property Loss (PL): it is the risk of incurring a cost to repair or replace the item as a

result of damage incurred o Functional Loss (FL): it is the risk that the item will not function as a result of the

damage incurred; For each consequence, three risk levels could be associated: High (H), Medium (M) and Low (L). More details on how to define the risk level could be found in FEMA E-74 (FEMA, 2011).

- Detail type: this section is related to the definition of the mitigation details that could be adopted to improve the seismic performance of non-structural elements. If mitigation details are not required, this field should not be filled. In the notes, it should be specified which typology of mitigation details are already installed. This form does not provide a specific mitigation measure for each typology of non-structural element, but the inspector should specify in which of the following category the required mitigation measurements follow:

o Non-Engineered (NE): Non-engineered design relies on mitigation details that do not require engineering design to determinate the requirements. An example of non-structural mitigation that can be implemented without an engineer is the installation of restraints for the contents of shelves.

o Prescriptive Requirements (PR): Prescriptive design relies on standard methods that have been developed for use in mitigating specific types of non-structural elements. For each of these types of elements, standard restraint details have been developed and can be implemented without the need for an engineer. It is important to make sure that item falls within the bounds of prescriptive requirements in terms of size, weight, etc. (FEMA, 2011).

o Engineering Required (ER): Engineering design, as the name implies, requires design by an engineer. The mitigation should be designed by an engineer experienced in seismic design of non-structural elements. The engineer will use building codes and guidelines to determinate the requirements for supporting, considering the earthquake forces, the structural capacities of the restraint and the structural framing. An example of mitigation detail that requires the engineering design is the definition of a bracing system for suspend piping systems.

More details on how to define which of the three typology of mitigation details is required can be found in e.g. FEMA 74 (FEMA, 2005).

13



3.3. Survey form for assessment and retrofit of specific non-structural elements

Appendix 2 reports four examples of specific survey forms for typical non-structural elements installed in many typologies of buildings. With respect to the survey forms discussed in the previous sections, the forms presented in Appendix 2 are specifically defined for a single typology of non-structural element. These element-specific survey forms could be used to prioritize the mitigation measurements in specific buildings as well as to obtain details data about the fragility and consequence functions. In particular, a survey form for: 1) infill panel, 2) ceiling systems, 3) piping systems and 4) suspended elements are provided. The forms are divided in six main sections as follows:

- Definition: a general description of the non-structural element is provided. A photograph of the non-structural element as well as of the connection with the supporting structure should be included in the form;

- Location and quantity: the location and the quantity of the non-structural element inside the building should be defined;

- Evaluation form – index of risk: a list of questions related to the connection of the non-structural element to the supporting structure is provided. A safety score useful to define a risk index for the non-structural element and to prioritize the mitigation measures could be associated to each question.

- Retrofit strategy: a list of possible mitigation strategies is provided based on the typology of the non-structural element. The mitigation details are based on the indications furnished by FEMA E-74 (FEMA, 2011).

- Fragility data: The fragility data for the non-structural elements should be defined. The demand parameter varies for each typology of non-structural element. If the required information is missing, the data provided by FEMA P-58 (FEMA, 2012a) could be considered.

- Repair cost, repair time and causalities: the data about the repair costs, the repair times and the causalities should be defined. The repair costs should be referred to the Algerian list price for the site in which the building is located. If data is missing, the causalities could be evaluated based on the data available in FEMA P-58 (FEMA, 2012a) or other available sources.

14



4. FRAMEWORK FOR THE EXPECTED LOSS ESTIMATION OF NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS AT THE REGIONAL SCALE

Non-structural elements are often neglected in the loss estimation framework at regional scale applications. The main reason is the lack of knowledge about the seismic performance of non-structural elements as well as the complexity of their introduction in regional risk models. The scope of this section is to explain how to include the influence of non-structural elements in regional scale risk models.

4.1. Methodology The framework generally adopted to perform the loss estimation of a building portfolio, as well as of a single building, involves six main steps (Figure 3). The first two steps are related to the building inventory and to the hazard analysis, respectively. The third step concerns the structural analysis and consequently the development of the fragility functions (Step 4). Finally, the loss estimation is carried out in order to evaluate the expected annual loss ratio. The non-structural elements could significantly affect Steps 1, 4, 5 and 6. In a regional scale approach, the scope of a building inventory is to group buildings with similar damage/loss characteristics into a set of pre-defined building classes. Damage and loss prediction models can then be developed for model building types that represents the average characteristics of the total population of buildings within each class. The main parameters taken into account in developing the building taxonomy generally are the structural parameters (i.e. structural system, building height, seismic design criteria), the non-structural elements and the occupancy. Based on these parameters, the building inventory classification system consists of a two-dimensional matrix relating building structure types and occupancy classes. Deliverable DC.1 describes the building classes defined in this project. The buildings are classified based on the structural system, the height and the design criteria. At this stage, residential buildings are considered to define the building classes. The fragility functions for the building classes defined in the taxonomy, as well as the methodology used for their definition, are described in deliverable DE.2. According to the HAZUS methodology, the non-structural elements are considered as a function of the building occupancy. For each building occupancy the total replacement cost is evaluated considering both structural and non-structural elements. A different influence is assigned to the non-structural elements in terms of total replacement costs for each building occupancy class. This simplified approach is suitable for regional scale applications but some improvements could be introduced in the methodology to improve the prediction capability of regional risk models. For example, a detailed non-structural taxonomy for each building classes could be developed in order to improve the evaluation of the typology and quantity of non-structural elements. The non-structural taxonomy in not only useful to classify and quantify the non-structural elements but also to improve the definition of the fragility functions, as it is further discussed in Section 4.2.

15



Figure 3. Loss Estimation Framework [from O’Reilly et al. 2018]

According to the HAZUS methodology, the building response is assessed using a method similar to the capacity spectrum method. The building response is determined by the intersection of the demand spectrum and the building capacity curve. The demand spectrum is based on the PESH input spectrum reduced for effective damping. Figure 4 describes the framework used to assess the cumulative damage probabilities of a building typology. Damage state probabilities are converted to monetary losses using inventory information and economic data. The types of economic data that the user will be expected to supply include repair and replacement costs, contents value for different occupancies, annual gross sales by occupancy, relocation expenses and income by occupancy. From the intersection of the capacity curve for the considered building typology with the demand spectrum, the demand is obtained in terms of spectral displacement. The recorded spectral displacement is used to define, for structural and non-structural elements, the cumulative probability of being in, or exceeding, a particular damage state. The HAZUS methodology assumes non-structural damage states to be independent of structural damage states. In the evaluation of the damage state probability, the acceleration-sensitive non-structural elements are divided in two sub-categories: elements at or near ground level and elements at the upper floors. The peak ground acceleration is assumed to be more representative for non-structural elements located at the near ground floors, while the ground spectral acceleration at the fundamental building period is assumed to be the best engineering demand parameter to quantify the damage probability of acceleration-sensitive non-structural elements at the upper floors. The HAZUS methodology defines standard distribution of the non-structural elements along the height of the buildings. In particular, it is assumed that 50% (for low-rise), 33% (for mid-rise) and 20% (for high-rise) of non-structural elements are located at, or near, the ground floor. A more refined method for the evaluation of the damage state probability should involve not only an improvement in the non-structural taxonomy, but also a more detailed estimation of the seismic demand. Many studies available in the literature (Calvi and Sullivan 2014, Perrone and Filiatrault 2018) demonstrated that the dynamic filtering of the structure significantly amplifies the accelerations from the ground to the upper floors of the building. To account for this shortcoming in the HAZUS methodology, simplified procedures to assess the inter-storey drifts and the floor spectral accelerations could be implemented in the HAZUS methodology. The procedures available in the literature allow to evaluate the floor response spectra starting from the ground design spectra and the modal properties of the buildings. A new methodology should be developed in order to further simply the calculation of the floor response spectra for building classes without the requirement to carry out detailed analyses for the evaluation of the modal properties of the buildings.

16



Figure 4. Building Damage estimation process [from HAZUS Technical Manual 2012]

4.2. Non-structural damage states and fragility functions The development of specific fragility functions for each typology of non-structural element installed in typical buildings is not a feasible approach for the purpose of regional scale applications. For this reason, according to the HAZUS methodology, the non-structural elements are grouped in two main categories: acceleration-sensitive and displacement-sensitive non-structural elements. Four damage states are defined to describe the performance of non-structural elements (slight, moderate, extensive and complete), and their damage state is considered to be independent from the building typology. For example, for a defined interstorey drift, a partition wall installed in a masonry building or in a reinforced moment resisting frame building is considered to be subjected to the same damage state. Table 3 list the median value that defines each damage state for drift-sensitive non-structural elements. The same thresholds are considered for all drift-sensitive non-structural elements.

17



Table 3: Median Values of the Drift ratios for drift-sensitive non-structural elements

SLIGHT MODERATE EXTENSIVE COMPLETE 0.004 0.008 0.025 0.050

The median values of drift-sensitive non-structural fragility curves are based on global building displacement calculated as the product of: drift ratio (from Table 3), building height and fraction of building height at the location of pushover mode displacement (more details are provided in Chapter 5 of the HAZUS technical manual). The total variability associated to each damage state is the combination of three sources of uncertainties: 1) uncertainty in the damage-state threshold of non-structural elements, 2) variability in capacity properties of the model building type, 3) variability in response of the model building type due to the spatial variability of ground motion demand. Table 4 lists the median values proposed for acceleration-sensitive non-structural elements. The median values are assumed to be the same for all building types but vary with the seismic design level of the building. The dispersion values, required for the definition of the fragility curves, are characterized by the same source of uncertainties considered for the drift-sensitive non-structural elements.

Table 4: Median Values of the for acceleration-sensitive non-structural elements

SESMIC DESIGN LEVEL

FLOOR ACCELERATION AT THE THRESHOLD SLIGHT

[g] MODERATE

[g] EXTENSIVE

[g] COMPLETE

[g] HIGH-CODE 0.30 0.60 1.20 2.40

MODERATE-CODE 0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00 LOW-CODE 0.20 0.40 0.80 1.60 PRE-CODE 0.20 0.40 0.80 1.60

The assumption that all drift-sensitive and acceleration-sensitive non-structural elements are characterized by the same fragility curves could significantly affect the results of the analysis. However, this simplified approach is considered reasonable for regional risk models. A more detailed analysis could imply that, based on the occupancy of the building, specific fragility functions are defined for the drift-sensitive and acceleration-sensitive non-structural elements more representative of the considered building class.

4.3. Repair costs and consequence functions The main parameter affecting the definition of the non-structural elements’ taxonomy is the building occupancy used in its classification. For example, the probability to observe, in a single-family residence, curtain wall panels, suspended ceilings or elevators is very low while these items would be found in office buildings. The relative values of non-structural elements in relation to the overall building replacement value vary with the type of occupancy. According to the HAZUS methodology, three main categories are defined: residential, commercial/institutional, and industrial. These categories are used to determinate the non-structural element make-up of the buildings and the nature and value of their contents. For a given occupancy and damage state, building repair and replacement costs are estimated as the product of the floor area of each building type within the given occupancy,

18



the probability of the building type being in the given damage state, and repair costs of the building type per square foot for the given damage state, summed over all building types within the occupancy. The repair cost for both acceleration- and drift-sensitive non-structural elements are defined as a percentage of the building replacement cost. A preliminary study, focused on the region of interest, is required in order to determinate the replacement costs for each building class as well as the percentage associate to the non-structural elements. Once again, an accurate non-structural taxonomy could be very helpful in order to investigate about the influence of the non-structural elements on the total building cost.

19



5. CONCLUSIONS Non-structural elements are of paramount importance in disaster risk mitigation studies. In this report, a general overview of the influence of non-structural elements in regional scale risk models was provided. An accurate non-structural taxonomy should be developed in order to consider non-structural elements in regional risk models. The non-structural taxonomy provides non-structural details, in terms of typology, quantity and fragility, based on the building occupancy. At the same time, it is useful to estimate the influence of the non-structural components on the total building replacement costs. A simple procedure to perform the survey of non-structural elements has been provided in this report. The survey can be carried out at different levels based on the required level of accuracy. The general framework provided by the HAZUS methodology to evaluate the expected annual losses has been also briefly described in the report, including some useful considerations regarding the improvements that could be implemented to increase the prediction capabilities of regional risk models.

20



6. BIBLIOGRAPHY Calvi, P. M., & Sullivan, T. J. (2014). Estimating floor spectra in multiple degree of freedom systems.

Earthquake and Structures, 7(1), 17-39. Chock, G., Robertson, I., Nicholson, P., Brandes, H., Medley, E., Okubo, P., . . . Holmes, W. (2006).

Compilation of observations of the October 15, 2006, Kiholo Bay (Mw 6.7) and Mahukona (Mw 6.0) earthquakes, Hawaii. Oakland, California: Earthquake Engineering Institute.

FEMA. (2005). FEMA 74: Earthquake hazard mitigation for non-structural elements - Field manual. Washington: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

FEMA. (2011). FEMA E-74: Reducing the risks of nonstructural earthquake damage - A practical guide. Washington: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

FEMA. (2012a). Seismic performance assessment of buildings: Volume 1 - Methodology (P58-1). Washington: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

FEMA. (2012b). Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology: HAZUS - MH 2.1 Technical Manual. Washington.

FEMA. (2017). Hazus: Estimated annualized earthquake losses for the United States. Washington: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Filiatrault, A., & Sullivan, T. (2014). Performance-based seismic design of non-structural building components: the next frontier of earthquake engineering. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 13(1), 17-46.

Filiatrault, A., Uang, C., Folz, B., C., C., & Gatto, K. (2001). Reconnaissance report of the February 28, 2001 Nisqually (Seattle-Olympia) earthquake. Department of Structural Engineering, Univertisty of California, San Diego: Structural systems research project report N. SSRP-2000/15.

Gupta, A., & McDonald, B. (2008). Performance of building structures during the October 15, 2006 Hawaii earthquake. Proc. of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, (p. 8). Beijing.

Miranda, E., & Taghavi, S. (2003). Estimation of seismic demands on acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components in critical facilities. Proceeding of the seminar on seismic design, performance, and retrofit of nonstructural components in critical facilities, ATC 29-2, (p. 13). Newport Beach.

Miranda, E., Mosqueda, G., Rematales, R., & Pekcan, G. (2012). Performance of nonstructural components during the 27 February 2010 Chile Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra, S453-S471.

NIST. (2018). Recommendations for Improved Seismic Performance of Nonstrctural Components. Washington: Nationa Institute of Standards and Technology.

Perrone, D., & Filiatrault, A. (2018). Seismic demand on non-structural elements: Influence of masonry infills on floor response spectra. 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Thessaloniki.

Perrone, D., Calvi, P., Nascimbene, R., Fischer, E., & Magliulo, G. (2018). Seismic performance of non-structural elements during the 2016 Central Italy Earthquake. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 1-23.

21



Welch, D., Sullivan, T., & Calvi, G. (2014). Developing direct displacement-based procedures for simplified loss assessment in performance-based earthquake engineering. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 18(2), 290-322.

Zareian, F., Sampere, C., Sandoval, V., McCormick, D., Moehle, J., & Leon, R. (2012). Reconnaissance of the chilean wine industry affected by the 2010 Chile offshore Maule Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra, 28(S1), S503-S512.

22



APPENDIX 1 In the following Table are reported all non-structural elements that could be founded in typical buildings. A preliminary investigation indicates that, with the exception of some of them, all non-structural elements in the table could be found in the building inventory considered in ITERATE.

RC MRF LR MC RC MRF LR C RC MRF MR

PCRC MRF-SW

LR CRC MRF-SW

MR PCRC MRF-SW

MR MCRC MRF-SW

MR CRC MRF-SW

HR MCRC MRF-SW

HR C UM LR PC

Adhered veneer

Anchored veneer

Prefabricated panels

Glazed exterior wall system

Glass Blocks

Heavy

Light

Glazed exterior wall system

Interior Veneers Stone and Tile

Suspended lay-in tile ceiling systems

Ceilings applied directly to structure

Suspended heavy ceilings

Parapets and Appendages Unreinforced masonry parapetsCanopies, Marquees, and

Signs Canopies, marquees, and signs

Chimneys and Stacks Unreinforced masonry chimney

Stairways StairwaysFreestanding Walls and

Fences Freestanding masonry wall or fence

Boilers, furnaces, pumps, and chillersGeneral manufacturing and process

machineryHVAC equipment with vibration isolation

HVAC equipment without external vibration isolation

HVAC equipment suspended in-line with ductwork

Suspended equipment

Structurally supported tanks and vessels

Flat bottom tanks and vessels

Compressed gas cylinders

Water heaters

Suspended pressure piping

In-line valves and pumpsFlexible connections, expansion joints, and

seismicPipe risers

Floor-mounted supports

Roof-mounted supports

Wall-mounted supports

Penetrations

Fire Protection Piping Suspended fire protection piping

Hazardous materials piping

Nonhazardous materials piping

Suspended ductwork

Air diffusers

Control panels, motor control centers

Emergency generator

Transformers

Batteries and battery rack

Photovoltaic (PV) power systems

Communications AntennaeElectrical raceways, conduit, and cable

traysElectrical distribution panels

Recessed lighting

Surface-mounted lighting

Pendant light fixtures

Heavy light fixtures

Hydraulic elevator

Traction elevator

Escalators

Conveyors Conveyors

Light duty shelving

Industrial storage racks

Bookshelves

Library and other shelving

Computer access floors and equipment

Computer and communication racks

Desktop computers and accessoriesTelevisions and video monitors, wall-

mountedHazardous materials

storage Hazardous materials storage

File cabinets

Demountable partitions

Miscellaneous furniture and fixtures

Shelf-mounted items

Desktop, countertop items

Fragile artwork

Fire extinguisher and cabinet

These elements are considered less common for Algerian buildings

Light Fixtures

Typology of buildingTypology

Exterior Wall Components

Interior Partitions

Ceiling

AR

CH

ITE

CT

UR

AL

CO

MPO

NE

NT

S

Mechanical Equipment

Storage Tanks and Water Heaters

Miscellaneous ContentsFUR

NIT

UR

E, F

IXT

UR

ES,

& E

QU

IPM

EN

T (F

F&E

) C

OM

PON

EN

TS

Component Type Subcategory

Elevators and Escalators

ME

CH

AN

ICA

L, E

LE

CT

RIC

AL

, & P

LU

MB

ING

(ME

P) C

OM

PON

EN

TS

Storage racks

Bookcases, Shelving

Computer and Communication

Equipment

Miscellaneous FF&E

Pressure Piping

Fluid Piping, not Fire Protection

Ductwork

Electrical and Communications

Equipment

Electrical and Communications

Distribution

23



APPENDIX 2

24



25



26



27



28



29



30



31



32



33



34



35



36



37



38



39



Date post:	07-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Improved Tools for Disaster Risk Mitigation in Algeria ITERATE · identify the non-structural...

Documents