Training For Visus-Surveyors


VISUS-MULTIHAZARD
Implementation Partner Agreement
Contract N°: 4500267919
TRAINING FOR
VISUS-SURVEYORS
Prof. ing. Stefano Grimaz
University of Udine (Italy)

Director of Safety and Protecton
Intersectoral Laboratory
Department of Chemistry
Physics and Environment
© prof. ing. Stefano Grimaz – Director of SPRINT-Lab – Department of Chemistry Physics and Environment - University of Udine (I) 1
VISUS Multi-hazard Training AGENDA
5/10 MON 6/10 TUES 7/10 WED 8/10 THURS 9/10 FRID 10/10 SAT
Days
day1 day2 day3 day4 day5 day6
where VIENTIANE Where ? Where ? Where ? Where ?
time New Rose hotel Pagsan in Bolikhan district Pagsan in Bolikhan district Vienthong and Khamkert Vienthong and Khamkert
7.00 Travel BACK TO VTE
8.00 OPENING TRAVEL to Pagsan Preparation P1

TRANINING COURSE in Bolikhan district refresh on the VISUS
8.30 survey form and data entry
9.00 Module T1 (1:30 h) 7:00 -Departure form of data collected
No training (district 1 – facilitators 1-3)
Introduction to Vientiane
activities (district 2 – facilitators 2-4) Practice S3
CSS Multihazard assessment 10:00 - Arrival at Pagsan in
9.30 Bolikhan districts Parallel surveys
10.00 on site 5 schools in total
Break 30 min Preparation P0
Meeting of
10.30 facilitators/observers
Module T2 (2 h) Module T5 (2h)
11.00 Introduction to VISUS The VISUS Survey for preparing
11.30 Methodology and to VISUS (how organize the survey surveys of Days 4 and 5
survey tools and how to fill the forms) 1.Stefano, 2.Jair Practice S2
12.00 LUNCH:
3.Sengathit, 4.Krishna Parallel surveys
12.30 LUNCH : from 12:00 to 12:45pm
5.STC on site 4 schools in total
from 12:30 to 13:15 (45 min)
LUNCH: (4 groups in 2 districts)
12.45 (45 min)
from 12:30 to 13.30 (1 hour) DEPARTURE DAY
13.15 Practice S1
(all together–on field) TRAVEL back to Paksan
13.30 Module T3 (2h) in Hadyeun Primary School (around 2-3 h drive)
14.00 General information to collect School ID: 0011 1104 006
for VISUS assessment Latitude: N 18° 39'25" Travel to Vienthong
14.30
Longitude: E 103° 35'17" and Khamkert
15.00 Break 30 min Altitude: 157,02m Data entry D1 Data entry D2
15.30 Bolikhan district Data entry and upload of Data entry and upload of
14:00 Departure
16.00 Module T4 (2 h) Module T6 17:00 Arrival data collected during Day 4 data collected during Day 5
16.30 Overview on the VISUS-obs Data entry of collected data Comments and
for the different hazards Final comment per group
17.00 clarifications
Wrap up/comments (challenged/suggestion)
(with facilitators)
17.30 GENERAL CLOSURE
Closure of the Day 1 Closure of the Day 2 Closure of the Day 4
OF THE TRAINING COURSE
After Night in Khamkerd and Night in Khamkerd and
Night in VTE Night in Paksan Night in Paksan
17.30 Viengthong Viengthong
VISUS-MULTIHAZARD
TRAINING FOR SURVEYORS
SESSION T1
VISUS for Comprehensive School Safety
VISUS-MULTIHAZARD
SESSION T1.1
VISUS in the CSS framework
 CSS FRAMEWORK THE ROLE OF VISUS
THE THREE PILLARS OF THE

COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL SAFETY
PILLAR 1
EXISTING
SCHOOLS
Implementation Partner Agreement VISUS MULTIHAZARD TRAINING VISUS FOR COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL SAFETY T1
Contract N°: 4500267919 Prof. Stefano Grimaz - SPRINT-Lab University of Udine (Italy) VISUS in the CSS framework 1.1
 CSS SAFETY GOALS THREE MAIN GOALS
R#1
R#2
SAFETY GOALS
R#3 LIFE SAFETY (CHILDREN)
CONTINUITY (EDUCATION ACTIVITIES)
LOSS PREVENTION (SAFEGUARD OF INVESTMENTS)
R#4
 FOCUS ON PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT PILLAR 1
The components of the physical environment
Pillar 1
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
Site
Buildings
Facilities
Courtyards
 LIFE SAFETY PRACTICAL MEANING
A SIMPLE CONCEPTUAL MODEL
ADVERSE LIFE SAFETY

EFFECTS
ADVERSE EVENT
(HAZARD/THREAT) “OK”
NO VICTIMS AND NO INJURIES

as consequence of the adverse
effects produced by an hazard/threat
 UNSAFE CONDITIONS CASES
WHEN COULD THE SITUATION BE “NOT OK”?

DIRECT EFFECTS
outside/inside
INDIRECT EFFECTS
Something collapses or falls
on people from above
The adverse effects
impact directly on people Something collapses, falls,
Someting collapses,
overturns on people from
on people laterally
falls or overturns
above or laterally
inside outside
The support falls or collapses under the feet
 MAIN FOCUS OF PILLARS AN «IT» INTERPRETATION
THE THREE PILLARS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL SAFETY
hardware
PHYSICAL
SCHOOL
SAFETY
ENVIRONMENT
1
Learning
No deaths and injuries
Continuity
facilities Loss prevention
software ability
2
Disaster
3
Risk reduction
Planning management Resilience education
Knowledge
Response Awareness
Continuity Prevention
ORGANIZATION CULTURE/ATTITUDE
QUESTIONS?
VISUS-MULTIHAZARD
SESSION T1.2
Safety assessment:
a multidimensional problem
 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS LEARN FROM THE EXPERIENCE
R#31 R#32
What to evaluate? Main issues?

SEISMIC SAFETY
Contract N°: 4500267919 Prof. Stefano Grimaz - SPRINT-Lab University of Udine (Italy) Safety assessment: a multidimensional problem 2.1
 THE STRUCTURAL RESPONSE LEARN FROM THE EXPERIENCE
L’Aquila (Central Italy) 06/04/2009 03.32, Mw=6.3
R#33
 THE STRUCTURAL RESPONSE LEARN FROM THE EXPERIENCE
R#33
 THE NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS LEARN FROM THE EXPERIENCE
Post office
R#33
 THE FUNCTIONALITY (ESCAPE ROUTE) LEARN FROM THE EXPERIENCE
R#33
 LOCATION LEARN FROM THE EXPERIENCE
R#34
R#34
 FORM EXPERIENCE FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
Life Safety assessment requires to

consider every situation that can cause
injuries or deaths as a consequence of an
adverse event (earthquake).
SAFETY ISSUES
LOCATION/SITE Site effects, soil amplification, landslides, …
GLOBAL Response of structure (global behaviour)

STRUCTURE
LOCAL Response of structural elements (local response)
NON-STRUCTURAL ELEM. Response of non-structural elements
FUNCTIONAL Emergency systems, escape ways (internal and external)
SAFETY ASSESSMENT IS A MULTIDIMENSIONAL PROBLEM

A SINGLE NUMBER OR INDICATOR IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR AN EXHAUSTIVE SAFETY-CHARACTERIZATION
QUESTIONS?
Contract N°: 4500267919 Prof. Stefano Grimaz- SPRINT-Lab University of Udine (Italy) Safety assessment: a multidimensional problem 2.8
VISUS-MULTIHAZARD
SESSION T1.3
VISUS indicators
 JUDGE THE PERFORMANCES THE ANALOGY
CLASS SCHOOL COMPLEX
TEACHER INSPECTOR
CRITERIA CRITERIA
STUDENT SCHOOL BUILDING
REPORT REPORT
SCHOOL SUBJECTS
SAFETY ISSUES
LOCATION/SITE
FOR EACH STUDENT GLOBAL
FOR EACH BUILIDNG
STRUCTURE
LOCAL
NON-STRUCTURAL ELEM.
FUNCTIONAL
FINAL GLOBAL JUDGEMENT FINAL GLOBAL JUDGEMENT
Contract N°: 4500267919 Prof. Stefano Grimaz - SPRINT-Lab University of Udine (Italy) VISUS indicators 3.1
 SAFETY MULTIDIMENSIONAL PROBLEM
WHAT TO ANALYSE GLOBAL

PERFORMANCE
SAFETY ISSUES
SITE STRUCTURAL NON-STRUCTURAL OPERATIONAL
RESPONSE ELEMENTS ASPECTS
site effects, response of structural response of non-structural Emergency systems,
soil amplification, elements elements escape ways
landslides,
(internal and external)
natural threats GLOBAL LOCAL Weakness
collapses, falling,
Site suitability Structural Local critical overturning, Escape difficulites
performance effects dangerorus releases
1
2
 PERFORMANCE VISUS ROBUSTNESS LABELS
1 STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE CLASSIFICATION

PERFORMACE CRITERION
poor data good data

rude statistical correlations good statistical correlations
observations fragility curves
experience simplified models
evalutation
EB - evaluation QS - evaluation
expert-based judgement quantitative simplified
NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES
NEGLIGIBLE  Pi≥0.8
EXPECTED
MODERATE  0.4≤Pi<0.8
HEAVY  Pi<0.4
 CONCERNS AND INTERVENTION NEEDS VISUS ROSE OF WARNINGS
2 UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS FOR DEFINING THE RIGHT SOLUTIONS

ROSE OF INTERVENTION NEEDS (WARNING NEEDLES)
Level 0
No retrofitting is needed
Absence of elements of concern
FUNCTIONAL Level 1
Retrofitting is needed to avoid
difficult situations for people
safety
Level 2
Retrofitting is needed to avoid
heavy consequences for people
safety
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATION OF THE COST OF INTERVENTION
 GLOBAL JUDGEMENT VISUS PERFORMACE STARS
3 GLOBAL SAFE-INDICATOR (PERFORMANCE BASED)
GLOBAL JUDGEMENT ON
SCHOOL FACILITIES SAFETY
Criteria for the progressive assignment
of the safety stars (scenario-dependent)
Unsuitable site
(Level 2 of concern for site)
Suitable site
(absence of Level 2 of concern for site)
Stability of the building
(absence of Level 2 of concern for structural global)
Life safeguard
(absence of Level 2 of concern for all issues)
Rapid resume of operations

(absence of Level 1 of concern for structural global and local)
Immediately operational
(absence of Level 1 of concern for all issues)
QUESTIONS?
TECHNICAL ANNEX
STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE
EVALUTATION METHODS
Contract N°: 4500267919 Prof. Stefano Grimaz - SPRINT-Lab University of Udine (Italy) VISUS indicators A
 PERFORMANCE METHODS OF QUANTIFICATION
QS - evaluation
Structural computation TIME CONSUMING

INPUT DATA
Fragility curves
observed
damage
AVAILABILITY OF
DATA BASE
REPRESENTATIVITY
typologies OF TYPOLOGIES
Damage of reference
i.e. 10% of collapse MS-T1  0,22g
Contract N°: 4500267919 Prof. Stefano Grimaz - SPRINT-Lab University of Udine (Italy) VISUS indicators A.1
 PERFORMANCE METHODS OF ESTIMATION
database
(systematic data collection)
corrispondence AVAILABILITY OF
DATA BASE
REPRESENTATIVITY
Pseudo statistical OF TYPOLOGIES
b - procedure
observations
experience
empirical expert estimation
Empirical AVAILABILITY
Characteristic 3-points OF LOCAL
LC TC UC
EXPERTS
TRIPOINT LOWER value TIPICAL value UPPER value
EXPERTS REFERENCES
Contract N°: 4500267919 Prof. Stefano Grimaz - SPRINT-Lab University of Udine (Italy) VISUS indicators A.2
VISUS-MULTIHAZARD
SESSION T1.4
Why multi-hazard assessment?
 HAZARD AND SAFETY HAZARD OR HAZARDS?
HAZARD
R#5
EARTHQUAKES
WINDSTORMS
FLOODS
R#1
R#4
Contract N°: 4500267919 Prof. Stefano Grimaz - SPRINT-Lab University of Udine (Italy) Why multi-hazard assessment? 4.1
 SAFETY CONDITIONS MULTIHAZARD APPROACH
REQUIRES
MULTI-HAZARD ASSESSMENT
…..
 SCHOOL DAMAGE (UNSAFE) EXAMPLES
EARTHQUAKES WINDSTORMS
R#5 R#7
R#6 R#2
 SCHOOL DAMAGE (UNSAFE) EXAMPLES
FLOOD
OTHERS
TSUNAMI
R#9
R#4
LANDSLIDES
R#10
R#8 R#11 FIRE
 HANDOUTS REMARKS
SESSIONS T1.1-T1.4: REMARKS

LIFE SAFETY IS A FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENT OF THE CSS SCHOOL
SAFETY GOALS
UNSAFE SITUATIONS COULD BE STRICTLY RELATED TO THE
CHARACTERISTICS/CONDITIONS OF PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
(INFRASTRUCTURES COMPONENTS)
SAFETY IS NOT ONLY RELATED TO THE STRUCTURAL RESPONSE
SCHOOL SAFETY IS A MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPT
SAFETY EVALUATION REQUIRES A HOLISTIC APPROACH
COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL SAFETY EVALUATION REQUIRES A MULTI-

HAZARD APPROACH
SAFETY EVALUATION REQUIRES A PERFORMANCE-BASED EVALUATION
(FOR INSTANCE, LIFE SAFETY)
QUESTIONS?
VISUS-MULTIHAZARD
SESSION T1.5
New vs existing schools
 THE PROBLEM DISCUSSION
SCHOOL SAFETY
VS
NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING
HOW CAN WE FACE THE TWO CASES?

SIMILARITIES/DIFFERENCES?
Implementation Partner Agreement VISUS MULTIHAZARD TRAINING SAFETY: NEW AND EXISITING SCHOOLS T1
Contract N°: 4500267919 Prof. Stefano Grimaz - SPRINT-Lab University of Udine (Italy) New vs existing schools 5.1
 SAFE LEARNING FACILITIES THE RIGHT DESIGN
NEW CONSTRUCTION
1
Learning
facilities
2
Disaster
3
Risk reduction
management Resilience
education
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURES
 NEW BUILDINGS THE RIGHT DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SCHOOL FACILITIES
DEMOGRAPHIC INCREASE
MOTIVATIONS
ICREASE IN ATTENDANCE
UNSAFE EXISTING SCHOOLS

POST-DISASTER RECONSTRUCTION
INVOLVED SUBJECTS
EDUCATION AUTHORITIES
ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS
BUILDERS
SCHOOL COMMUNITY MEMBERS
 KEY POINTS NEW BUILDINGS
SAFE SITE minimize hazards and threats

SELECTION access to school free from physical risks
…
adopt standards, codes, guidelines
impacting hazards
utilization as temporary community shelter?
DESIGN access and safety for people with disabilities
water and sanitation facilities
climate-smart intervention
…
control used materials and work execution
CONSTRUCTION superintend the construction
…
MAINTENANCE plan continuous monitoring

…
 WIND HAZARD (EXPERIENCE) IMPACTS SCENARIOS (IS)
IS
IS
R#1
IS
R#12
R#3
 WIND SAFETY CODES AND GUIDELINES
 EARTHQUAKE HAZARD (EXPERIENCE) IMPACT SCENARIOS (IS)
IS
IS
R#17
R#18
IS
IS
R#19 R#20
 SEISMIC SAFETY CODES AND GUIDELINES
 FLOOD HAZARD (EXPERIENCE) IMPACT SCENARIOS (IS)
IS
IS
R#25
R#26
IS IS
R#4 R#8
 FLOOD SAFETY CODES AND GUIDELINES
 INTERDEPENDANCE BETWEEN PILLARS PILLAR 1 AND PILLARS 2&3
THE POORER THE RESPONSE OF INFRASTRUCTURES (PILLAR 1),

THE MORE DIFFICULT (AND SOME TIME IMPOSSIBLE) THE
MANAGEMENT BECOMES (PILLAR 2)
R#1
AND THIS CONSEQUENTLY LOWERS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
PREPAREDNESS (PILLAR 3)
R#3
R#17 R#21 R#15
 MULTI-HAZARD SAFETY DESING FEMA P-424
PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH
PF The term “PERFORMANCE,” as it relates to exposure to

natural hazards, usually refers to a building’s condition after
a disaster, i.e., it signifies a level of damage expected or a
load that can be resisted. Building performance is an
indicator of how well a structure supports the defined needs
of its users. (FEMA P-424)
Collapse prevention
Life safety
Immediate occupancy
Operational
(Uninterrupted functionality)
 BUILD THE SAFETY PERFORMACE-BASED DESIGN
PERFORMACE-BASED DESIGN AND BUILDING CODES

building codes, based on the performance based approach, define the minimum
design requirements to ensure the safety of occupants, or other levels of
performance (i.e. prevention of collapse, uninterruption of functionality, etc.)
during specific design events (dE).
DESIGN PROCESS AIMS TO

OBTAIN A BUILDING WITH
dE PREDEFINED PERFORMANCES PF
FOR SPECIFIC DESIGN EVENTS
IMPACT
PERFORMANCE PF IS SCENARIO
PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT (FEMA P-424)

The performance-based design process begins with establishing the acceptable
risk and appropriate performance levels for the building and its systems.
Acceptable risk is the maximum level of damage to the building that can be
tolerated from a realistic risk event scenario or probability.
 SAFE LEARNING FACILITIES EXIXTING SCHOOLS
EXISTING SCHOOLS
1
Learning
facilities
2
Disaster
3
Risk reduction
management Resilience
education
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURES
USE OF THE GUIDELINES ?
 AN IMPORTANT OBSERVATION DESIGN vs ASSESSMENT
TWO DIFFERENT PROBLEMS

NEW EXISTING
SINGLE BUILDING LARGE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS
ASSESSMENT
SEISMIC CODE
≠ PRIORITIZE
INTERVENTION
“PRO-ACTIVE CONTROL” OF RISK RISK REDUCTION
CAN WE TRANSFER THE APPROACH “TOUT COURT”?

?
NO! WE NEED CRITERIA AND METHODS
FOR ASSESSING THE PERFORMANCES
 DESIGN & ASSESSMENT TWO SIDES OF A MEDAL
PERFORMANCE-BASED PERFORMANCE-BASED
DESIGN ASSESSMENT
vs
PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN
DESIGN PROCESS AIMS TO IS

OBTAIN A BUILDING WITH
dE PREDEFINED PERFORMANCES PF
FOR SPECIFIC DESIGN EVENTS
VISUAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
VISUAL ASSESSMENT AIMS TO

PF FORMULATE A PRAGMATIC EVALUTION
OF THE PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS rE
IS AS RESPONSE OF SPECIFIC
EVENT OF REFERENCE
 HANDOUTS REMARKS
SESSION T1.5 – REMARKS
THE COMPLIANCE WITH GUIDELINES ENABLES THE AVOIDANCE OF

CRITICAL CONDITIONS IN CASE OF HAZARD
SPECIFIC GUIDELINES COULD BE CONTRADDICTORY WITH RESPECT
TO DIFFERENT HAZARD
SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCES EXIST IN THE MANAGEMENT OF
SAFETY BETWEEN NEW AND EXISTING SCHOOL FACILITIES
THE SAFETY OF NEW SCHOOLS IS MANAGED THROUGH
CODES/GUIDELINES. THE SAFETY OF EXISTING SCHOOLS REQUIRES
SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTS
SAFETY EVALUATION REQUIRES A PERFORMANCE-BASED EVALUATION
(FOR INSTANCE, LIFE SAFETY)
QUESTIONS?

Training For Visus-Surveyors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Training For Visus-Surveyors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats



Prof. ing. Stefano Grimaz

University of Udine (Italy)

8.00 OPENING TRAVEL to Pagsan Preparation P1

THE THREE PILLARS OF THE

The components of the physical environment

A SIMPLE CONCEPTUAL MODEL

ADVERSE LIFE SAFETY

NO VICTIMS AND NO INJURIES

WHEN COULD THE SITUATION BE “NOT OK”?

The support falls or collapses under the feet

THE THREE PILLARS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL SAFETY

What to evaluate? Main issues?

L’Aquila (Central Italy) 06/04/2009 03.32, Mw=6.3

L’Aquila (Central Italy) 06/04/2009 03.32, Mw=6.3

L’Aquila (Central Italy) 06/04/2009 03.32, Mw=6.3

L’Aquila (Central Italy) 06/04/2009 03.32, Mw=6.3

Life Safety assessment requires to

LOCATION/SITE Site effects, soil amplification, landslides, …

GLOBAL Response of structure (global behaviour)

NON-STRUCTURAL ELEM. Response of non-structural elements

FUNCTIONAL Emergency systems, escape ways (internal and external)

SAFETY ASSESSMENT IS A MULTIDIMENSIONAL PROBLEM

CLASS SCHOOL COMPLEX

FINAL GLOBAL JUDGEMENT FINAL GLOBAL JUDGEMENT

WHAT TO ANALYSE GLOBAL

1 STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE CLASSIFICATION

poor data good data

2 UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS FOR DEFINING THE RIGHT SOLUTIONS

PRELIMINARY ESTIMATION OF THE COST OF INTERVENTION

3 GLOBAL SAFE-INDICATOR (PERFORMANCE BASED)

Rapid resume of operations

Structural computation TIME CONSUMING

R#8 R#11 FIRE

SESSIONS T1.1-T1.4: REMARKS

SAFETY EVALUATION REQUIRES A HOLISTIC APPROACH

COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL SAFETY EVALUATION REQUIRES A MULTI-

NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING

HOW CAN WE FACE THE TWO CASES?

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SCHOOL FACILITIES

UNSAFE EXISTING SCHOOLS

SAFE SITE minimize hazards and threats

MAINTENANCE plan continuous monitoring

THE POORER THE RESPONSE OF INFRASTRUCTURES (PILLAR 1),

R#17 R#21 R#15

PF The term “PERFORMANCE,” as it relates to exposure to

PERFORMACE-BASED DESIGN AND BUILDING CODES

DESIGN PROCESS AIMS TO

PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT (FEMA P-424)

USE OF THE GUIDELINES ?

TWO DIFFERENT PROBLEMS

“PRO-ACTIVE CONTROL” OF RISK RISK REDUCTION

CAN WE TRANSFER THE APPROACH “TOUT COURT”?

DESIGN PROCESS AIMS TO IS

VISUAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

VISUAL ASSESSMENT AIMS TO

SESSION T1.5 – REMARKS

THE COMPLIANCE WITH GUIDELINES ENABLES THE AVOIDANCE OF

You might also like