Figure Slope > 20 Degree Area

Transcription

1 Source: The JICA Study Team Figure Slope > 20 Degree Area 3-141

2 Source: Census 2001, INA Figure Census Data of Person / Family 3-142

3 RELACIÓN DE DAÑO SEVERO A B C D E F INTENSIDAD MACROSÍSMICA (IMM) Figure The Damage Function for Damage Level 4 / EMS-98 Figure Vulnerability Classes in EMS

4 Classification of Damage Grade 1: Negligible to slight damage (no structural damage, slight non-structural damage) Masonry Hair-line cracks in very few walls. Fall of small pieces of plaster only. Fall of loose stones from upper parts of buildings in very few cases. RC Building Fine cracks in plaster over frame members or in walls at the base. Fine cracks in partitions and infills Grade 2: Moderate damage (slight structural damage, moderate non-structural damage) Cracks in many walls. Fall of fairly large pieces of plaster. Partial collapse of chimneys. Cracks in columns and beams of frames and in structural walls. Cracks in partition and infill walls; fall of brittle cladding and plaster. Falling mortar from the joints of wall panels. Grade 3: Substantial to heavy damage (moderate structural damage, heavy non-structural damage) Large and extensive cracks in most walls. Roof tiles detach. Chimneys fracture at the roof line; failure of individual non-structural elements (partitions, gable walls). Cracks in columns and beam column joints of frames at the base and at joints of coupled walls. Spalling of concrete cover, buckling of reinforced rods. Large cracks in partition and infill walls, failure of individual infill panels. Grade 4: Very heavy damage (heavy structural damage, very heavy non-structural damage) Serious failure of walls; partial structural failure of roofs and floors Large cracks in structural elements with compression failure of concrete and fracture of rebars; bond failure of beam reinforced bars; tilting of columns. Collapse of a few columns or of a single upper floor. Grade 5: Destruction (very heavy structural damage) Total or near total collapse Collapse of ground floor or parts (e. g. wings) of buildings. Figure The Classification of Damage Proposed by European Macro-Seismic Scale 3-144

5 Heavily Damage Ratio Modified Mercalli Intensity Figure Building Damage Function Used in this Study Safina, 2003 Evaluation of existing human damage data in Venezuela Precious but very little data of the past two Earthquakes in Venezuela, i.e., Caracas (1967) and Cariaco (1997), should be used for validation of local characteristics. Evaluation of existing human damage data out of Venezuela The detailed data of the Quindio Earthquake (Colombia, 1999) was studied. The correlation of the Quindio Earthquake can be basically applied to low-rise buildings in the study area, though the correlation is difficult to be applied to middle & highrise buildings. Study on the summary of worldwide death damage The data of Caracas (1967), Mexico (1984), Armenia (1986) earthquakes, of which damage was mainly caused by damage of high buildings, are considered. The proposed damage function of death for low-rise buildings is compared with the data of the Cariaco (1997) and other earthquakes in the world. Source: JICA Study Team Figure Flowchart of Human Casualties Estimation 3-145

6 Num of Death FUNREVI FUNDOSOES Heavily Damaged Building Source: Cronicas de Desasteres Terremoto de Cariaco, Venezuela, 1997, PAHO Figure Relation Between Number of Heavily Damaged Building and Number of Death of Cariaco Earthquake (1997) Death Toll Heavily Damaged Building Number Source: Social and Economic Dimensions of the Effects of the Earthquake in the Eje Cafetero. Diagnosis for the reconstruction, 1999, DANE, National Administrative Department of Statistics, Colombia and the JICA Study Team Figure Relation Between Heavily Damaged Building and Death Toll of Quindio Earthquake (1999, Colombia) 3-146

7 Source: The JICA Study Team Figure The Summary of the World Data 3-147

8 Injured Death Source: Social and Economic Dimensions of the Effects of the Earthquake in the Eje Cafetero. Diagnosis for the reconstruction, 1999, DANE, National Administrative Department of Statistics, Colombia and the JICA Study Team Figure Relationship Between Death and Injured of Quindio Earthquake (1999, Colombia) 3-148

9 Source: Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook FEMA Figure The Scoring Sheet with Actual Record 3-149

10 START IDENTIFY ORIGINAL USE AND HEIGHT IDENTIFY YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION CLASSIFICATION FRAME OR BOX IDENTIFIY STRUCTURE TYPE YES PROCEDURE FOR UNCERTAIN BUILDINGS NO ASSIGN LOWEST ASSIGN SCORE Source: Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook FEMA 154 Figure Work Flowchart for the Rapid Screening Procedure (RSP) Identification Procedure 3-150

11 Number of Buildings Final Score Unknown Source: The JICA Study Team Figure Result of RVS: Relation of Built Year and Final Score 3-151

12 Start Evaluation for a Particular Building Are Drawings, Calculations, and/or Specifications Available? Yes No Review All Available Documents, Verify Accuracy of Documents with Site Visit, Prepare Any New Drawings That Are Necessary to Proparly Present Conditions of Building Perform Site Visit and Prepare Drawigs Necessary to Complete Qualitative Portion of the Evaluation Use Tables to Determine Building Classification, Determine the Appropriate Model Building (s) To Use in the Evaluation Read Model Suilding Description (s) and Loads and Load Path Information Determaine Seismicity of Building Location Is The Building in a High, Moderate, or Low Seismicity Zone? High or Moderate Seismicity Low Seismicity Use High or Moderate Seismicity Evaluation Procedure (s) Use Low Seismicity Evaluation Procedure (s) Use All Avalable Data To Address Each Statement and Related Concern Is More Information Needed to Compleate Proccess of Addressing Each Statement? Yes Return to the Building and Acquire Necessary Additional Information No Are Answers To Any of the Statements "Palse" Source: Evaluating The Seismic Resistance Of Existing Buildings; ATC Figure Seismic Evaluation Procedure (Continued on Next Page) 3-152

13 Yes No Use the Suggested Procedure Given for the Related Statement to Perform Quantitative Evaluation Information the Owner That There is an Acceptable Level of Life Safety Risk Is There Information Needed to Complete the Quatitive Evaluation? Yes No Return to the Site and/or Perform Materials Tests Compare C/D Ratios to Allowable Values Are Any of the C/D Ratios Less than The Allowable? Yes No Report All Life Safety Hazards to the Owner Inform the Owner That is an Acceptable Level of Life Safety Risk Are There Any Features Not Included in the List of Statements That Could Be a Life Safety Hazard? Yes No Perform an Appropriate Special Analysis to Determine if a Life Safety Hazard Exists. Report Result to the Owner. Is Damage To Nonstructural Items a Concern To the Owner? Yes No Perform Nonstructural Evaluation Stop Report Findings to the Owner. Source: Evaluating The Seismic Resistance Of Existing Buildings; ATC Figure Seismic Evaluation Procedure (Continued from Previous Page) 3-153

14 Selection of Evaluation Method Data Collection of Seismic Damage in Venezuela Bridge List from MINFRA Site Survey Update of Bridge List Bridge Database Evaluation Method Calibration Ground Type Peak Ground Acceleration Liquefaction Damage Estimation Figure Procedure of Seismic Damage Estimation Middle Column Side Wall Figure Cut and Cover Type Tunnel Distribution Pipe (main) Water Purification Water Distribution Distribution Pipe (minor) Transmission City Main Service Pipe End User Figure Water Supply System 3-154

15 Damage function in general Data Collection Collection past damage data Correction factor adjustment Data input to micro zone Damage estimation (PGV) Peak ground velocity Damage function definition Liquefaction evaluation Sum of damage Figure Flow Chart of Damage Estimation for Water Supply Standard Damage Ratio Standard Damage Ratio (point/km) Peak Ground Velocity (cm/s) Figure Standard Damage Ratio 3-155

16 City Gate Governor Station for High Pressure Control Station for Middle Pressure End User High pressure Gas Pipeline Middle Pressure Gas Pipeline Low pressure Gas Pipeline Object for damage estimation Figure Natural Gas Pipeline Network Standard Damage Ratio Standard Damage Ratio (point/km) Peak Ground Velocity(cm/s) Figure Standard Damage Ratio for Gas Pipeline 3-156

17 Service wire Power Plant Sub-station For Super High Tension Primary Sub-station Sub-station for Distribution Electric Pole End User Electric Cable (Underground) End User Figure Electric Power Supply Network 3-157

18 Figure S8.3.1 Bridge Location Figure Bridge Location No.86~95 No.82~83 No.15 No.98 No.61~63 High Seismic Risk Hi h S i i Ri k Medium Seismic Risk Medi m Seismic Risk 3-158

19 Figure S8.3.2 Viaduct Location Viaduct Figure Viaduct Location Planicie Arana Cementerio Cota Mil Pulpo Francisco Fajardo Cota Mil Cienpies Cota Mil 3-159

20 Figure S8.3.3 Metro Op en Cu t an d Figure Metro Location Line 2 Line 1 Open Cut and Box Type Line 3 Open Cut and Box Type Open Cut and Box Type 3-160

21 Neveri Nd =0.56 Figure S8.3.4 Water Supply Pipe Line Figure Water Supply Pipeline Sanpedro Nd=

22 Figure S8.3.8 Gasoline Station Figure Gasoline Station Location Max.PGA=723 G.S.Massed Area At High PGA Max.PGA=714 G.S.Massed Area At High PGA 3-162

23 Scenario Earthquake 1967 No. of Gasoline Station Peak Ground Acceleration Figure PGA and No. of Gasoline Stations Scenario Earthquake 1812 No. of Gasoline Station Peak Ground Acceleration Figure PGA and No. of Gasoline Stations 3-163

24 Figure Floor Detail of Models Figure Floor and Foundation Detail of Models 3-164

25 Figure Framing Elevation of Model 1 (1) 3-165

26 Figure Framing Elevation of Model 1 (2) 3-166

27 Figure Horizontal Load Transfer Steel Frame 3-167

28 Figure Framing Elevation of Model

29 Figure Framing Elevation of Model

30 Figure Framing Elevation of Model

31 Figure Grade Beam Detail and a Frame for Measurement 3-171

32 Figure Detail of a Frame for Measurement 3-172

33 Distribution of Concrete Strength (kg/cm2) 140 Concrete Strength (kg/cm2) Foundation F i Ave.58kg/cm2 Beam/ Colum Roof Slab Test Cylinder Number Figure Distribution of Concrete Strength by Cylinder Test, Tested by IMME Figure Plan of the Models Figure Façade of Models 3-173

34 Figure Side View A Figure Side View B Load Deflection Curve Model 4 Horizontal Load (ton) Model 3 Model 2 Model Horizontal Deflection (mm) Figure Load Deflection Curve 3-174

35 Strength (a) (b) PURPOSE OF REHABILITATION Adequate Performance Life Protection Damage Control (c) Required Capacity Seismic (a) Increase the Resistance Capacity (b) Improve Deformation Capacity (i.e. ductility) (c) Combination (a) and (b) Ductility Source: Seismic Code of Venezuela 2001 NORMA VENEZOLANA COVENIN Figure Basic Concept of Seismic Reinforcement 3-175

36 Source: JICA Study Team Figure Seismic Reinforcement Methods for Existing RC and Steel Buildings 3-176

37 where: CB15; Concrete block wall in thk. of 150mm w/ reinforcing bar of Vertical; 800mm, Horizontal; 600mm SW8; RC shear wall in thk. of 80mm (Refer to Figure 3.2.7) SW10; RC shear wall in thk. of 100mm (Refer to Figure 3.2.7) SW12; RC shear wall in thk. of 120mm w/ reinforcing bar of 250mm e.w., Anchor bar of (Similar to Figure 3.2.7) SW15; RC shear wall in thk. of 150mm w/ reinforcing bar of 200mm e.w., Anchor bar of (Similar to Figure 3.2.7) Grade Beam; W200mm x D300mm w/4d13, Strr. Figure (1) Recommended Seismic Reinforcement Methods for a Single Family House 3-177

38 Figure (2) Recommended Seismic Reinforcement Methods for a Single Family House 3-178