.

PRESIDENZA DEL CONSIGLIO DEI MINISTRI


Via Curtatone, 3 - 00185 Roma



JSPS Short Term Fellowship
Final Report


POST-EARTHQUAKE USABILITY AND DAMAGE EVALUATION
OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS DESIGNED
NOT ACCORDING TO MODERN SEISMIC CODES

Fellow: Agostino Goretti, C.Eng., Ph.D., National Seismic Survey, Italy
Host Researcher: Mizuo Inukai, Senior Researcher, National Institute for Land and
Infrastructure Management, Japan









RAPPORTO TECNICO SSN/RT/02/01
Marzo 2002
.
2



INDEX


1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................3
2. Overview of past methodologies..........................................................................................4
3. Purpose, features and definitions ........................................................................................5
3.1. Purpose of the damage and usability assessment ........................................................5
3.2. Features of the damage and usability assessment .......................................................5
3.3. Definitions.....................................................................................................................6
4. THE DIMENSION OF THE PROBLEM................................................................................7
1.1. Quantitative dimension.................................................................................................7
1.2. Temporal dimension.....................................................................................................7
1.3. Spatial dimension .........................................................................................................8
5. PROCEDURES AND FORMS.............................................................................................9
5.1. Procedures...................................................................................................................9
5.2. Forms.........................................................................................................................10
6. TECHNICAL ASPECTS.....................................................................................................17
6.1. Should dwellings or buildings be inspected?...............................................................17
6.2. Building classification for usability assessment ...........................................................17
6.3. Damage classification.................................................................................................18
6.4. Building usability and damage assessment in Italy ....................................................20
6.5. Building usability and damage assessment in Japan..................................................21
7. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS...........................................................23
8. REFERENCES..................................................................................................................24





























Cover Picture: Tokyo view from the Observatory of the Tokyo Government Building.
.
3

1. Introduction

The high vulnerability of the RC buildings designed and realised not according to modern
seismic codes is well known and proved by all the recent earthquakes. The poor quality of the
adopted materials, the inaccuracy of detailings, the absence of concrete confinement, the
inadequate stiffness of the building, the irregularity and the insufficient energy absorption
capacity are responsible for heavy economical damage in case of moderate earthquakes and
widespread collapses in case of destructive earthquakes. Many world-wide developed and
developing countries face the same problems.
The recent Italian and European medium intensity earthquakes (Umbria-Marche, 1997;
Basilicata, 1998; Athens, 1999) have confirmed the high vulnerability of the non structural parts
(partitioning walls, curtain walls, etc…) of the RC buildings, with considerably economic
consequences, while the recent destructive earthquakes (Kobe, 1995; Turkey, 1999; Taiwan,
2000) have dramatically confirmed the high risk of collapse of large dimension RC buildings not
designed according to aseismic criteria.
In order to quantify the problem in Italy, about 8.5 million of dwellings, corresponding to 60% of
the RC dwellings, have been designed and realised according to the 1939 Italian code, in which
required modelisations and calculations were inadequate to the effective building seismic
behaviour. Among the RC dwellings in seismic areas (about 5 million), 60% have been built
without any aseismic criterion, mainly because the seismic zonation has been introduced after
their construction.
The quantification of the economic loss and the evaluation of the collapse risk of RC buildings
become even more important in the post-earthquake emergency, when non-conventional
techniques are required due to the large amount of buildings to be inspected and to the small
time available.
Starting from a rational description of the state of the art of damage and usability assessment of
RC buildings, an harmonisation of the forms, procedures and methodologies used in Italy and
Japan will be attempted. Possible improvements of the methodologies will be analysed and
discussed. Main results of the research will contribute to upgrade the post-earthquakes
procedures and improve the post-earthquake emergency response.
.
4

2. Overview of past methodologies

It is not long time that, both in Italy and in Japan, damage and usability survey have been
performed after earthquakes. In Japan experiences date back to 1978 after the Miyagiken-oki
earthquake. In that occasion the importance of having a proper methodology for post-
earthquake inspections appeared. A research program was then started in 1981, leading in
1985 to the publication of the “Guidelines for Post-earthquake Inspection and Restoring
Techniques”. The methodology was tested after the 1983 Nihonkai-chubu earthquake and after
the 1985 Mexico City earthquake. The methodology was revised in 1989 and published by the
Japanese Association for building Disaster Prevention. The actual version has been revised in
September 2001.
In Italy the main aim of the survey performed after 1976 Friuli earthquake (Ms=6.5) was the
damage assessment to quantify the economic loss. After 1980 Irpinia earthquake (Ms=6.9) the
need of procedures for usability evaluation was evident. However after the event no successful
effort was made in order to assess a proper methodology and procedures and forms varied
from earthquake to earthquake. Few academic proposals were published in that years. A
research program aimed to introduce a first level usability and damage inspection form started
only in 1995, but, when 1997 Umbria-Marche earthquake stroke, the form was not in its final
version. Nevertheless it was used in Marche Region, while in Umbria Region a different
methodology was used. With the experience of Umbria-Marche earthquake, the form was
revised and tested after Pollino 1998 earthquake. The final version, with its manual, was
published in 2000.
Some of the features of the damage and usability assessment can be emphasized:

1. both Italian and Japanese methodologies are relatively recent;

2. forms and methodologies have been subjected to many revisions. This is common also to
other countries (USA, Greece, etc.) and it is due to the increase of knowledge after each
earthquake.

It is then useful to compare the Italian and the Japanese methodology in order to detect the
main conceptual differences.

.
5

3. Purpose, features and definitions

3.1. Purpose of the damage and usability assessment
Post-earthquake usability assessment is commonly aimed to evaluate the possible short term
use of the building. After the assessment, buildings that can be safely used after an earthquake
are localised together with the measures to be taken in order to reduce the risk for the citizens.
On the other hand damage evaluation can be performed for many reasons. In Japan damage
assessment is performed in order to evaluate the long term use of the buildings. The result of
the evaluation is a suggestion to the owner of the building to repair, retrofit or demolish the
damaged buildings. In Italy the main purpose of the damage survey is to evaluate the global
amount of direct economic loss and to assess building vulnerability functions, while the decision
on long term use of the building is made by an engineering evaluation.
Main differences in the purpose of the usability and damage assessment in Italy and Japan are
reported in table 1.

Table 1. Purpose of the usability and damage survey in Italy and Japan
Japan Italy
Usability survey Short term use Short term use
Damage survey Long term use, suggestion for
repair, upgrade or demolish the
damaged building
Direct economic loss and
building vulnerability evaluation


3.2. Features of the damage and usability assessment
The usability and damage assessment in post-earthquake emergency differs from the same
assessment performed “in peace time”. This is particularly relevant in case of usability
assessment. Main features, together with their consequences, are reported in table 2.

Table 2. Features of post-earthquake usability assessment
Features Consequences
1 The seismic crisis is not finished New shocks can occur and must be taken into
account in the usability evaluation. The assessment
is valid until a new shock occurs. Reduced safety
level should be accepted.
2 The number of inspections is very
large
Many surveyors are required, the inspection
management should be effective and computerised.
Procedures and forms should be prepared and
surveyors should be trained before the event.
3 The inspections should be ended
as soon as possible in order to
reduce the risk and the people
discomfort.

The available time for the inspection is very limited. It
is impossible to make use of detailed geometric
and/or mechanical survey and/or numerical analysis.
Usability assessment must be based on visual
inspection and on expert judgement.

All the previous items interacts each others. For instance new shocks can increase the number
of inspections to be performed, requiring more surveyors if inspections should end at the same
time. Surveyors must use data, easy to be collected, and the validity of the inspection result
ends when a new shock occurs. The reference earthquake, that is the external action at which
buildings should withstand, should be clearly stated before the inspections. However, due to
.
6
lack of knowledge on earthquake process, the reference earthquake is not stated neither in the
Italian nor in the Japanese methodology. It is assumed that damaged buildings should resist
without collapse to any aftershock with the same felt intensity of the main shock.
The post-earthquake damage assessment presents the same features of the usability
assessment, although some time requirements are not so stringent.


3.3. Definitions
In principle a building can be defined as usable if it complies with the requirements of safety and
comfort that make possible to consider the building operational, although damaged. However no
clear definition of usability assessment can be found in literature. It is then useful to include here
an Italian proposal for usability definition, although not yet accepted by the Italian authority in
charge of the emergency management:

The post-earthquake usability evaluation is a fast and temporarily limited
assessment, based on expert judgement, on visual screening and on data easy to
collect, aimed to detect if, during the actual seismic crisis, buildings damaged by
earthquake can be used, being reasonably safeguarded the human life.

It seems evident that further damage is accepted during aftershocks, but, in order to be the
building usable, life must remain safe. This definition do not include functionality of plant,
although the Italian form considers damage to plant. In the Japanese form damage to plant is
not included and a definition of usability is not present, although it is stated that life must remain
safe during aftershocks.
In passing note that any definition of usability has some effect on the surveyor's responsibility.
That is why in many country the usable buildings are often classified as "inspected".
Damage assessment definition is not so controversial. Differences are found on the
methodology used in damage assessment (definition of intensity and extension of the damage,
overall measure of damage or damage to single component, etc.). Once the damage defined,
surveyors must identify which is the appropriate damage level for the building to be inspected.

.
7

4. THE DIMENSION OF THE PROBLEM
1.1. Quantitative dimension
The quantitative dimension of usability and damage evaluation depends on the magnitude of
the event and on the building density and vulnerability. When comparing different earthquakes it
should be kept in mind that it is very difficult to collect homogeneous data concerning usability
and damage assessment. This is due to the fact that procedures and forms are very different in
each country and, also within each country, procedures and forms have been frequently
revised. Some time data are reported in terms of dwellings, some times in terms of buildings.
The usability and the damage classification is also different, making sometime questionable the
comparison. In spite of the above mentioned drawbacks, some data concerning recent world-
wide earthquakes are reported in table 3.

Table 3. Inspected and unusable buildings in recent seismic events
Event Year I
o
(MCS) Inspections Unusable
buildings
Homeless
Friuli (ITA) 1976 X >70.000 (
§
) 43.000 (*) 190.000
Irpinia (ITA) 1980 X 160.000 (^) 300.000
Marche (ITA) 1997 IX-X 100.000 27.000 (27%) 30.000
Pollino (ITA) 1998 VI-VII 18.000 4.100 (22%)

Northridge (USA) 1984 XI 5.700
Kobe (JAP) 1985 XI 46.000 144.000 (**) 240.000
LomaPrieta (USA) 1989 XI >10.000
Kocaeli (Turchia) 1999 XI 120.000 (**) 600.000
Atene (GR) 1999 XI 65.000 32.000 (50%) 70.000
(
§
) 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 ❍ 2.50÷3.50 B ❍ 50 ÷ 70 L ❍ 500 ÷650 2 ❏ 19 ÷ 45 C ❏ Business |__|__|
B ❍ 30÷65%

❍ 3 ❍ 11 3 ❍ 3.50÷5.0 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
❐❐❐❐❐
Existing emergency measures Risk on

Cause


SECTION 7 Soil and Foundation
1 ❍ Top 2 ❍ High slope 3 ❍ Mild slope 4 ❍ Plain A ❍ Absent B ❍ Produced by eqk. C ❍ Worsened D ❍ Preexistent
DAMAGE (present or possible): Slopes Foundation Soil SITE MORPHOLOGY

.
Istat Province |__|__|__| Istat Municip. |__|__|__| Surveyor N°|__|__| Form N°|__|__|__|__|__| Date__|____|____|__

SECTION 8 Usability assessment
Risk assessment Building Classification
RISK
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
A
L
(
S
e
c
t
.

3

e

4
)
N
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
(
S
e
c
t
.

5
)
E
X
T
E
R
N
A
L
(
s
e
c
t
.

6
)
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
(
s
e
c
t
.

7
)
SMALL
SMALL AFTER
MEASURES

HIGH

A USABLE

B USABLE AFTER EMERGENCY MEASURES

C PARTIALLY UNUSABLE (1)

D TEMPORARELY UNUABLE (to be re-inspected)

E UNUSABLE

F UNUSABLE DUE TO EXTERNAL RISK (1)


(1) Restrictions on building use must be clearly reported in the notes when building is classified as B or C. Falling hazard when building is classified as F.
Inspection
accuracy
1 ❍ From the outside only 4 ❍ Not inspected: a ❍ Inspection refused b ❍ Ruins c ❍ Demolished
2 ❍ Partial because of d ❍ Owner not present e ❍ Other ……………………………..
3 ❍ Complete (> 2/3) ……………………….………. ………………………………………………………...
Suggested emergency measures, limited extension(*) or wide extension (**)
* **
Suggested emergency measures
* **
Suggested emergency measures
1 ❐

Ties
7 ❐ ❐
Removal of ledges, parapets, canopies
2 ❐ ❐
Repair of light damage to partitions or claddings
8 ❐ ❐
Removal of other kind of falling objects
3 ❐ ❐
Repair of light damage to the roofs
9 ❐ ❐
Barriers or passing protection
4 ❐ ❐
Stair propping
10 ❐ ❐
Repair of plants
5 ❐ ❐
Removal of plaster, coverings or false ceilings
11 ❐ ❐

6 ❐ ❐
Removal of tiles, chimneys
12 ❐ ❐

Unusable dwellings, families and people to be evacuated
Unusable dwellings |__|__| Families to be evacuated |__|__| People to be evacuated |__|__|__|

SECTION 9 Notes
On the damage, emergency measures, usability, etc.
Item Notes










______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________


Signs of the surveyors
_______________________________________ ______________________________________
.
NOTE ESPLICATIVE SULLA COMPILAZIONE DELLA SCHEDA AeDES 05/2000
La scheda va compilata per un intero edificio intendendo per
edificio una unità strutturale “cielo terra”, individuabile per
caratteristiche tipologiche e quindi distinguibile dagli edifici
adiacenti per tali caratteristiche e anche per differenza di altezza
e/o età di costruzione e/o piani sfalsati, etc.
La scheda è divisa in 9 sezioni. Le informazioni sono generalmente
definite annerendo le caselle corrispondenti; in alcune sezioni la
presenza di caselle quadrate ( ❐) indicano la possibilità di
multiscelta: in questi casi si possono fornire più indicazioni; le
caselle tonde (❍) indicano la possibilità di una singola scelta. Dove
sono presenti le caselle |__| si deve scrivere in stampatello
appoggiando il testo a sinistra ed i numeri a destra.
Sezione 1 - Identificazione edificio.
Indicare i dati di localizzazione: Provincia, Comune e Frazione.
IDENTIFICATIVO SCHEDA: Il rilevatore riporta il proprio numero
assegnato dal coordinamento centrale, un numero progressivo di
scheda e la data del sopralluogo.
IDENTIFICATIVO EDIFICIO
L’organizzazione del rilevamento prevede un Coordinamento
Tecnico e la collaborazione dell’ufficio tecnico comunale. Questo ha
tra l’altro il compito di assistenza per l’espletamento del lavoro dei
rilevatori e per l’individuazione degli edifici. L’edificio in generale non
è pre-individuato ed è quindi compito del rilevatore il suo
riconoscimento e la sua identificazione sulla cartografia riportata
nello spazio della prima facciata. Il codice identificativo dell’edificio,
costituito dall’insieme dei dati della prima riga nello spazio in grigio,
viene poi assegnato, in modo univoco, presso il coordinamento
comunale dove i rilevatori, dopo la visita comunicano l’esito del
sopralluogo. La numerazione degli aggregati e degli edifici deve
essere tenuta aggiornata in una cartografia generale presso il
coordinamento comunale in modo che i rilevatori possano riferire le
visite di sopralluogo, che sono richieste in genere su unità
immobiliari, all’edificio che effettivamente le contiene. Per
l’identificativo, il n° di carta, i dati Istat e i dati catastali è necessario
quindi avvalersi della collaborazione del coordinamento comunale.
Posizione edificio: se l’edificio non è isolato su tutti i lati, va indicata la
sua posizione all’interno dell’aggregato (Interno, d’estremità,
angolo). Denominazione edificio o proprietario: indicare la
denominazione se edificio pubblico o il nome del condominio o di
uno dei proprietari se privato (es. : Condominio Verde, Rossi Mario).
Sezione 2 - Descrizione edificio
N° piani totali con interrati: indicare il numero di piani complessivi
dell’edificio dallo spiccato di fondazioni escluso quello di sottotetto se
non utilizzato a mansarda. Computare interrati i piani mediamente
interrati per più di metà della loro altezza. Altezza media di piano:
indicare l’altezza che meglio approssima la media delle altezze di
piano presenti. Superficie media di piano: va indicato l’intervallo che
comprende la media delle superfici di tutti i piani. Età (2 opzioni): è
possibile fornire 2 indicazioni: la prima è sempre l’età di costruzione,
la seconda è l’eventuale anno in cui si sono effettuati eventuali
interventi sulle strutture. Uso (multiscelta): indicare i tipi di uso
compresenti nell’edificio. Utilizzazione: l’indicazione abbandonato si
riferisce al caso di non utilizzato in cattive condizioni.
Sezione 3 - Tipologia ( massimo 2 opzioni)
Per gli edifici in muratura si possono segnalare le due combinazioni:
strutture orizzontali e verticali prevalenti o più vulnerabili; ad
esempio: volte senza catene e muratura in pietrame al 1° livello (2B)
e solai rigidi (in c.a.) e muratura in pietrame al 2° livello (6B). La
muratura è distinta in due tipi in ragione della qualità (materiali,
legante, realizzazione) e per ognuno è possibile segnalare anche la
presenza di cordoli o catene se sono sufficientemente diffusi; è
anche da rilevare l’eventuale presenza di pilastri isolati, siano essi in
c.a., muratura, acciaio o legno e/o la presenza di situazioni miste di
muratura e strutture intelaiate. Gli edifici si considerano con strutture
intelaiate di c.a. o d’acciaio, se l’intera struttura portante è in c.a. o in
acciaio. Situazioni miste (muratura-telai) o rinforzi vanno indicate,
con modalità multiscelta, nelle colonne G ed H della parte
"muratura".
G1 : c.a. (o altre strutture intelaiate) su muratura
G2 : muratura su c.a. (o altre strutture intelaiate)
G3 : Muratura mista a c.a. (o altre strutture intelaiate) in parallelo
sugli stessi piani
H1: Muratura rinforzata con iniezioni o intonaci non armati
H2: Muratura armata o con intonaci armati
H3: Muratura con altri o non identificati rinforzi
Per le strutture intelaiate le tamponature sono irregolari quando
presentano dissimmetrie in pianta e/o in elevazione o sono in pratica
completamente assenti in un piano in almeno una direzione.
Sezione 4 - Danni ad ELEMENTI STRUTTURALI PRINCIPALI ...
I danni da riportare nella sezione 4 sono quelli ‘apparenti’, cioè quelli
riscontrabili a vista. Nella tabella ogni riga è riferita ad un tipo di
componente l'organismo strutturale, mentre le colonne sono
differenziate in modo da consentire di rilevare i livelli di danno
presenti sulla componente e le relative estensioni in percentuale
rispetto alla sua totalità nell'edificio.
La definizione del livello di danno riscontrato è di particolare
rilevanza, essa è basata sulla scala macrosismica europea EMS98,
integrata con le definizioni puntuali utilizzate nelle schede di rilievo
GNDT. In particolare si farà riferimento alla sommaria descrizione
riportata di seguito, maggiori dettagli sono riportati nel manuale:
D1 danno leggero: è un danno che non cambia in modo
significativo la resistenza della struttura e non pregiudica la
sicurezza degli occupanti a causa di cadute di elementi non
strutturali; il danno è leggero anche se queste ultime possono
rapidamente essere scongiurate.
D2-D3 danno medio – grave: è un danno che potrebbe anche
cambiare in modo significativo la resistenza della struttura senza
che venga avvicinato palesemente il limite del crollo parziale di
elementi strutturali principali.
D4-D5 danno gravissimo: è un danno che modifica in modo
evidente la resistenza della struttura portandola vicino al limite del
crollo parziale o totale di elementi strutturali principali. Stato
descritto da danni superiori ai precedenti, incluso il collasso.
Provvedimenti di pronto intervento eseguiti: sono quelli che con
tempi e mezzi limitati conseguono una eliminazione o riduzione
accettabile del rischio; vanno indicati quelli già messi in atto.
Sezione 5 - Danni ad ELEMENTI NON STRUTTURALI...
Per gli elementi non strutturali va indicata la presenza del danno e gli
eventuali provvedimenti già in atto, con modalità multiscelta.
Sezione 6 - Pericolo ESTERNO ed interventi di (p.i.) eseguiti
Indicare i pericoli indotti da costruzioni adiacenti e/o dal contesto e gli
eventuali provvedimenti presi, con modalità multiscelta.
Sezione 7 - Terreno e fondazioni
Va individuata la morfologia del sito ed eventuali dissesti sul terreno
e/o sulla fondazione, in atto o temibili.
Sezione 8 - Giudizio di AGIBILITÀ
Il rilevatore stabilisce le condizioni di rischio dell’edificio (tabella
valutazione del rischio) sulla base delle informazioni raccolte,
dell’ispezione visiva e delle proprie valutazioni, relativamente alle
condizioni strutturali (Sezione 3 e 4 - Tipologia e danno), alle
condizioni degli elementi non strutturali (Sezione 5), al pericolo
derivante dalle altre costruzioni (Sezione 6) e alla situazione
geotecnica (Sezione 7); . L’esito B va indicato quando la riduzione
del rischio si può conseguire con il pronto intervento (opere di
consistenza limitata, di rapida e facile esecuzione che rendono
agibile l’edificio). L’esito D solo in casi particolarmente problematici e
soprattutto se si tratta di edifici pubblici la cui inagibilità compromette
funzioni importanti.
Unità immobiliari inagibili, famiglie e persone evacuate: sono da
indicare gli effetti del giudizio di inagibilità, qualora confermato dal
Sindaco; vanno pertanto indicate anche le famiglie e persone da
evacuare, oltre a quelle che abbiano già lasciato l’edificio.
Provvedimenti di pronto intervento: nel caso di esito B indicare i
provvedimenti necessari per rendere agibile l’edificio.
Sezione 9 - Altre osservazioni
Accuratezza della visita: indicare con quale livello di accuratezza e
completezza è stato possibile effettuare il sopralluogo .
Sul danno, sui provvedimenti di pronto intervento, l’agibilità o altro:
riportare le annotazioni che si ritengono importanti per meglio
precisare i vari aspetti del rilevamento. L’eventuale fotografia
d’insieme dell’edificio deve essere spillata nel riquadro tratteggiato in
chiaro e nel solo angolo in alto a destra.


.
15

Figure 5. Japanese form for usability assessment
.
16

Figure 6. Japanese form for damage assessment
.
17
6. TECHNICAL ASPECTS
6.1. Should dwellings or buildings be inspected?
Usability and damage can be assessed for dwellings or buildings. However from the structural
point of view it is necessary to inspect the whole building.
In the Italian procedure, inspections are requested by the dwelling's owners or users. There is then
a difference between the object of the request, the dwelling, and the object of the inspection, the
building. It can then happen to have multiple inspection on the same buildings, due to multiple
requests, although the Mayor should pass a unique inspection request on to the Coordination
Center. This problem is even more stressed by the fact that posting system is not used. Inspection
on buildings requires also to define and select the building. This is particularly difficult in historical
centres, where buildings have been realised sharing the same walls. The same problem is not so
important in Japan, were buildings are recently realised and can be considered as isolated
buildings. Buildings to be inspected are selected in advance and often a map is given to the
surveyors. The fact that usability survey should be performed only from outside in case of private
buildings eliminates the difference between building inspection and dwelling inspection.

6.2. Building classification for usability assessment
For usability assessment the current building classification in Italy and Japan is reported in table 5
and 6. Table 5 represents the Italian classification and the corresponding Japanese one. In table 6
the opposite case is reported, that is the Japanese classification and the corresponding Italian one.

Table 5. Italian building classification for post-earthquake usability .
Italy Japan
USABLE Building can be used without measures. Small
damage can be present, but negligible risk for
human life.
SAFETY
USABLE AFTER
MEASURES
Building has been damaged, but can be used
after simple measures are taken.
CAUTION
PARTIALLY
USABLE
Only a part of the building can be safely used CAUTION
TEMPORARY
UNUSABLE
Building to be inspected in more detail. Unusable
until the new inspection.
CAUTION
UNUSABLE FOR
EXTERNAL RISK
Building should be used in relation to its damage
level. It can not be used due high risk posed by
external elements (heavy damaged adjacent or
facing buildings, possible rock falls, etc.)
CAUTION
UNUSABLE Building can not be used due to high structural,
non structural or geotechnical risk. Not
necessarily imminent risk of collapse.
CAUTION, DANGER

Table 6. Japanese building classification for post-earthquake usability .
Japan Italy
SAFETY Building can be used without measures. Small
damage can be present, but negligible risk for
human life.
USABLE
CAUTION Building has been damaged. The risk of collapse
or falling objects is not so high, but building
behaviour is not predictable. Restricted use.
USABLE AFTER
MEASURES, PARTIALLY
USABLE, TEMPORARY
UNUSABLE
DANGER High risk of collapse or falling objects. It is
suggested to do not use the building.
Compulsory if public safety is involved.
UNUSABLE, UNUSABLE
FOR EXTERNAL RISK
.
18
It can be seen that in the Italian classification more emphasis is placed on the restriction in the use
of the building (partially usable, temporary unusable, external risk). This is due to the fact that it is
reputed very important to increase as much as possible the number of buildings that can be used.
It should be noted, however, that it is difficult to include all the possible restrictions in the usability
classification (i.e. a building can be partially usable only after some emergency measure, a
condition non included in the Italian classification). In the Japanese classification, as in other
methodologies (USA, Greece), the importance is in the high or low imminent collapse risk. It seems
that the Italian classification “unusable” has a more wide meaning then the Japanese classification
“danger”. An attempt to formulate a relationship between the Italian and Japanese classification is
reported in table 7.

Table 7. Relationship between the Italian and Japanese usability classification.
Japan Italy
SAFETY USABLE
USABLE AFTER MEASURES
PARTIALLY USABLE
TEMPORARY UNUSABLE

CAUTION
UNUSABLE
DANGER
UNUSABLE FOR EXTERNAL RISK

6.3. Damage classification
For damage assessment of reinforced concrete buildings the actual building classification in Italy
and Japan is reported in table 8, where the damage levels are reported and described.

Table 8. Damage classification
Japan
Italy
Damage Description Description Damage
I
Visible, but narrow cracks on
concrete surface. Crack width is
less than 0.2 mm.
Cracks up to 1.0 mm in beams and up
to 0.5 mm in columns or walls, if not
related to concrete crushing. Diagonal
crack in external walls up to 1 mm (up
to 2 mm if at the frame interface)
D1
II
Visible clear cracks on concrete
surface. Crack width is about 0.2 –
1.0 mm.
III
Spalling of concrete cover.
Considerably wide cracks Crack
width is about 1-2 mm.


Crack s up to 4-5 mm in beams and up
to 2-3 mm in columns. Imperceptible
leaning. Incipient buckling of
reinforcing bars and concrete cover
spalling. Diagonal cracks in external
walls up to few mm.
D2-D3
IV
Remarkable crush of concrete with
exposed bars. Crack width is more
than 2 mm.

V
Rebars bent, core concrete crush,
visible vertical deformation of
column or shear wall, visible
settlement and/or inclination of
floors.

Collapse or inclination more than 1%.
Cracks width is more than 5 mm in
beams and more than 3 mm in
columns. Buckling of reinforcing bars.
D4-D5
.
19
It can be noted that in the Japanese classification only damage to column is taken into account and
damage intensity include five levels. In the Italian first level damage classification the original 5
damage levels of the EMS macroseismic scale (D1, D2, D3, D4, D5) have been condensed, in a
non linear way, to 3 levels (D1, D2-D3, D4-D5).
Taking into account in the Italian classification the only damage to the vertical bearing structures,
assuming crack width of 5 mm as the upper limit for the damage level V and D4-D5 and
considering a linear variation of the damage level with the upper limit of crack width the relationship
between Japanese and Italian damage levels is reported in the following table

Table 9. Japanese damage levels and corresponding Italian ones.
Japan
Italy (condensed levels) Italy (5 levels)
Damage level Damage level Damage level
I
D1 D1
II
3/8 D1+5/8 D2-D3 3/8 D1+5/8 D2
III
D2-D3 3/4 D2+1/4 D3
IV
2/3 D2-D3 + 1/3 D4-D5 2/3 D3+1/3 D4
V
D4-D5 1/3 D4+2/3 D5

From table 9, when the damage level in the Japanese scale is II , the same damage in the Italian
scale can be D1 with probability 3/8 and D2-D3 with probability 5/8. Assuming also a linear
variation of damage levels D2 and D3 in D2-D3, the obtained relationship is reported in the third
column of table 9.
The inverse relationship is reported in table 10 and 11, depending on the Italian damage levels
adopted (3 or 5). From table 11 a damage level D1 according to the Italian classification
corresponds to a damage level I with probability 2/5 and to a damage level II with probability 3/5
according to the Japanese classification.

Table 10. Italian damage levels (condensed) and corresponding Japanese ones.
Italy (condensed levels) Japan
Damage level Damage level
D1 2/5 I+3/5 II
D2-D3 1/5 II+2/5 III+2/5 IV
D4-D5 1/4 IV+3/4 V

Table 11. Italian damage levels (expanded) and corresponding Japanese ones.
Italy (expanded levels) Japan
Damage level Damage level
D1 2/5 I+3/5 II
D2 8/12.5 II+4.5/12.5 III
D3 2.5/12.5III+10/12.5 IV
D4 1/2 IV+1/2 V
D5 V

From the previous discussion, it can be seen that the Italian classification is less severe than the
Japanese one. In fact, given the damage in terms of crack width, the assigned Italian damage level
is inferior to the Japanese damage level.







.
20
6.4. Building usability and damage assessment in Italy
In the Italian methodology the elements on which the usability evaluation should be based are:

• The reference earthquake, to which the building should withstand
• The building damage;
• The building vulnerability.

Concerning the reference earthquake, it is dangerous if the shock that caused the inspections is a
foreshock or if a seismic crisis appears. In these cases the following logical tree should be used to
evaluate the reference earthquake. However, the lack of knowledge in the evolution of the seismic
activity, leads generally to adopt the felt intensity as the reference earthquake.

Table 12. Logical tree for the reference earthquake selection
Information Seismic crisis Areas Reference earthquake
No All Felt intensity
Ended All Felt intensity
Epicentral Felt intensity
Further shocks
can not occur
Felt intensity


Yes


In progress


Non
epicentral
Further shocks
can occur
Intensity (MCS) 1 or 2 degree
greater than the felt one.

The damage is the main element in the usability assessment. The analysis should be extended to:
structural elements, non structural elements, soil and foundation, external elements. The common
methodology in the damage analysis is reported in the following scheme


Analysis of the observed damage


Change in the structural/non structural conditions


Importance for expected performances
(life-safe)



The relationship between damage and usability classification is not strictly defined in the Italian
methodology. The main suggestions are summarised as follows:

Table 13. Relationship between damage and usability classification
Damage to structural elements Classification
D0, D1 Usable
D2 Usable, but also partially usable or unusable
depending on the damage extension
D3 or greater Unusable
Life risk due to damage to non structural elements Classification
Low Usable
High but can be reduce with countermeasures Usable after measures
High Partially usable, unusable

.
21
Similar suggestion holds for external risk and geotechnical risk
Vulnerability should be assessed when the intensity of the reference earthquake is one or two
degree higher than the felt intensity and the building is not seriously damaged. In this case only
building vulnerability can give information on the building future behaviour.

6.5. Building usability and damage assessment in Japan
During the usability inspection the following items should be analysed
Structural risk
overall settlement
overall inclination
structural damage
Non structural risk
Object falling
Object overturning

Each item is classified as A, B or C, depending on damage and/or risk.
Overall inclination and overall settlement is considered as a rigid body motion due to soil or
foundation damage. Structural damage is evaluated on the external vertical bearing structures
(columns or walls for RC buildings) at the most damaged floor. Although usability assessment is a
rough evaluation, the Japanese methodology is rather quantitative. Overall settlement is classified
A, B or C, if less than 20 cm, between 20 and 100 cm, greater than 100 cm. Overall inclination is
classified A, B or C if less than 1 degree, between 1 and 2 degrees, greater than 2 degrees.
Structural damage is classified A, B or C, if the damage level IV, previously defined, involves less
than 10% of the columns (or wall's length), between 10 and 20%, more than 20%. Damage level V
should be also analysed. Structural damage is classified A, B or C, if the damage level V involves
less than 1% of the columns (or wall's length), between 1 and 10%, more than 10%. The non
structural risk is directly classified as A, B, or C.
The usability classification depends on the number of B and C results among all the items.

Table 14. Relationship between damage and usability classification
At least 1 C or at least 2 B Danger
1 B or at least 1 element with damage level III Caution
All A and all element with damage level less than III Safe

In the damage assessment, the building classification involves 5 linguistic levels (None, slight,
small, medium, severe, collapse). The levels are evaluated by means of the following relationship
with a damage index D.

Table 15. Damage index D and linguistic classification
D=0 0<D≤5 5<D≤10 10<D≤50 D>50 D
5
>50
None Slight Small Medium Severe Collapse

As in usability evaluation the damage classification requires the analysis of the overall settlement
and overall inclination, together with the structural damage. Damage to non structural elements is
evaluated and included in the form, but it does not contribute to the damage classification.
If the overall settlement is less than 20 cm, between 20 and 100 cm, greater than 100 cm, the
building damage is classified as small, medium, severe. If the overall inclination is less than 1/100
rad, between 1/100 and 3/100 rad, between 3/100 and 6/100 rad, greater than 6/100 rad, the
building damage is classified as small, medium, severe, collapse.
The damage index D is obtained through the structural damage. The following expression holds:

D=∑
i
D
i
=∑
i
w
i
e
i

.
22
where summation is to be performed over all the damage levels (i=I, .., V), e
i
is the relative
extension of damage level i, that is the number of columns (wall's length) with damage level i over
the total number of columns (wall's length), and w
i
is the weight for damage level i reported in the
following table, together with the maximum value that can be attributed to D
i
=w
i
e
i
.

Table 16. Weight and maximum extension for each damage level
Damage level 0 I II III IV V
Weight, w
i
0 10 26 60 100 1000/7
(w
i
e
i
)
max
5 13 30 50 50

It is important to note that the proposed weights give more emphasis on the high damage levels,
as it can be seen from the next figure

Figure 7. Relationship between damage and relative weight


The suggestion for the owner of the building concerning the building repair, upgrade or demolition
depends on damage and felt intensity. The relationship between damage and felt intensity can be
considered a vulnerability functions and is reported in the following table.

Table 17. Damage, felt intensity and suggestion for building repair, upgrade or demolition
Felt Intensity
(JMA)\Damage
Slight Small Medium Severe Collapse
I
JMA
≤V --- --- Repair or upgrade
(detailed analysis)
Upgrade or
demolition
Upgrade or
demolition
I
JMA
≥VI Re-use Re-use Repair Repair or upgrade
(detailed analysis)
Upgrade or
demolition

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
I II III IV V
Damage level
W
e
i
g
t
h
.
23

7. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Since the late '70 both Japan and Italy have procedures and forms for post-earthquake usability
and damage assessment. Procedures and forms have been continuously revised (last revision in
Japan 2001, in Italy 2000) due to the increased knowledge on the seismic building behaviour and
due to changes in the social context. This means that knowledge in the field of post-earthquake
emergency survey is still in progress. And this is the same all over the world.
Main differences between the Japanese and the Italian methodology are due to:
1. Different building types
2. Different political, social and cultural features that lead to a different concept and to a different
purpose of the usability and damage assessment.
These items are responsible for many differences, but it is difficult to tell the importance of these
differences, because the different social, cultural and political context should be taken into account.
It is however meaningful to compare the procedures in the countries.
Usability assessment is performed both in Italy and Japan for the short term use of the building. In
Japan the purpose of the damage assessment is a suggestion to the owner of the building on the
possible re-use, repair, upgrade or demolition of the damaged building. In Italy the main purpose of
the damage assessment is the evaluation of the total economic direct loss.
Usability classification is more strict in Italy than in Japan. Consequently also the surveyor's
responsibility will be different. However this aspect has not been dealt with in this research. Results
of usability assessment are not compulsory in Japan, except when public safety is involved. The
same applies for the damage assessment results. In Italy results of usability assessment are
usually compulsory, once accepted by the Mayor.
In Italy usability and damage assessment is performed in only one step. This a less costly
procedure. In Japan damage assessment is performed after usability assessment has been
completed. This procedure reduces the time required for the usability assessment and hence
reduces the risk of the citizens. In Italy buildings are inspected only after a request of the owner,
independently on the dimension of the building. In Japan only building with more than 2-3 stories
are inspected and the request is not needed.
Neither the Italian, nor the Japanese procedure have special provision for RC buildings realised
not according to modern seismic codes, as for example the USA methodology that suggest for this
kind of building a detailed evaluation in place of the rapid one. It is not easy, however, to detect
during the inspection if a building is realised, or not, according to modern seismic codes. One
possible suggestion is to prepare, before the earthquake strikes, some sort of building list, that
includes data on building type, age and hence, indication on code design. This is costly to obtain,
but it seems a possible solution if a more detailed post-earthquake investigation is needed for
some kind of more vulnerable buildings.



.
24
8. REFERENCES
ATC 20, (1989), Procedures for post-earthquake safety evaluation of buildings.
ATC 20-2, (1995), Addendum to ATC 20 post-earthquake building safety evaluation procedures.
Baggio C., Bernardini A., Colozza R., Corazza L., Della Bella M., Di Pasquale G., Dolce M., Goretti
A., Martinelli A., Orsini G., Papa F., Zuccaro G., (2000), Instruction for the I Level Post-
earthquake Damage, Usability and Emergency Measures, National Seismic Survey & National
Group for Defence against Earthquakes, (In Italian).
Dandoulaki M., Panoutsopoulou M. & Ioannides K., (1998), “An overview of post-earthquake
building inspection practices in Greece and the introduction of a rapid building usabilityy
evaluation procedure after the 1996 Konitsa earthquake”, Proc. XI European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam.
Gavarini C., (1985), “Post-earthquake Building Usability: a Proposal, L'Industria Italiana del
Cemento, n. 6, 1985, (In Italian).
Goretti A., (2001), "Post-earthquake Building Usability Assessment". Technical Report
SSN/RT/01/03, (In Italian).
Hirosawa M., Sugano S. & Kaminosono T., 1995, “Essentials of Current Evaluation and Retro
Fitting for Existing and Damaged Buildings in Japan”, Training Course in Seismology and
Earthquake Engineering, International Institute of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering
(ISEE).