. A Term Paper On
Rapid Visual Screening of URP building, BUET
Submitted By
MD. Zahidul Islam (ID no-0421044008)
MD. Abdullah (ID no-0421044007)
Zannatul Ferdous Munia (ID no- 0422042203)
Md Muhai Menur Rashid (ID no- 0422042226).
Submitted To
Dr. Raquib Ahsan
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology
Course Name-Retrofitting of Structures
Course no- CE-6151
Date of Submission-28th September, 2022
1|Pa ge
1. Introduction
Bangladesh is located at the juncture of several active tectonic plate zones. This geographical
location makes Bangladesh very vulnerable to the potential danger of earthquake. Moreover,
the Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta (GBD), the world's largest delta, has been built from sediments
eroded from the Himalayan collision. These sediments propagated the continental margin of
the Indian subcontinent by similar to 400 km, forming a huge sediment pile that is now entering
the Burma Arc subduction zone. The collision of the GBD-Burma Arc collision zone has been
expanding westward at similar to 2 cm/year, and propagated southwards at similar to 5 cm/year.
(Steckler et.al, 2008). Till now Bangladesh has been experienced by five major earthquakes
with the magnitude of greater than 7.0 in Richter scale in last 150 years (Al-Hussaini and AlNoman, 2010). Due to this fact, it has become very necessary to assess the seismic vulnerability
of existing buildings of Bangladesh especially city areas.
Due to high population density and numerous old and congested buildings in the city of Dhaka,
Bangladesh, the seismic vulnerability of this area has become a major concern. Hence
preliminary seismic vulnerability assessment of existing buildings is very important so that the
building owner can at least know whether strengthening or retrofitting measures of his building
is required or not.
2. Rapid Visual Screening (RVS)
Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) is a qualitative method for quick assessing the seismic
vulnerability of a building based on visual inspection. Generally, RVS provides a scoring
system to evaluate and estimate the level of risk of the buildings where there are a basic score
and modifiers that correspond to the building’s strength and deficiencies during a seismic
event. Later, the seismic performance of the building is predicted from the results of RVS
through the final score. There have been many studies in the past to develop a more accurate
and efficient RVS (Kassem et. al. 2021). The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) of the United States has published FEMA P154 in 2015 for guidelines for the
assessment and rehabilitation of seismically vulnerable structures by RVS.
3. Building Identification Information and Building Characteristics
3.1 Building Selection and Description:
Students of course CE 6151: Retrofitting of Structures were grouped to conduct Rapid Visual
Screening (RVS) both Levels 1 and 2 according to FEMA P 154 for the assigned building.
2|Pa ge
Building that was selected in this report for RVS was Urban Regional and Planning (URP)
building. It is an academic building of Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
(BUET). The building is located in near the BUET Central Road which belongs to Ramna
Thana, Dhaka – 1000, Bangladesh. The latitude and longitude of this building is 23°43’40” N
and 90°23’29.4” E respectively (source: Google Map).
Figure 1: 5- storied Urban Regional and Planning (URP) building, BUET, Dhaka-1000.
The building has a floor area of 6098 sft. in each floor and total floor area of the building is
30490 sft. The building is used mainly for educational purposes. There are classrooms, office
rooms, meeting rooms, different lab rooms like Data Analysis and Simulation lab, GIS and
Remote Sensing lab, Computer lab, English lab etc.
3.2 Data Collection and Screeners Identification
The assessment work was done by a group consists of four members named Md. Zahidul Islam
(0421044008), Md. Abdullah (0421044007), Zannatul Ferdous Munia (0422042203) and Md
3|Pa ge
Muhai Menur Rashid (0422042226). All the screeners were experienced structural engineers
and very familiar with structural design, drawings and construction of the building.
Data for Rapid Visual Screening of URP building were collected from field survey of the
building at 10:00 am to 01:00 pm on 18th, 19th and 24th September, 2022 in moderately high
data collection form of FEMA P 154. Several necessary digital photographs were taken from
inside and outside of the building. Key parameters like vertical irregularity, horizontal
irregularity, separation gapes for pounding effect, exterior falling hazards soil type and
construction date those contribute to the scoring system were collected from field survey. Some
other data like construction year, retrofitting history and necessary drawings were collected the
Engineering Office of the BUET.
3.3 Seismicity Region
FEMA P 154 recommends five Data Collection Forms for five region of seismicity - Low,
Moderate, Moderately High, High, and Very High which depends on the site specific values of
spectral acceleration response for short-period (SS) and spectral acceleration response for longperiod (S1) for Maximum Considered Earthquake as per following Table 2.
Table 2: Seismicity Region Determination from MCE Spectral Acceleration Response
Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC) 2020 has provided specific values of Ss and S 1
for different seismic zone as shown in the following Table 1.
Table 1: Ss and S1 for different seismic zones of Bangladesh as per BNBC 2020
4|Pa ge
URP building is situated in Dhaka city which underlies in Zone 2. Values of Ss and S1 of Zone
2 is 0.50g and 0.20g. Therefore, moderately high data collection was selected for RVS.
3.3 Building Characteristics
5 storied URP building is a concrete frame building with unreinforced masonry infill. Therefore
the FEMA Building Type (C3) was circled on the data collection form along with its Basic
Score. The building was constructed in 2002 following the design code BNBC 1993.
Figure 2: Number of Stories of URP building, BUET.
By inspection it was found that there is no storey below the grade beam and five stories above
the grade beam and height of the each storey was found as 11 ft.
3.4 Adjacency to the Building
In the Level 1 screening phase, it is required to capture adjacency situations by checking the
appropriate box, which is either “Pounding” or “Falling Hazards from Taller Adjacent
Building”. In Moderately High seismicity regions, the minimum separation gap between two
adjacent buildings is 1 inch per story. Pounding is considered when the actual gap is less than
the minimum separation gap.
5|Pa ge
Minimum gap for 5 storied building in moderately high seismic region = 5 x 1” = 5”
In the field inspection, the nearest distance from 5 storied URP building to the adjacent 5 storied
Architecture Academic Building was found 7 x 12” = 84” > minimum separation gap (5”).
Building height of both building is same. Hence, any “Pounding” or “Falling Hazards from
Taller Adjacent Building” situation was not found in URP building.
3.5 Vertical Irregularity
Uniformity of structural components along the height of the building is very important to resist
lateral force induced by earthquake event. Damage or failure of a building may be accelerated
at the point of weakness in structural members induced by the vertical irregularity. FEMA P154
considered several vertical irregularity cases for Level 1 screening phase. In field inspection
following condition was founda) Sloping site: The building was found in a levelled ground level. Therefore, no sloping
site condition exists.
b) Unbraced cripple wall: No unbraced cripple wall is found in the crawlspace of the
building.
c) Weak and/or soft storey: Some of the columns of the building was found at double
storey height and surrounding area of those double height columns was open without
any infill partition wall. Due to excessive height in ground and first floor, storey
stiffness of these two floor is very low comparative to other upper floors. Therefore,
weak and/or soft storey condition exists in URP building. This is severe vertical
irregularity.
6|Pa ge
Figure 3: Double height column of URP building.
(d) In-plane and out-of-plane setback: Any in-plane and out-of-plane setback lateral load
resisting system was not found in URP building.
(e) Short column or pier: This type of vertical irregularity exists if some columns/piers are
much shorter than the typical columns/piers in the same line or there are infill walls that
shorten the clear height of the column. This type of condition were no found in the URP
building.
(f) Split level: This type of vertical irregularity exists if the floors of the building don’t
align. This type of condition was not found in the URP building.
3.6 Plan Irregularity
FEMA P154 considered several plan irregularity cases for Level 1 screening phase. In field
inspection following condition was founda) Torsion: This type of plan irregularity will be applied if there is good lateral resistance
in one direction, but not the other, or if there is eccentric stiffness in plan. In URP
building, there is eccentric stiffness in plan due to four additional L-shaped column in
the re-entrants corner. The eccentric position of column has been shown in the
following Figure 4 by a circled area.
7|Pa ge
Figure 4: Eccentric position of column of URP building
b) Non-parallel System: This type of plan irregularity occurs if the sides or corner beams
of the building do not meet orthogonally. In URP building, at north-east corner, the two
beams meet at an angle of 75°as shown in typical floor plan of Figure 5.
Figure 5: Non-parallel beams of URP building
c) Re-entrant corner: This type of plan irregularity will be applied if the building have
entrant corners including those with long wings that are E, L, T, U, or + shaped and
8|Pa ge
with projections of more than 20 feet. In the filed inspection of the URP building this
type of corner was found as follows:
In the north direction: 23’-8” + 16’– 5” = 40’–1” > 20’-0”
In the west direction: 17”-5” + 6’-5” = 23’-8” > 20’-0”
Figure 5: Re-entrant of URP building
(d) Diaphragm opening: This type of plan irregularity is applied if there is an opening that
has a width of over 50% of the width of the diaphragm at any level. In the URP building,
this type of opening in the diaphragm didn’t found in any floor slab.
Figure 6: Roof slab of URP building
9|Pa ge
(e) Exterior beams do not align with columns: This type of plan irregularity is applied if
the exterior beams do not align with the columns in plan. From the field inspection of
URP building, it was found that exterior beams were not aligned with the columns in
plan.
3.7 Nonstructural falling hazard:
In the field inspection, heavy cladding of ceramic tiles was found at the outside of the URP
building. There is chance of exterior falling hazard during earthquake which may be a threat to
life safety which has been shown in Figure 7. But in the interior side, any kind of nonstructural
falling hazard substance was not found. Therefore, it is recommended Detailed Nonstructural
Evaluation of URP building.
Figure 7: Exterior nonstructural falling hazard of URP building
4 Level 1 screening Score Calculation
URP building is a concrete frame building with unreinforced masonry infill type building
whose basic score at Level 1 is 1.4. For severe vertical irregularity due to weak and soft storey
and plan irregularity due to torsion, non-parallel resistance system, re-entrant corner, points of
0.8 and 0.4 respectively were deducted from the basic score. After deducting the deficiency
points, the final score at Level 1 (SL1) was found 0. However, the minimum score (S min) at the
Level 1 should be 0.3. Therefore, the final score at level 1 is 0.3 which is the minimum score.
The detailes calculation has been shown in the following table 2.
10 | P a g e
Table 2: Level 1 Final Score of RVS.
FEMA Building Type
C3 (URMINF)
Basic Score
1.4
Severe Vertical irregularity, VL1
-0.8
Moderate Vertical Irregularity,VL1
-
Plan Irregularity,PL1
-0.6
Pre code
-
Post-Benchmark
-
Soil type A or B
-
Soil Type E (1-3 stories)
-
Soil Type E (>3 stories)
-
Minimum score
0.3
Final level 1 score, SL1≥ Smin:
1.4-0.8-0.6=0; Use Smin= 0.3
5 Completion of Level 2 (Optional) data collection form and scoring process
5.1 Introduction
By rapid visual inspection of the buildings a set of parameters would be investigated, from
which the buildings vulnerability level could be evaluated. As the final score of Level 1
screening is 0.3 which is below the cut off score, then it is mandatory to complete the Level 2
screening and data collection form. According to FEMA P-154, the collected information
would be enriched by supplemental data of level 2 screening which will help to have an
accurate estimation of building vulnerability level.
5.2 Vertical Irregularities
Irregularities adversely affect the seismic performance of a building by concentrating demands
at certain floor levels or elements. The concentrated demands can lead to damage, failure, and,
in some cases, collapse. Vertical irregularities can affect all building types. There are seven
common types of vertical irregularities. The Vertical Irregularity section of the Level 2 form
includes statements and Score Modifiers for each of the vertical irregularities. A building with
a vertical irregularity will be more vulnerable if there is a second irregularity present; however,
11 | P a g e
the addition of Vertical Irregularity Score Modifiers (each of which represents a logarithmic
increase in probability of collapse) overestimates the effect of the added irregularity.
In the field inspection, weak and/or soft story criteria was seen in the URP building. When the
length of lateral system at any story is between 50% and 75% of that at story above or height
of any story is between 1.3 and 2.0 times the height of the story above this criterion is
considered.
Storey height at double height = 22’-0”
Typical storey height = 11’-0”
Storey height ratio = (22 / 11) = 2
Therefore, vertical irregularity was presented.
5.3 Redundancy
Buildings that have more seismic force-resisting elements have greater redundancy and are
expected to perform better in an earthquake than buildings with fewer seismic force-resisting
elements. If the building has at least two bays of seismic force-resisting elements on each side
of the building in each direction, there is a sufficient level of redundancy.
In this the field inspection 3 number of bays of found in East-West direction and minimum 6
number of bays was found in North-South direction. Therefore, 0.3 score will be added in the
final score.
5.4 Determining the Final Level 2 Score:
In many cases, the Level 2 screening results in a higher score than the Level 1 screening.
Because building attributes are examined in more detail in the Level 2 screening, the Score
Modifiers can be less conservative. The Final Score more accurately represents the expected
performance of the building with less built-in conservatism.
The Final Level 2 Score, SL2, is calculated by summing the baseline score, S', and the Level 2
Score Modifiers, VL2, PL2, and M subject to the same minimum score that applies to the Level
1 Score.
For vertical irregularity due to weak and soft story score modifier, VL2 was -0.5 and plan
irregularity due to torsion, non-parallel resistance system, re-entrant corner, points of -0.8, -0.4
and -0.4 respectively were deducted from the level 2 score modifier. So, the sum of total plan
irregularities, PL2 was -1.6 which is greater than the minimum score modifier -1.3. So score
12 | P a g e
modifier for plan irregularities were taken -1.3. A positive score modifier 0.3 was added for
redundancy. After adding the score modifiers, the final score at Level 2 (SL2) was found -0.1
which is less than the minimum. However, the minimum score (Smin) at the Level 2 should be
greater or equal to 0.3. Therefore, the final score at level 2 is 0.3 which is the minimum score.
The detailed calculation has been shown in the following table:
Table 1: Adjusted baseline score
Final Level 1 Score: SL1 = 0
Level 1 Irregularity Modifiers: Vertical Irregularity,
Plan Irregularity, PL1 = -0.6
VL1 = -0.8
ADJUSTED BASELINE SCORE: S’ = (SL1 – VL1 – PL1) =0-(-0.8)-(-0.6)=1.4
Table 2: Structural modifiers to add to adjusted baseline score
Topic
Vertical Irregularity, VL2
Plan Irregularity, PL2
Statement
Score Modifier
Subtotals
Weak and/or Soft Story
-0.5
VL2= -0.5
Torsional irregularity
-0.8
PL2= -1.3
Non-parallel system
-0.4
Reentrant corner
-0.4
Redundancy
Having at least two bays in
+0.3
M= +0.3
each direction
FINAL LEVEL 2 SCORE, SL2 = (S’ + VL2 + PL2 + M) =1.4-0.5-1.3+0.3= -0.1 ; Use
Smin= 0.3
6 Conclusion
Rapid visual screening of URP building was performed. Severe vertical irregularity, plan
irregularity (Torsional, Re-entrant corner, Non-parallel system) and exterior nonstructural
hazard had been identified. The final level score in Level 1 screening was found Smin = 0.3
and final level score of Level primarily was found -1 and minimum score 0.3 was considered.
No observable damage was found in structural elements. Detailed nonstructural evaluation was
recommended.
13 | P a g e
14 | P a g e
Level 1
MODERATELY HIGH Seismicity
Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards
FEMA P-154 Data Collection Form
Address: Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology,
Zip: 1000
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Other Identifiers: Department of Urban Regional & Planning
Building Name:
URP Building, BUET
Use:
Educational
Latitude: 23°43’40” N
Longitude: 90°23’29.4” E
0.2
S 1:
SS:
0.5
Screener(s):Abdullah,Zahidul,Saad,Munia Date/Time: 19-09-2022 10:00am
PHOTOGRAPH
No. Stories: Above Grade: 5
Below Grade: 0
Total Floor Area (sq. ft.): 30490 sft.
Additions:
Yes, Year(s) Built:
 None
Occupancy:
Assembly
Industrial
Utility
Soil Type:
Commercial
Office
Warehouse
Year Built: 2002
Code Year: 1993
Emer. Services
School
Residential, # Units:
A
B
C
D
E
F
Hard
Rock
Avg
Rock
Dense
Soil
Stiff
Soil
Soft
Soil
Poor
Soil
Historic
Government
EST
Shelter
DNK
If DNK, assume Type D.
Geologic Hazards: Liquefaction: Yes/No/DNK Landslide: Yes/No/DNK Surf. Rupt.: Yes/No/DNK
68'-4"
Adjacency:
Pounding
 Vertical (type/severity) Weak & soft storey (severe)
 Plan (type) Re-entrant corner, torsion, Non-parallel
Irregularities:
73'-3"
Exterior Falling
Hazards:
114'-4"
Plan
Falling Hazards from Taller Adjacent Building
Unbraced Chimneys
 Heavy Cladding or Heavy Veneer
Parapets
Appendages
Other: _______________________________________________
COMMENTS:
Weak and soft storey type vertical irregularity was found
due to double height area at the west side of the building.
N
West Elevation
SKETCH
Additional sketches or comments on separate page
BASIC SCORE, MODIFIERS, AND FINAL LEVEL 1 SCORE, SL1
Do Not
Know
FEMA BUILDING TYPE
Basic Score
Severe Vertical Irregularity, VL1
Moderate Vertical Irregularity, VL1
Plan Irregularity, PL1
Pre-Code
Post-Benchmark
Soil Type A or B
Soil Type E (1-3 stories)
Soil Type E (> 3 stories)
Minimum Score, SMIN
W1
W1A
W2
4.1
-1.3
-0.8
-1.3
-0.8
1.5
0.3
0.0
-0.5
1.6
3.7
-1.3
-0.8
-1.2
-0.9
1.9
0.6
-0.1
-0.8
1.2
3.2
-1.3
-0.8
-1.1
-0.9
2.3
0.9
-0.3
-1.2
0.8
FINAL LEVEL 1 SCORE, SL1 ≥ SMIN: 0.3
S1
(BR)
(LM)
(RC
SW)
(URM
INF)
(MRF)
(SW)
(URM
INF)
C3
PC1
PC2
RM1
RM2
URM
MH
2.3
-1.1
-0.7
-0.9
-0.5
1.4
0.6
-0.4
-0.7
0.5
2.2
-1.0
-0.6
-0.8
-0.5
1.4
0.9
-0.5
-0.7
0.5
2.9
-1.2
-0.8
-1.0
-0.7
1.0
0.3
0.0
NA
0.9
2.2
-1.0
-0.6
-0.8
-0.6
1.9
0.9
-0.4
-0.7
0.5
2.0
-0.9
-0.6
-0.7
-0.2
NA
0.9
-0.5
-0.6
0.5
1.7
-1.0
-0.6
-0.7
-0.4
1.9
0.6
-0.2
-0.6
0.3
2.1
-1.1
-0.6
-0.9
-0.7
2.1
0.8
-0.2
-0.8
0.3
1.4
-0.8
-0.5
-0.6
-0.1
NA
0.7
-0.4
-0.4
0.3
1.8
-1.0
-0.6
-0.8
-0.4
2.1
0.9
-0.5
NA
0.3
1.5
-0.9
-0.6
-0.7
-0.3
2.4
0.7
-0.3
-0.5
0.2
1.8
-1.0
-0.6
-0.7
-0.5
2.1
0.8
-0.4
-0.6
0.3
1.8
-1.0
-0.6
-0.7
-0.5
2.1
0.8
-0.4
-0.7
0.3
1.2
-0.8
-0.5
-0.5
-0.1
NA
0.6
-0.3
-0.3
0.2
2.2
NA
NA
NA
-0.3
1.2
0.9
-0.5
NA
1.4
S2
S3
S4
S5
C1
C2
(TU)
(FD)
(RD)
(1.4 - 0.8 - 0.6 = 0 < Smin)
EXTENT OF REVIEW
Exterior:
Partial  All Sides
Interior:
None
 Visible
Drawings Reviewed:
Yes
 No
Soil Type Source:
None
Geologic Hazards Source: None
Contact Person:
None
(MRF)
Aerial
Entered
LEVEL 2 SCREENING PERFORMED?
No
 Yes, Final Level 2 Score, SL2 0.3
 Yes
Nonstructural hazards?
No
OTHER HAZARDS
ACTION REQUIRED
Are There Hazards That Trigger A
Detailed Structural Evaluation?
Detailed Structural Evaluation Required?
Pounding potential (unless SL2 >
cut-off, if known)
Falling hazards from taller adjacent
building
Geologic hazards or Soil Type F
Significant damage/deterioration to
the structural system
Yes, unknown FEMA building type or other building
 Yes, score less than cut-off
Yes, other hazards present
No
Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation Recommended? (check one)
 Yes, nonstructural hazards identified that should be evaluated
No, nonstructural hazards exist that may require mitigation, but a
detailed evaluation is not necessary
No, no nonstructural hazards identified
DNK
Where information cannot be verified, screener shall note the following: EST = Estimated or unreliable data OR DNK = Do Not Know
Legend:
MRF = Moment-resisting frame
BR = Braced frame
RC = Reinforced concrete
SW = Shear wall
URM INF = Unreinforced masonry infill
TU = Tilt up
MH = Manufactured Housing
LM = Light metal
FD = Flexible diaphragm
RD = Rigid diaphragm
Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards
FEMA P-154 Data Collection Form
Level 2 (Optional)
MODERATELY HIGH Seismicity
Optional Level 2 data collection to be performed by a civil or structural engineering professional, architect, or graduate student with background in seismic evaluation or design of buildings.
Bldg Name: URP building, BUET
Screener: Abdullah, Zahidul, Saad, Munia
Date/Time: 19-09-2022 10:00 am
Final Level 1 Score:
Level 1 Irregularity Modifiers:
ADJUSTED BASELINE SCORE:
SL1 = 0
Vertical Irregularity, VL1 = -0.8
(do not consider SMIN)
Plan Irregularity, PL1 = -0.6
S’ = (SL1 – VL1 – PL1) = 0 - (-0.8) - (-0.6) = 1.4
STRUCTURAL MODIFIERS TO ADD TO ADJUSTED BASELINE SCORE
Subtotals
Topic
Statement (If statement is true, circle the “Yes” modifier; otherwise cross out the modifier.)
Yes
Vertical
Sloping
W1 building: There is at least a full story grade change from one side of the building to the other.
-1.3
Irregularity, VL2
Site
Non-W1 building: There is at least a full story grade change from one side of the building to the other.
-0.3
Weak
W1 building cripple wall: An unbraced cripple wall is visible in the crawl space.
-0.6
and/or
W1 house over garage: Underneath an occupied story, there is a garage opening without a steel moment frame,
Soft Story
and there is less than 8' of wall on the same line (for multiple occupied floors above, use 16' of wall minimum).
-1.3
(circle one W1A building open front: There are openings at the ground story (such as for parking) over at least 50% of the
maximum) length of the building.
-1.3
Non-W1 building: Length of lateral system at any story is less than 50% of that at story above or height of any
story is more than 2.0 times the height of the story above.
-1.0
Non-W1 building: Length of lateral system at any story is between 50% and 75% of that at story above or height
of any story is between 1.3 and 2.0 times the height of the story above.
-0.5
Setback
Vertical elements of the lateral system at an upper story are outboard of those at the story below causing the
diaphragm to cantilever at the offset.
-1.0
Vertical elements of the lateral system at upper stories are inboard of those at lower stories.
-0.5
There is an in-plane offset of the lateral elements that is greater than the length of the elements.
-0.3
Short
C1,C2,C3,PC1,PC2,RM1,RM2: At least 20% of columns (or piers) along a column line in the lateral system have
Column/
-0.5
height/depth ratios less than 50% of the nominal height/depth ratio at that level.
Pier
C1,C2,C3,PC1,PC2,RM1,RM2: The column depth (or pier width) is less than one half of the depth of the spandrel,
or there are infill walls or adjacent floors that shorten the column.
-0.5
Split Level
There is a split level at one of the floor levels or at the roof.
-0.5
-0.5
Other
There is another observable severe vertical irregularity that obviously affects the building's seismic performance.
-1.0
VL2 = _______
Irregularity There is another observable moderate vertical irregularity that may affect the building's seismic performance.
(Cap at ‐1.3)
-0.5
Plan
Torsional irregularity: Lateral system does not appear relatively well distributed in plan in either or both directions. (Do not
Irregularity, PL2
include the W1A open front irregularity listed above.)
-0.8
Non-parallel system: There are one or more major vertical elements of the lateral system that are not orthogonal to each other.
-0.4
Reentrant corner: Both projections from an interior corner exceed 25% of the overall plan dimension in that direction.
-0.4
Diaphragm opening: There is an opening in the diaphragm with a width over 50% of the total diaphragm width at that level.
-0.3
C1, C2 building out-of-plane offset: The exterior beams do not align with the columns in plan.
-0.4
PL2 = _______
(Cap at ‐1.3)
Other irregularity: There is another observable plan irregularity that obviously affects the building's seismic performance.
-0.8
Redundancy
The building has at least two bays of lateral elements on each side of the building in each direction.
+0.3
(Cap total
Pounding
Building is separated from an adjacent structure
The floors do not align vertically within 2 feet.
-1.0
by less than 0.5% of the height of the shorter of
pounding
One building is 2 or more stories taller than the other.
-1.0
the building and adjacent structure and:
modifiers at -1.3)
The building is at the end of the block.
-0.5
S2 Building
“K” bracing geometry is visible.
-1.0
C1 Building
Flat plate serves as the beam in the moment frame.
-0.5
PC1/RM1 Bldg
+0.3
There are roof-to-wall ties that are visible or known from drawings that do not rely on cross-grain bending. (Do not combine with
post-benchmark or retrofit modifier.)
PC1/RM1 Bldg
The building has closely spaced, full height interior walls (rather than an interior space with few walls such as in a warehouse).
+0.3
URM
Gable walls are present.
-0.4
MH
There is a supplemental seismic bracing system provided between the carriage and the ground.
+1.2
+0.3
Retrofit
Comprehensive seismic retrofit is visible or known from drawings.
+1.4 M = ________
FINAL LEVEL 2 SCORE, SL2 = (S’ + VL2 + PL2 + M) ≥ SMIN: 1.4 - 0.5 - 1.3 + 0.3 = -0.1 < Smin; SL2 = 0.3
(Transfer to Level 1 form)
There is observable damage or deterioration or another condition that negatively affects the building's seismic performance:
Yes
 No
If yes, describe the condition in the comment box below and indicate on the Level 1 form that detailed evaluation is required independent of the building's score.
OBSERVABLE NONSTRUCTURAL HAZARDS
Location
Statement (Check “Yes” or “No”)
Yes
No
Comment

Exterior
There is an unbraced unreinforced masonry parapet or unbraced unreinforced masonry chimney.

There is heavy cladding or heavy veneer.
There is a heavy canopy over exit doors or pedestrian walkways that appears inadequately supported.

There is an unreinforced masonry appendage over exit doors or pedestrian walkways.


There is a sign posted on the building that indicates hazardous materials are present.

There is a taller adjacent building with an unanchored URM wall or unbraced URM parapet or chimney.

Exterior cladding tiles
Other observed exterior nonstructural falling hazard:
Interior
There are hollow clay tile or brick partitions at any stair or exit corridor.


Other observed interior nonstructural falling hazard:
Estimated Nonstructural Seismic Performance (Check appropriate box and transfer to Level 1 form conclusions)
Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation recommended
 Potential nonstructural hazards with significant threat to occupant life safety
Nonstructural hazards identified with significant threat to occupant life safety
But no Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation required
Low or no nonstructural hazard threat to occupant life safety
No Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation required
Comments: Severe vertical irregularity, plan irregularity (Torsional, Re-entrant corner, Non-parallel system) and exterior nonstructural
hazard have been identified.
EAST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
17 | P a g e
WEST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
18 | P a g e
ROOF
STAIRCASE
19 | P a g e