Support Action for Strengthening PAlestine capabilities for seismic Risk Mitigation SASPARM 2.0 Deliverable D.D.3

Transcription

1 Support Action for Strengthening PAlestine capabilities for seismic Risk Mitigation SASPARM 2.0 Deliverable D.D.3 Report on the surveys taken after the training courses (related to training courses of May 24-25, 2016)

2 INDEX Index of figures... ii Index of tables... iii 1. Introduction Training sessions for building contractors and practitioners Evaluation forms Statistics Bibliography Appendix A i

3 INDEX OF FIGURES Figure 4.1. Course appreciation (Building Contractors)... 4 Figure 4.2. Lecturers appreciation (Building Contractors)... 5 Figure 4.3. Course appreciation (Practitioners)... 6 Figure 4.4. Lecturers appreciation (Practitioners)... 6 Figure 4.5. Course appreciation (Building Contractors)... 7 Figure 4.6. Lecturers appreciation (Building Contractors)... 8 Figure 4.7. General appreciation for the course... 9 Figure 4.8. General appreciation for the lecturers... 9 Figure 5.1. Flyer for training courses on rehabilitation techniques (page 1) Figure 5.2. Flyer for training courses on rehabilitation techniques (page 2) ii

4 INDEX OF TABLES Table Training course average rating (building contractors)... 4 Table Training course average rating (practitioners)... 5 Table 4.3. Training course average rating (building contractors)... 7 Table Training course May 25 th average rating... 8 iii

5 1. INTRODUCTION On 24 th and 25 th May 2016, two-day training sessions were conducted at the An-Najah National University in the context of Prevention and Mitigation of Seismic Vulnerability (Task C); they were addressed to engineers and building contractors. The slides were mainly in English, while the lectures were in Arabic, to make sure that all the attendees can audit. Thanks to building data gathered through the collection forms (Deliverable D.B.2), retrofit measures have been identified for the four building classes (Reinforced Concrete Frame Building, Shear Wall Building, Masonry Building and RC Frame Building with Soft Storey) in order to enhance the seismic performance of the structures (Deliverable D.C.1). Training courses are fundamental since they are one of the key project objectives, as they increase the capabilities of both local practitioners and building contractors and directly improve the seismic design practice in the region. The topics of these two-day courses were the design and implementation of rehabilitation techniques. Furthermore, a special session addressed only to building contractors was devoted to conceptual seismic design and vulnerability assessment TRAINING SESSIONS FOR BUILDING CONTRACTORS AND PRACTITIONERS The sessions were carried out via video conference between the An-Najah National University (Nablus) and EUCENTRE (Pavia). Professor Jalal Dabbeek was present in Nablus with the help of Dr. Monther Dwaikat and Eng. Sami Sadder. In Pavia, Dr. Paola Ceresa, Dr. Ricardo Monteiro, Mrs. Vania Cerchiello and Mr. Iason Grigoratos represented IUSS. The first day training was delivered to 23 building contractors. The main topics were the following: o Overview of seismic risk assessment, seismic hazard (faulting system) and local geology conditions o Seismic conceptual design and vulnerability of Palestinian buildings o Seismic performance of non-structural elements and reinforcement of structural elements The second day the training addressed to both engineers and building contractors, in the morning and in the afternoon respectively; 27 practitioners and 23 contractors attended the event. For both sessions, the table of contents of the presentations was the following, starting with the welcoming remarks to the attendees: o Presentation of the course o Introduction to structural analysis and capacity design (only for engineers) o Characteristics of the Nablus in-built o Common retrofitting measures o Example of rehabilitation o Advanced retrofitting measures At the end of the presentations and during the lectures, time was given for discussions, questions and answers. The raised questions are reported below.

6 Questions during building contractors course on May 24 th. o How do the faulting systems affect the intensity of the earthquakes? o In the seismic design of buildings, is it better to use the Time Histories or the Response Spectra? o More details about the meaning of PGA. o What is the difference between the intensity and the magnitudes of an earthquake? o Why is the hard rock soil better than weak and soft soil in seismic performance of buildings? o More details about the resonance phenomena (seismic site amplification) o What are the main causes of liquefaction phenomena? o Why does the building foundations rigidity affect seismic performance? o How much will the implementation of the seismic deign for an ordinary building increase its total cost in comparison with similar buildings without seismic design? o The role of non-structural elements (interaction between the structural and non-structural elements) in increasing the values of the main eccentricity eo? o What is the difference between the translational stiffness factor (K) and the rotational stiffness factor (Kt)? o How does the buildings symmetry in strength and stiffness affect the rotational stiffness factor (Kt)? o More details about the concept of strong columns and weak beams in seismic design. o Why are the short columns more vulnerable than the ordinary columns under seismic loads? In addition, several questions raised about the reinforcement and the confinement of structural elements. 2 Questions during practitioners and building contractors courses on May 25 th. o When will the web platform be available on line for practitioners? o What is the maximum thickness of shotcrete layer? o After the first jacketing layer, what is the required minimum time to apply the second layer of shotcrete? o What is the maximum distance between two dowels (shear connectors)? How can we calculate the necessary steel area of these shear connectors? o In RC Jacketing for beam, how can we assure the required confinement? o How can we introduce new stirrups with 135 hooks? o In the common retrofitting measures for vertical structural elements, how can we implement the continuity of longitudinal steel? o More details about the concept of beams yielding before columns. o How can we avoid the brittle failure of coupling beams? o More details about the occurrence of punching shear failure of slab-column connection. o More details about rehabilitation techniques made with steel (Steel X bracing and Steel Jacketing). o What is the minimum thickness in the RC Jacketing in order to enlarge existing spread footing? o Do we need special analysis and check to add a shallow foundation next to an existing shallow foundation?

7 o During the permeation grouting, how can we check the work? In addition, several questions raised about the comparisons between the following rehabilitation techniques: o FRP (Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite) o The advanced retrofitting measures (Seismic Isolation) o The common retrofitting measures (RC, Steel and Masonry). The schedules for both training activities are reported in Appendix A. Moreover, the training material is available on the SASPARM 2.0 website ( in Deliverables Task C: D.C.3 Training material about retrofit measures for practitioners; D.C.4 Training material about retrofit measures for building contractors folder EVALUATION FORMS Evaluation forms were distributed to the audience at the closure of both training sessions to assess the appreciation of the course, its topics and its lecturers. It is possible to distinguish two sections of the questionnaire: one related to the course itself and one related to lecturers. For the first section, eight questions were asked: 1. How useful do you think the course was? 2. How was the topic of the course covered? 3. What was your impression on the content of the course? 4. How was the course structured? 5. How was the course pitched at the right level? 6. How was the lecture material (e.g. hand-outs and course-notes) prepared? 7. How was the quantity of practical exercitations (coursework, etc.)? 8. What is your global impression of the course? For the second section, four questions were proposed concerning the lecturers: 1. How was the subject matter explained? 2. Was the lecturer well prepared? 3. Was the lecturer responsive and willing to answer questions? 4. Did the lecturer project enthusiasm? For both sections, five answers might be chosen from 1 to 5 as follows: 1 = bad; 2 = insufficient; 3 = sufficient; 4 = good; 5 = very good. For building contractors 23 questionnaires were collected in both sessions and for practitioners 27.

8 4. STATISTICS All the gathered evaluation forms have been elaborated in order to understand the percentage of appreciation and satisfaction. Shown below are the results of building contractors questionnaires for course on 24 th May: Table Training course average rating (building contractors) Section 1 - Course 4.45 Section 2 Lecturers % bad % insufficient % sufficient % good % very good Figure 4.1. Course appreciation (Building Contractors)

9 % bad % insufficient % sufficient % good % very good Figure 4.2. Lecturers appreciation (Building Contractors) Building contractors expressed a good approval for the course and its topic, indeed the rating is 4.45 (Table 4.1). The total percentage for the very good indicator is 53.80, followed by 38% for good one (Fig.4.1). Furthermore, an overall appreciation has been shown for all lecturers, with 68% for very good index and 23% for good (Fig.4.2). Shown below are the results of practitioners questionnaires for course on 25 th May. Table Training course average rating (practitioners) Section 1 - Course 4.53 Section 2 Lecturers 4.56

10 % bad % insufficient % sufficient % good % very good Figure 4.3. Course appreciation (Practitioners) % bad % insufficient % sufficient % good % very good Figure 4.4. Lecturers appreciation (Practitioners)

11 Even in practitioners evaluation forms, the general rating for the course is high (4.53) (Table 4.2). The total percentage of the very good indicator is 52 and 30 for good (Fig.4.3). Positive estimates are shown for lecturers; very good indicator reaches 62% and 31% for the good index (Fig.4.4). The results of building contractors questionnaires for course on 25 th May are the following. Table 4.3. Training course average rating (building contractors) Section 1 - Course 4.45 Section 2 Lecturers % bad % insufficient % sufficient % good % very good Figure 4.5. Course appreciation (Building Contractors)

12 % bad % insufficient % sufficient % good % very good Figure 4.6. Lecturers appreciation (Building Contractors) Even in this case, the rating is high; percentage for very good reaches about 55, followed by good with 35% (Fig.4.5). The lecturers show the same appreciation, 64% for very good and 26% for good index (Fig. 4.6). For the purpose of a whole overview for the session on May 25 th, all the collected data have been elaborated together. Here below the results. Table Training course May 25 th average rating Section 1 - Course 4.49 Section 2 Lecturers 4.54

13 % bad % insufficient % sufficient % good % very good Figure 4.7. General appreciation for the course % bad % insufficient % sufficient % good % very good Figure 4.8. General appreciation for the lecturers

14 In conclusion, training course have been appreciated: very good indicator reaches 59%, good 33% (Fig.4.7) and the average rating is 4.49 (Table 4.4). In addition, lecturers obtain a positive feedback: very good index is about 63% and good obtained 29% (Fig.4.8).

15 5. BIBLIOGRAPHY D.B.2: Paper format of the seismic vulnerability forms for citizens and practitioners. SASPARM 2.0 Deliverable. D.C.1: Report on the identification of retrofit measures. SASPARM 2.0 Deliverable. 11

16 6. APPENDIX A 12 Figure 6.1. Flyer for training courses on rehabilitation techniques (page 1).

17 Figure 6.2. Flyer for training courses on rehabilitation techniques (page 2). 13