A PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR SEISMIC RISK EVALUATION OF

EXISTING REINFORCED CONCRETE SCHOOL BUILDINGS

by
Eng. Maha Abd El Salam Ahmed Nazif
A Thesis Submitted to the
Faculty of Engineering at Cairo University
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, CAIRO UNIVERSITY

GIZA, EGYPT
2012
1

A PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR SEISMIC RISK EVALUATION OF

EXISTING REINFORCED CONCRETE SCHOOL BUILDINGS
By
Eng. Maha Abd El Salam Ahmed Nazif
A Thesis Submitted to the
Faculty of Engineering at Cairo University
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Under the Supervision of

Prof. Dr.Mohamed Ezzat Sobaih
Professor of Structural Engineering
Faculty of Engineering Cairo University

Prof. Dr. Adel Yehia Akl

Professor of Structural Engineering
Faculty of Engineering Cairo University

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, CAIRO UNIVERSITY

GIZA, EGYPT
2012
2

A PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR SEISMIC RISK EVALUATION OF

EXISTING REINFORCED CONCRETE SCHOOL BUILDINGS
By
Eng. Maha Abd El Salam Ahmed Nazif
A Thesis Submitted to the
Faculty of Engineering at Cairo University
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Approved by the Examining Committee:

Prof.Dr . Prof. Mohamed Ezzat Sobaih

Thesis Main Advisor

Prof.Dr . Prof. Mohamed Ezzat Sobaih

Prof.Dr. Abd El Rahman Sadek Bazaraa

Member

Prof.Dr. Alsayed Saad Abd El Salam

Member

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, CAIRO UNIVERSITY

GIZA, EGYPT
2012
3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am eager to take this opportunity to thank everyone who helped me during my

work in this research.

First I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to my

supervisor Prof. Mohamed Ezzat Sobaih, for all his support, guidance, and
patience, and for his exceptional ability of making the complicated uncomplicated.
It was a great privilege to work with him.
My highest appreciation and respect goes to Prof. Adel Yehia Akl.

My sincere thanks go to my son Eng. Ahmed Taha the Senior Developer at Link
Company for his continuous support and for his generous co-operation in
programming works and for his sincere feelings to my success.
My deepest gratitude goes to my daughters dr.Maha, Mervat, and Amena for their
constant support and encouragement.

I greatly appreciate the paramount sacrifices, encouragement and support done by

my husband Ahmed Kamaly for all what he did for me throughout my life.
Finally I owe to my father the great Islamic Architectural Engineer- every
success I have in my life. I missed his presence so much.

i
4

ABSTRACT
In the last few decades, there was a noticeable increase in earthquakes activities
that caused great losses related with human and structures, and has a negative
effect on the economy especially in developing countries that should care for all
possible scientific methods to minimize these losses attributed from those
earthquakes. The school buildings have an important role in the educational
process and they may serve as emergency shelters after earthquakes events. So,
school buildings need a complete strategy for evaluating their capability to face
the probable earthquakes.
This thesis is concerned with an important step for that required strategy to
evaluate the seismic vulnerability of existing reinforced school buildings over the
national level. A proposed methodology is presented for that purpose by
developing qualitative norms for factors supposed to have a major effect on the
seismic behavior of the school buildings. A computer program is implemented to
execute that methodology with quick and accuracy based on scientific
fundamentals and can be applied on all existing reinforced school buildings.
The proposed methodology is calibrated with affected school buildings by various
earthquake events in different countries. The results approved the proposed
methodology, so it can be applied by the official authorities for proposing the
structural safety plans for all school buildings in Egypt.

ii
5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
AKNOWLEDGEMENT........i
ABSTRACT ....ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...iii
LIST OF TABLES .......viii
LIST OF FIGURES .......xi
INTRODUCTION ..1

CHAPTER ONE - SEISMIC VULNERABILITY EVALUATION

METHODOLOGIES OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS

1.1

Introduction .. 5

1.2

First attempts of the seismic vulnerability evaluation methods 6

1.2.1

Field Evaluation Method......8

1.2.2

Decision Factor Analysis Method................8

1.2.3 Damage Probability Matrices method .....11

1.2.4 Zezhen's method . 13
1.2.5 Capacity / Demand Ratio Methods...14
1.2.5.1 Brunsdon and Priestly's Method.....14
1.2.5.2 Understrength and Overstress Kalevras's Method...16
1.2.5.3 The Applied Technology Council ATC Method ....17
1.2.5.4 Japanese Seismic Index Method.8
1.2.6 Vulnerability Index Method.21
1.3

The Development of the seismic vulnerability evaluation methods....21

iii

Page
1.3.1

Development of the Qualitative (empirical) evaluation..24

1.3.1.1 Damage Probability Matrices DPM .....24
1.3.1.2 Vulnerability Index Method...27
1.3.1.3 Continuous Vulnerability Curves ..33
1.3.1.4 Screening Methods 35

1.3.2

Development of the Analytical Methods ....40

1.3.2.1 Analytically-Derived Vulnerability Curves and DPMs...40
1.3.2.2. Collapse Mechanism-Based Methods .44
1.3.2.3. Capacity Spectrum-Based Methods . ..46
1.3.2.4. Fully Displacement-Based Methods .. ...54

1.3.3 Development of the Hybrid Methods.58

1.4 The choice of the appropriate evaluation method.......60

CHAPTER TWO - LESSONS LEARNED FROM PAST EARTHQUAKES

2.1

Introduction 63

2.2

The post- earthquake reconnaissance reports..63

2.2.1 The Cariaco Earthquake, July, Venzeuala..... 64
2.2.2 The Chi-Chi Earthquake, September, 1999 Taiwan....67
2.2.3 The Nazca Earthquake,1996 ,Peru .73
2.4.3 The Atico Earthquake, 23June, 2001, Peru ....76
2.4.4 The Gujarat Earthquake, 26 January 2001, India...85
2.4.5 The Molis Earthquake, October 2002, Italy.. 88
2.4.6 LAquila Earthquake, 6 April 2009, Italy 91
2.4.7 The Adana-Ceyhan Earthquake of June 27, 1998 Turkey..91
2.4.8 Bingol Earthquake, 1 May 2003, Turkey....94

iv
7

Page
2.4.9 El Asnam Earthquake 10th. , October 1980, Algeria.....101
2.4.10 Boumerdes Earthquake, 21 May 2003, Algeria.......101
2.4.11 Wenchuan (Sichuan) Earthquake, 12May 2008, China...111
2.4.13 Western Sumatra Earthquake, 30 September 2009, Indonesia.117
2.4.14 Haiti Earthquake, 12 January 2010, Haiti....118
2.4.15 El Mayor Earthquake, Mexico City, Mexico...123
2.4.16 The Great Hanshin Earthquake in Kobe, 1995 Japan..125
2.3 The Factors considered in the current study...129
2.3.1 Existence of soft storey...135
2.3.2 Pounding between adjacent buildings 136
2.3.3 Changes over the Lifecycle... 138
2.3.4 Building Actual State.138
2.3.4.1 Cracks. 139
2.3.4.2 Maintenance.140
2.3.4.3 Building age.140
2.3.4.4 Seismic Exposure 141
2.3.5 The Geometrical onFig.uration..141
2.3.5.1 Section Dimension...141
2.3.5.2 Plan Aspect Ratio.....141
2.3.5.3 Plan Shape142
2.3.5.4 Elevation Shape..144
2.3.5.5 The Short (Captive) Columns...144
2.3.5.5 Infill Walls146
2.3.6 Lateral Strength ..148
2.3.7 Seismicity and Site Effect ...149
2.3.7.1 Seismicity Effect ..149
2.3.7.2 Site Effect .149
v
8

Page
CHAPTER THREE - THE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction 151
3.2 Basis of the Proposed Methodology...152
3.3 The Proposed Methodology153
3.4 Evaluation Procedure..165
3.4.1 The nonconforming elements.167
3.4.2 Ground floor soft storey ......167
3.4.3 Pounding168
3.4.4 Changes over the Lifecycle...168
3.4.5 Actual state of the building factor FAS.168
3.4.6 Geometrical Configuration ..173
3.4.7 Lateral Strength Resistance FV ........179
3.5 The Seismic Vulnerability Value F....181
3.6 Seismicity and Site Effects Evaluation FSS 181
3.7 The Seismic Risk value FR .184
3.8 Computer Implementation..184
3.8.1 The Purpose of the SSP Program....185
3.8.2 The Language .....185
3.8.3 Input Data....185
3.8.4 The output.......189
3.9 General recommendation....193

CHAPTER FOUR - STUDY CASES

4.1 Introduction..194
4.2 Study Case No. 1.....194

vi
9

Page
4.3 Study Case No. 2...197
4.4 Study Case No. 3...203
4.5 Study Case No. 4...207
4.6 Study Case No. 5...211
4.7 Study Case No. 6...214
4.8 Study Case No. 7...219
4.9 Study Case No. 8...222
4.10 Study Case No. 9.....225
4.11 Study Case No. 10........228
4.12 Study Case No. 11.......232
4.13 Discussion and Remarks.................234
CONCLUSIONS ....240
GENRAL RECOMMENDATION................241
FUTURE EXTENSIONS...........242
REFERENCES .....244
Appendix A
Appendix B

vii
11

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1.1 Items of the Decision Factor Analysis Method

10

Table 1.2 Ranges of the Analytical Evaluation Methods Proposed by Decision

Factor Methods

11

Table 1.3 Format of the Damage Probability Matrix Proposed by Whitman

12

Table 1.4 Damage Probability Matrix for Hypothetical Building Designed in

Accordance with Massachusetts State Building Code

12

Table 1.5 Example of a Damage Model for Vulnerability Class C as

Presented in EMS-98

27

Table 1.6 Choice of Adequate Method of the Seismic Vulnerability Evaluation 62

Table 3.1 Non-conformity Factor Fr.

167

Table 3.2 Crack Factor FC

169

Table 3.3 Values of F1 for Non- Cracked Conditions

170

Table 3.4 The Actual State Factor Fas

171

Table 3.5 Maintenance Factor F2

171

Table 3.6 Building Age Factor F3

171

Table 3.8 Seismic Exposure History Factor F4

172

Table 3.9 Ranges of the Actual State Factor FAS

173

Table 3.10 Section Dimension Factor

174

Table 3.11Plan Aspect Ratio Factor F6

174

Table 3.12 Plan Shape Factor F7

175

Table 3.13 Elevation shape Factor F8

177

Table 3.14 Short Column Height Factor

178

Table 3.15 Number of Short Columns Factor

178

Table 3.16 Wall Thickness Factor F10

179

Table 3.17 Ranges of the Geometrical ConFig.uration Factor FG

180

viii
11

Page
Table 3.18 Lateral Strength Factor Fv

180

Table 3.19 Seismicity Site Factor FSI

182

Table 3.20 Site Factor FST

183

Table 3.21 Liquefaction Potential Factor

183

Table 3.22 The Limits of Risk Level

184

Table 3.23 The Results of the Study Case 1

192

Table 4.1 Column Cross- Sections

Table 4.2 The List of the 11 Study Cases and Their Risk Values

221

Arranged in Ascending Order

238

Table 4.3 The 11 Study Cases and their Risk Values Agreed
with their State of Damage

239

Table 4.4 The Priority List

240

Table 4.5 The H-P Priority List

240

x
12

LIST OF FIGURES
Page

Fig. 1.1 Basic of the Methodologies of Seismic Vulnerability

Evaluation of Existing Buildings

Fig. 1.2 First Attempts of Seismic Vulnerability Evaluation of Existing

Buildings Methods

Fig. 1.3 Forms of the Field Evaluation Method

Fig. 1.4 Flow Chart of the Seismic Evaluation Method by Brunsdon

and Priestley

15

Fig. 1.5 Flow Chart of the Seismic Evaluation Method Proposed

by Aoyama (1981)

20

Fig. 1.6 Developed Methods of Seismic Vulnerability Evaluation

of Existing Buildings (2006)

22

Fig. 1.7 The Components of Seismic Risk Evaluation and Choices for the
Vulnerability Assessment Procedure; the Bold Path Shows a
Traditional Assessment Method
Fig. 1.8 The Form of ATC-21 of the Inspection of an Office Building

23
29

Fig.1.9 Data Collection Forms for the three designated seismicity regions
(Low, moderate, and high)

31

Fig. 1.10 An Example of A Commercial Building of The High Seismicity

Form of FEMA 154

32

Fig. 1.11 Example of the Difference in the Vulnerability Point Distribution

(a) Using the Observations of Low and Mid-Rise Building Damages after the
PGA, and (b) Spectral Displacement at the Elastic Fundamental Period

35

for Different Ground Motion Parameters:

Fig.1.12 Proposed Evaluation Method by Hassan and Sozen (1997)

xi
13

39

Page

Fig. 1.13 Flow chart to describe the Components of the Calculation of

Analytical Vulnerability Curves and Damage Probability Matrices
(Adapted from Dumova-Jovanoska) (2004)

43

Fig.. 1.14 Analyzed Collapse Mechanisms

44

Fig.. 1.15 Illustration of the estimation of damage from ground shaking

in HAZUS (FEMA, 1999, 2003)

49

Fig.. 1.16 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake, Glck Coastal Zone: Results of

Various Analyses and Comparison with the Damage Data for
the Mid-Rise Reinforced Concrete Frames (Spence et al., 2003)

53

Fig. 1.18 An Example of the Intersection of Capacity Areas and Demand

Spectrum (Calvi, 1999)

55

Fig.. 1.17 Distributed Damage/Beam-Sway (left) and Soft-Storey/column-Sway

(right) Response Mechanisms

55

Fig. 2.1 Structural System 3-D No Beams in the Longitudinal

65

Fig. 2.2 Valentine Valiente (VV)(Before Shock)

65

Fig. 2.3 Three Views of the Collapsed of VV School (After Shock)

65

Fig. 2.4 Raimudo Martinez Centeno 3-D View

66

Fig. 2.5 3-D of the Structural System of (RMC)

66

Fig. 2.6 RMC School Before and After Shock

66

Fig. 2.7 Soft Floor Chungliao National School Elementary School

68

Fig. 2.8 Short- Column in the Wu Fang School

68

Fig. 2.9The Jianmin Elementary School and Damages to Brick Walls

69

Fig. 2.10 The Building Adjacent Perpendicularly to the Jianmin Elementary

School with Insufficient Gap

69

Fig. 2.11 Soft-Floor Failure in One Unit of the Complex

70

Fig. 2.12 Column Splices at the Base

71
xii
14

Page
Fig. 2.13 No Transverse Reinforcements

71

Fig. 2.14 Insufficient Confinement in the Columns

71

Fig. 2.15 The Fault Ruptured the Ground Surface Passing to the Right
of This School in Wu Fang

72

Fig. 2.16 Layout of Terro-Type School

74

Fig. 2.17 Side-View of Fermin del Castillo School of Torre Type

in Vista Alegre

74

Fig. 2.18 780School and its Layout

75

Fig. 2.19 Short Column Failure in 780 School Type

75

Fig. 2.20 (i) A School Designed with the 1977Code (note damage)
(ii) A School Designed with the 1997 Code (no damage)

77

Fig. 2.21 Short Columns Failed in Shear in an Old School in Caman,

One of the Failed Columns of wide spaced Stirrups

77

Fig. 2.22 Damage to Short Column with In- plan Failure of Masonry Wall

78

Fig. 2.23 Heavy Damage in Short Column

78

Fig. 2.24 Jorge Basadre Elementary School

79

Fig. 2.25 Short Column and Damaged Beam-Column Joint

79

Fig. 2.26 Walls of the Second and Third Floors Collapsed with Out-of Plan
Failure with Intact Column

80

Fig. 2.27 Full View of the Schoolhouse, Wide Space 25 cm, between Lateral
Reinforcing Bars in Damaged Short Column

81

Fig. 2.28 Partial collapse due to Failure of Short Columns the Collapse of One
of the Short Columns

82

Fig. 2.29 Colegio Nacional Mariscal Caceres School

82

Fig. 2.30 Shear Crack observed in One Column

83

Fig. 2.31 A Column with Few Lateral Reinforcing Bars

83

xiii
15

Page

Fig. 2.32 Shear Failure in the Column the Length of the Compressed
Column is about 145 cm

83

Fig. 2.33 Non-buckled Steel in Short Column

84

Fig. 2.34 Shear Failure of the Column with Adequate Spacing Reinforcing Bars 84
Fig. 2.35 Heavily Damaged School Building with Failure of Short Columns in
Bhachau

86

Fig. 2.36 Heavily damaged school building No. (1) with Failure of Short Columns
in a School in Bhachau

86

Fig. 2.39 F. Iovene Primary School Collapse

90

Fig. 2.40 The Jovine Elementary School of San Giuliano with

Pancake Failure

90

Fig. 2.41 Extensive Damage to the Elementary School in Pettino

92

Fig. 2.42 Undamaged New Technical School Building

93

Fig.2.43 School Buildings West of Ceyhan with Damage of Grade 2 to 3

93

Fig. 2.44 A School Building West of Ceyhan: Reconstruction of a Destroyed

Masonry Infill Wall

93

Fig. 2.45 The Typical School Building and The Typical Layout Columns
Dimensions are the Same Irrespective of the Number of Floors

95

Fig. 2.46 Soft Storey Collapse in the Celtiksuyu Classroom Block

97

Fig. 2.47 Plastic Hinge Formation at First Floor Column

97

Fig..2.48 Kaleonu Ilkogretim OkuluPrimary School Evidenced Before and

After Earthquake and Soft Floor and The Corner Column Failed in
Shear Failure Mode

98

Fig. 2.49 Saricicek Koyu Ilkogretim Okulu School the Shear Failure in the
Columns due to the Ends of the Stirrups were not Anchored Properly 100
Fig. 2.50 Pancake Collapsed School Buildings
xv
16

102

Page

Fig. 2.51 Collapsed Canopy of the Primary School

102

Fig. 2.52 The Lateral Deformation of the Canopy Roof thereby Preventing
its Collapse

103

Fig. 2.53 Illustration of Torsional Forces and P- Effects

104

Fig. 2.54 Short Column

104

Fig. 2.55 Collapse of first floor due to failure of beam-column Joint

105

Fig.2.56 First Floor Collapse of School Building

106

Fig. 2.57 Elementary School in Corso. Insufficient Lateral Resisting System

106

Fig. 2.58 Two School Buildings Perpendicular to each other with Improper
Expansion Joints

107

Fig. 2.59 Short Columns and Improper Detailing

Beni Chougran, Mascara, Earthquake (1994)
Fig. 2.60 Out-of-Plan Failure Ain Temouchent Earthquake (1999)

108
108

Fig. 2.61 Short Columns and Improper Detailing Ain Temouchent

Earthquake (1999)

108

Fig. 2.62 In Plan Failure Kherratta, Bejaia , Earthquake (2006)

109

Fig. 2.63 Soft Floor Failure Accompanied by Stair Displacement Boumerds

Earthquake (2003)

109

Fig. 2.64 Poor Quality of Concrete and Short Columns Boumerds

Earthquake (2003)

110

Fig. 2.65 Out of-plan Failure and Poor Quality of Concrete in New School
in Constructing Phase Damaged after 2003 Boumerdes Earthquake

110

Fig. 2.66 Xingfu Primary School is an Example of Similar Construction of

Public School Buildings with Precast Concrete Floor Planks

112

Fig. 2.67 The Location of Collapsed School and Adjoining Building Totally
Collapsed Except for the Stairwell Area

113
xvi
17

Page
Fig. 2.68 Hanwang Wudu Primary School

114

Fig. 2.69 Captive Column in Hanwang - Death Town

115

Fig. 2.70 The School Building Nearby Longmenshan Fault

116

Fig. 2.71 STBA Prayoga School Before and After Earthquake Event

118

Fig. 2.73 The Improper Detailing of Joints

119

Fig. 2.74 Tow- Floors School in Leogane; Complete Collapse (Pancake)

119

Fig. 2.75 The Union School in Port-au-Prince

120

Fig. 2.76 Shear Failure of Second Floor Columns

121

Fig. 2.77 In- Plan Shear Failure of Slightly Reinforced Masonry Infill

121

Fig. 2.78 Elementary School, First Floor Two Captive Columns

122

Fig. 2.79 In Plan Failure of Clay Masonry Infill Next to a Retrofitted Column 124
Fig. 2.80 Column Confinement 6-mm Stirrups Spaced @28cm

124

Fig. 2.81 Shear Failure of Exterior Unretrofitted Bottom Floor Column

and Poor Concrete Consolidation and Smooth Aggregates

124

Fig. 2.82 Nishinomiya Municipal High School Former Building A, Collision

of the 2nd to 5th Floors of the School Building due to Buckling

126

Fig. 2.83 Buckled and Crushed Cooking Room of the Home Economics
Class on the First Floor

126

Fig. 2.84 The Crushed First Floor and Damaged Column

127

Fig. 2.85 Former Building First Floor Courtyard Land Subsidence due to
Liquefaction

127

Fig. 2.86 Corridor From Building B to Building C Land Subsidence due to

Liquefaction

128

Fig. 2.87 Corridor from Building B to building C Damage to the School's

Connecting Structure

128

Fig. 2.88 The Number of the School Buildings Vs. the Factors for Reinforced
Concrete School Buildings

131
xvii
18

Page
Fig. 2.89 The Performance Modification Factors of the Reinforced Concrete
Building Type

132

Fig. 2.90 Statistical Analysis of the Questionnaire Parts Addressing Structural

Vulnerability.

133

Fig. 2.91 Soft Storey or/ and Pounding Between Two Adjacent Buildings

134

Fig. 2.92 Soft-Storey is subjected to Severed Formation Demands during

Seismic Shaking

135

Fig. 2.93 Failure of Soft- Storey of Two school Buildings with Slightly
Damage in the Upper Floors

136

Fig. 2.94 Different Types of Pounding between Two Adjacent Buildings

137

Fig. 2.95 Pounding due to Liquefaction

137

Fig. 2.96 Examples of Plan shapes

143

Fig. 2.97 Arrows Indicate Possible Points of Damage in Various Plan Shapes 143
Fig. 2.98 Effect of the Plan Shape on Seismic Performance and Problem of
Differential Movement Results in Severe Damage Junction of the Two
Wings in L-Shaped Building

143

Fig. 2.99 Stress Concentration in Simple Rectangular building

144

Fig. 2.100 Different Irregular Elevation Shapes

145

Fig. 2.101 The Shorter Columns Attracts Larger Lateral Force,

the Taller Attracts Smaller Lateral Force

145

Fig. 2.102 Examples of Damage to Short Columns between Windows

at School Buildings

145

Fig. 2.103 Infill Walls Move Together with the Columns under Earthquake
Shaking

147

Fig. 2.104 In plan failure mode

147

xviii
19

Page

Fig. 2.105 Out-of-plan failure mode

147

Fig. 2.106 Infill Walls Influence the Behavior of the Reinforced Concrete
Frame

147

Fig. 2.107 The Zoning Map in the Egyptian Codes

150

Fig. 3.1 Flow Chart of the Proposed Methodology

154

Fig. 3.2 Factors Considered in the Proposed Methodology

165

Fig. 3.5 Diaphragm Deformation of Long Strip Building

174

Fig. 3.6 Longer Walls will Bend and Possibly Collapse

174

Fig. 3.7 Different Plan Shapes

175

Fig. 3.8 Different Irregular Elevation Shapes

175

Fig. 3.9 Determination of the Design Magnitude M

181

Fig. 3.10 The Procedure of the School Safety Program SSP

185

Fig. 3.11 The School Safety Program SSP

185

Fig. 3.12 The input data of the SSP Program

189

Fig. 3.13 Out Put of the SSP Program

190

Fig. 3.14 Tick on Add to CSV FILE

190

Fig. 3.15 Press on Calculate Button the Program is ready for the Next
Input Data

191

Fig. 4.1 Escuela Superior Medicina building Study Case No. 1

198

Fig. 4.2 The Cariaco Earthquake in Venezeuala, 1997

201

Fig. 4.3 Structural Plan at First Storey of the Valentine Valiente (VV)
Study Case No.2

201

Fig. 4.4 3-D of Structural System of one module, No Beams in the

Longitudinal Direction

201

Fig. 4.5 The VV School Before Shock and After Shock

xx
21

203