Damage Estimation: Earthquake Resistant Buildings

989 Words2 Pages

a. Seismic damage estimation of buildings considering north Tehran fault scenario earthquake
The residential building damages were calculated for Niavaran fault scenario earthquake by JICA (2000). The recent updates on JICA’s study (Karimi 2011) was employed as input data for the analysis. In the study conducted by JICA (2000), commercial buildings and factories were not included in the analysis and the term “damaged buildings” implies that the buildings were heavily damaged or collapsed that they were inappropriate for living without proper repair. Furthermore, the cause of the damage was limited to the seismic vibration itself. The damages caused by secondary disasters such as liquefaction, landslides, fire and explosions were not included in this calculation.
The earthquake resistant property of buildings differs from area to area and from country to country. The relationship between the seismic force and the damage ratio is not always the same, even if the type of buildings are similar. Different methods of construction is the main reason for such differences. Moreover, the collection of the seismic national disaster record and the establishment of a damage function based on the local experiences seemed to be important factors in the damage estimation. In doing so, damage reports of Ghir (Ambraseys et al. 1972), Tabas (Berberian 1979; Berberian et al. 1979), Golbaft (Adeli 1982 ), and Manjil (Tsukuda et al. 1990) earthquakes were adopted to the damage estimation by Karimi (2011).
In the damage estimation process, it was supposed that the main structures having key roles in the emergency and relief operation (e.g. hospitals, fire stations, etc.) had been retrofitted.

b. Human casualty estimation considering north Tehran fault ...

... middle of paper ...

...ations about the trips
About 523 person-hours were spent in brainstorming sessions and 336 hours in NGT sessions.
The reason for employing the NGT in the last above stage was due to the fact that the NGT uses a more structured format to obtain multiple inputs from several people on a particular problem or issue and also because it prevents the domination of discussion by a single person, encourages the more passive group members to participate, and results in a set of prioritized solutions or recommendations (Sample 1984). We needed to leverage the anonymous voting of the NGT and minimizing the dominance of the some participants over other ones in the technical matters of the project through providing equal opportunities for participations in the NGT. Furthermore, this method minimizes the communication noise that is customary in other team creativity techniques.

Open Document