figure 3.2.10 slope > 20 degree area - jica報告書pdf版...

3 - 141

Figu

re 3

.2.1

0 S

lope

> 2

0 D

egre

e A

rea

Sour

ce: T

he JI

CA

Stu

dy T

eam

3 - 142

Source: Census 2001, INA

Figure 3.2.11 Census Data of Person / Family

3 - 143

Figure 3.2.12 The Damage Function for Damage Level 4 / EMS-98

Figure 3.2.13 Vulnerability Classes in EMS-98

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

INTENSIDAD MACROSÍSMICA (IMM)

REL

AC

IÓN

DE

DA

ÑO

SEV

ERO

ABCDEF

3 - 144

Classification of Damage

Masonry RC Building

Grade 1:

Negligible to slight

damage

(no structural damage,

slight non-structural

damage)

Hair-line cracks in very few walls. Fall of small pieces of plaster only. Fall of loose stones from upper parts of buildings in very few cases.

Fine cracks in plaster over frame members or in walls at the base. Fine cracks in partitions and infills

Grade 2:

Moderate damage

(slight structural damage,

moderate

non-structural damage)

Cracks in many walls. Fall of fairly large pieces of plaster. Partial collapse of chimneys.

Cracks in columns and beams of frames and in structural walls. Cracks in partition and infill walls; fall of brittle cladding and plaster. Falling mortar from the joints of wall panels.

Grade 3:

Substantial to heavy

damage

(moderate structural

damage,

heavy non-structural

damage)

Large and extensive cracks in most walls.Roof tiles detach. Chimneys fracture at the roof line; failure of individual non-structural elements (partitions, gable walls).

Cracks in columns and beam column joints of frames at the base and at joints of coupled walls. Spalling of concrete cover, buckling of reinforced rods. Large cracks in partition and infill walls, failure of individual infill panels.

Grade 4: Very heavy

damage

(heavy structural damage,

very heavy non-structural

damage)

Serious failure of walls; partial structural failure of roofs and floors

Large cracks in structural elements with compression failure of concrete and fracture of rebars; bond failure of beam reinforced bars; tilting of columns. Collapse of a few columns or of a single upper floor.

Grade 5: Destruction

(very heavy structural

damage)

Total or near total collapse

Collapse of ground floor or parts (e. g. wings) of buildings.

Figure 3.2.14 The Classification of Damage Proposed by European Macro-Seismic

Scale

3 - 145

Figure 3.2.15 Building Damage Function Used in this Study Safina, 2003

Source: JICA Study Team

Figure 3.2.16 Flowchart of Human Casualties’ Estimation

Evaluation of existing human damage data in Venezuela

Precious but very little data of the past two Earthquakes in Venezuela, i.e., Caracas(1967) and Cariaco (1997), should be used for validation of local characteristics.

Evaluation of existing human damage data out of Venezuela

The detailed data of the Quindio Earthquake (Colombia, 1999) was studied.The correlation of the Quindio Earthquake can be basically applied to low-risebuildings in the study area, though the correlation is difficult to be applied to middle & high-rise buildings

.

Study on the summary of worldwide death damage

The data of Caracas (1967), Mexico (1984), Armenia (1986) earthquakes, of whichdamage was mainly caused by damage of high buildings, are considered.The proposed damage function of death for low-rise buildings is compared with thedata of the Cariaco (1997) and other earthquakes in the world.

Evaluation of existing human damage data in Venezuela

Precious but very little data of the past two Earthquakes in Venezuela, i.e., Caracas(1967) and Cariaco (1997), should be used for validation of local characteristics.

Evaluation of existing human damage data out of Venezuela

The detailed data of the Quindio Earthquake (Colombia, 1999) was studied.The correlation of the Quindio Earthquake can be basically applied to low-risebuildings in the study area, though the correlation is difficult to be applied to middle & high-rise buildings

.

Study on the summary of worldwide death damage

The data of Caracas (1967), Mexico (1984), Armenia (1986) earthquakes, of whichdamage was mainly caused by damage of high buildings, are considered.The proposed damage function of death for low-rise buildings is compared with thedata of the Cariaco (1997) and other earthquakes in the world.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Modif ied Mercalli Intensity

Hea

vily

Dam

age

Rat

io

12

3

45

6

78

910

11

1213

14

1516

17

1819

20

3 - 146

Figure 3.2.17 Relation Between Number of Heavily Damaged Building and Number of Death of Cariaco Earthquake (1997)

Figure 3.2.18 Relation Between Heavily Damaged Building and Death Toll of Quindio Earthquake (1999, Colombia)

0

10

20

30

40

1 10 100 1000 10000

Heavily Damaged Building

Num

of

Death

FUNREVI

FUNDOSOES

Source: Cronicas de Desasteres Terremoto de Cariaco, Venezuela, 1997, PAHO

1

10

100

1000

1 10 100 1.000 10.000 100.000

Heavily Damaged Building Number

Death

Toll

Source: Social and Economic Dimensions of the Effects of the Earthquake in the Eje Cafetero. Diagnosis for thereconstruction, 1999, DANE, National Administrative Department of Statistics, Colombia and the JICAStudy Team

3 - 147

Source: The JICA Study Team

Figure 3.2.19 The Summary of the World Data

3 - 148

Figure 3.2.20 Relationship Between Death and Injured of Quindio Earthquake (1999, Colombia)

1

10

100

1.000

10.000

100.000

1 10 100 1.000 10.000

Death

Inju

red

Source: Social and Economic Dimensions of the Effects of the Earthquake in the Eje Cafetero. Diagnosis for thereconstruction, 1999, DANE, National Administrative Department of Statistics, Colombia and the JICAStudy Team

3 - 149

Source: Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook FEMA 154 1968

Figure 3.3.1 The Scoring Sheet with Actual Record

3 - 150

START

IDENTIFY ORIGINAL

USE AND HEIGHT

IDENTIFY YEAR OF

CONSTRUCTION

CLASSIFICATION

FRAME OR BOX

IDENTIFIY STRUCTURE

TYPE

ASSIGN SCORE ASSIGN LOWEST

PROCEDURE FOR UNCERTAIN BUILDINGS

NO

YES

Figure 3.3.2 Work Flowchart for the Rapid Screening Procedure (RSP) Identification Procedure

Source: Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook FEMA 154

3 - 151

Source: The JICA Study Team

Figure 3.3.3 Result of RVS: Relation of Built Year and Final Score

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Final Score

Number of Buildings

Unknown

83-

68-82

56-67

-55

0.0 1.0 2.0 3 4.50.5 2.5 3.0 3.5

3 - 152

Yes No

High or Moderate Seismicity Low Seismicity

Yes No

Start Evaluation for a Particular Building

Are Drawings, Calculations,and/or Specifications

Available?

Review All Available Documents, Verify Accuracyof Documents with Site Visit, Prepare Any New

Drawings That Are Necessary to Proparly PresentConditions of Building

Perform Site Visit and Prepare DrawigsNecessary to Complete Qualitative

Portion of the Evaluation

Use Tables to Determine Building Classification,Determine the Appropriate Model Building (s)

To Use in the Evaluation

Read Model Suilding Description (s) andLoads and Load Path Information

Determaine Seismicity of Building Location

Is The Building in a High, Moderate,or Low Seismicity Zone?

Use High or Moderate SeismicityEvaluation Procedure (s)

Use Low Seismicity EvaluationProcedure (s)

Use All Avalable Data To AddressEach Statement and Related Concern

Is More Information Needed toCompleate Proccess of Addressing

Each Statement?

Return to the Building and AcquireNecessary Additional Information Are Answers To Any of

the Statements "Palse"

Source: Evaluating The Seismic Resistance Of Existing Buildings; ATC 14 1987

Figure 3.3.4 Seismic Evaluation Procedure (Continued on Next Page)

3 - 153

Source: Evaluating The Seismic Resistance Of Existing Buildings; ATC 14 1987

Figure 3.3.5 Seismic Evaluation Procedure (Continued from Previous Page)

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Use the Suggested Procedure Given forthe Related Statement to Perform

Quantitative Evaluation

Information the Owner That Thereis an Acceptable Level of

Life Safety Risk

Return to the Site and/orPerform Materials Tests

Is There InformationNeeded to Complete the

Quatitive Evaluation?

Are Any of the C/D RatiosLess than The Allowable?

Is Damage To NonstructuralItems a Concern To the Owner?

Compare C/D Ratios toAllowable Values

Report All Life Safety Hazardsto the Owner

Inform the Owner That is an AcceptableLevel of Life Safety Risk

Are There Any Features NotIncluded in the List of Statements

That Could Be a Life Safety Hazard?

Perform an Appropriate Special Analysisto Determine if a Life Safety HazardExists. Report Result to the Owner.

Perform Nonstructural Evaluation

Report Findings to the Owner.

Stop

3 - 154

Figure 3.4.1 Procedure of Seismic Damage Estimation

Figure 3.4.2 Cut and Cover Type Tunnel

Figure 3.4.3 Water Supply System

Damage Estimation

Peak Ground Acceleration

Liquefaction Ground Type

Evaluation Method Calibration

Selection of Evaluation Method Bridge List from MINFRA

Site Survey

Update of Bridge List

Bridge Database

Data Collection of Seismic Damage in Venezuela

Side Wall

Middle Column

Service Pipe

Transmission City Main

End User

Water Distribution

Distribution Pipe (minor)Water Purification

Distribution Pipe (main)

3 - 155

Figure 3.4.4 Flow Chart of Damage Estimation for Water Supply

Figure 3.4.5 Standard Damage Ratio

Data Collection

Data input to micro zone

Damage estimation

Sum of damage

Peak ground velocity

Liquefaction evaluation

Damage function in general

Collection past damage data

Correction factor adjustment

Damage function definition

(PGV)

Standard Damage Ratio

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Peak Ground Velocity (cm/s)

Sta

nda

rd D

amag

e R

atio

(poi

nt/k

m)

3 - 156

Figure 3.4.6 Natural Gas Pipeline Network

Figure 3.4.7 Standard Damage Ratio for Gas Pipeline

City Gate Governor Station for High Pressure

ControlStation for Middle Pressure

End User

High pressure Gas Pipeline Middle Pressure

Gas Pipeline Low pressure Gas Pipeline

Object for damage estimation

Standard Damage Ratio

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Peak Ground Velocity(cm/s)

Sta

nda

rd D

amag

e R

atio

(poin

t/km

)

3 - 157

Figure 3.4.8 Electric Power Supply Network

Power Plant

Sub-stationFor Super High Tension

PrimarySub-station

Sub-stationfor Distribution

End User

End User

Electric Cable (Underground)

Electric Pole

Service wire

3 - 158

Figu

re S

8.3.

1

B

ridge

Loc

atio

n

No.

86~9

5

No.

98N

o.15

No.

61~6

3

No.

82~8

3

Hi

hS

ii

Ri

k

Med

im

Seis

mic

Ris

k

Figu

re 3

.4.9

B

ridge

Loc

atio

n

No.

86~9

5

No.

98N

o.15

No.

61~6

3

No.

82~8

3

Hig

h Se

ism

ic R

isk

Med

ium

Sei

smic

Ris

k

3 - 159

Figu

re

S8.3

.2

Via

duct

Figu

re S

8.3.

2

Via

duct

Loc

atio

n

Cot

aM

il

Cot

aM

il

Cot

aM

il

Cie

npie

sFr

anci

sco

Faja

rdo

Pulp

o

Cem

ente

rio

Ara

na

Plan

icie

Figu

re S

8.3.

2

Via

duct

Loc

atio

n

Cot

aM

il

Cot

aM

il

Cot

aM

il

Cie

npie

sFr

anci

sco

Faja

rdo

Pulp

o

Cem

ente

rio

Ara

na

Plan

icie

Figu

re 3

.4.1

0 V

iadu

ct L

ocat

ion

3 - 160

Fi

gure

S8

.3.3

M

etro

Line

2

Line

1

Line

3O

pen

Cut

and

Box

Type

Op

en

Cu

t an d

Figu

re 3

.4.1

1 M

etro

Loc

atio

n

Line

2

Line

1

Line

3O

pen

Cut

and

Box

Typ

e

Open Cut and Box Type

3 - 161

Figu

re S

8.3.

4

W

ater

Sup

ply

Pipe

Lin

e

Sanp

edro

Nd=

0.53

Nev

eri

Nd =

0.56

Figu

re 3

.4.1

2 W

ater

Sup

ply

Pipe

line

Sanp

edro

Nd=

0.53

Nev

eri

Nd =

0.56

3 - 162

Figu

re

S8.3

.8

Gas

olin

e St

atio

n

Max

.PG

A=7

14

Max

.PG

A=7

23

G.S

.Mas

sed

Are

a A

t Hig

h PG

A

G.S

.Mas

sed

Are

a A

t Hig

h PG

A

Figu

re 3

.4.1

3 G

asol

ine

Stat

ion

Loca

tion

Max

.PG

A=7

14

Max

.PG

A=7

23

G.S

.Mas

sed

Are

a A

t Hig

h PG

A

G.S

.Mas

sed

Are

a A

t Hig

h PG

A

3 - 163

Figure 3.4.14 PGA and No. of Gasoline Stations

Figure 3.4.15 PGA and No. of Gasoline Stations

Scenario Earthquake 1967

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

100-149

150-199

200-249

250-299

300-349

350-399

400-449

450-499

500-541

550-599

600-649

650-699

700-749


No. of

Gas

olin

e S

tation

Scenario Earthquake 1812

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

100-

149

150-

199

200-

249

250-

299

300-

349

350-

399

400-

449

450-

499

500-

541

550-

599

600-

649

650-

699

700-

749


No. of

Gas

olin

e S

tation

3 - 164

Figure 3.5.1 Floor Detail of Models

Figure 3.5.2 Floor and Foundation Detail of Models

3 - 165

Figure 3.5.3 Framing Elevation of Model 1 (1)

3 - 166

Figure 3.5.4 Framing Elevation of Model 1 (2)

3 - 167

Figure 3.5.5 Horizontal Load Transfer Steel Frame

3 - 168

Figure 3.5.6 Framing Elevation of Model 2

3 - 169


3 - 170


3 - 171

Figure 3.5.9 Grade Beam Detail and a Frame for Measurement

3 - 172

Figure 3.5.10 Detail of a Frame for Measurement

3 - 173

Distribution of Concrete Strength (kg/cm2)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Test Cylinder Number

Conc

rete

Str

engt

h (kg

/cm

2)

Ave.58kg/cm2

Beam/Colum

FoundationF i

Roof Slab

Figure 3.5.11 Distribution of Concrete Strength by Cylinder Test, Tested by IMME

Figure 3.5.12 Plan of the Models Figure 3.5.13 Façade of Models

3 - 174

Load Deflection Curve

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 5 10 15 20

Horizontal Deflection (mm)

Horizo

nta

l Load

(to

n)

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Figure 3.5.14 Side View A Figure 3.5.15 Side View B

Figure 3.5.16 Load Deflection Curve

3 - 175

Source: Seismic Code of Venezuela 2001 “NORMA VENEZOLANA COVENIN 1756-98”

Figure 3.5.17 Basic Concept of Seismic Reinforcement

(a)

(b)

(c)

Ductility(a) Increase the Resistance Capacity

(b) Improve Deformation Capacity (i.e. ductility)

(c) Combination (a) and (b)

Strength

Required Seismic

Capacity

• Adequate Performance

• Life Protection

• Damage Control

PURPOSE OF REHABILITATION

3 - 176

Source: JICA Study Team

Figure 3.5.18 Seismic Reinforcement Methods for Existing RC and Steel Buildings

3 - 177

where: CB15; Concrete block wall in thk. of 150mm w/ reinforcing bar of Vertical; D10 @ 800mm, Horizontal; 10 ∅ @ 600mm

SW8; RC shear wall in thk. of 80mm (Refer to Figure 3.2.7) SW10; RC shear wall in thk. of 100mm (Refer to Figure 3.2.7) SW12; RC shear wall in thk. of 120mm w/ reinforcing bar of D10 @ 250mm e.w.,

Anchor bar of D16 @250 (Similar to Figure 3.2.7) SW15; RC shear wall in thk. of 150mm w/ reinforcing bar of D10 @ 200mm e.w.,

Anchor bar of D16 @250 (Similar to Figure 3.2.7) Grade Beam; W200mm x D300mm w/4D13, Strr. 6∅@200mm

Figure 3.5.19(1) Recommended Seismic Reinforcement Methods for a Single Family House

3 - 178

Figure 3.5.19(2) Recommended Seismic Reinforcement Methods for a Single Family House