Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce THE 7th INTERNATIONAL

a n d Pra ctice CONFERENCE

"CIVIL ENGINEERING - SCIENCE AND PRACTICE"
GNP 2020 – Kolašin, Montenegro, 10-14 March 2020

Kefajet Edip1, Radmila Salic2, Hristina Ristovska3

COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF CURRENT EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY IN N. MACEDONIA AND UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA (ATC-20)

Abstract
On daily basis, popullated urban areas in different parts of the world are facing various types of
risks from hazards. Globally, hazards are divided into two main groups: natural and man-made
hazards. Natural hazards come from the natural events and are classified as: geophysical,
hydrological, meteorological, climatological and biological [1]. On the other hand, man-made
hazards are result of accidental or intentional human activity which causes damage, for e.g.
industrial accidents, cybercrime, terrorism, etc [2].
Regardless of its type, a hazard results with damage to the place where it happens, whereas, the
amount of damage depends on the vulnerability of the exposed entities; humans, built
environment and nature. After the hazardous event is over, follows a procedure for the
evaluation of the amount and type of damage in terms of casualties, injured people and
economic loss. This procedure of damage evaluation can be carried out in different ways
according to a certain damage assessment methodology. There are different methodologies used
for damage assessment, they can be hazard specified or unified for all types of hazard.
According the avarage loss expectation [3] the highest loss per single hazard is associated with
the earthquake. Due to the historical facts which indicate considerable earthquake hazard as
well as high levels of earthquake risk, this study will focus on earthquake damage assessment
methodologies and their importance for reliable damage and loss estimation.
For that purpose, the main aim of this study is comparison of current post earthquake damage
assessment methodology used in N. Macedonia [4] with respect to the damage assessment
methodology used in United States of America (ATC-20) [7].
The differences that resulted from the analysis and comparison of both methodologies were the
basis for critical review, and suggestion of possible improvements in the current methodology
for post earthquake damage assessment used in N. Macedonia.
Key words
Post earthquake damage assessment, N. Macedonia, USA, ATC-20

----------------------------------------------
1M.Sc. PhD student at Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology (IZIIS) – Ss. Cyril and
Methodius University in Skopje, teaching assistant at International Balkan University, edip.kefajet@gmail.com
2 Asst. Prof. Dr, IZIIS – UKIM, r_salic@iziis.ukim.edu.mk
3 M.Sc., IZIIS – UKIM, ristovska.hristina@gmail.com

419
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

1. COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF CURRENT EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY IN N. MACEDONIA AND UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA (ATC-20)

North Macedonia has a population of 2.107.158 with overall density of 83.6 people/ km 2 [3].
Around 57% of its population lives in urban areas and 43% occupy the rural areas [3]. Earthquakes
remain to be one of the most feared natural hazards in N. Macedonia and present the greatest risk
for the average annual loss in the country as shown in figure 1 [3].
This paper focuses on methodologies that are used for the evaluation of damages caused as
consequence of earthquakes. In general, damage assessment methodologies define the actions that
need to be undertaken with the purpose to collect systematical information about the type and level
of damage.

Figure 1: Hazard contribution to Average Annual Loss [3]

The main purpose of this study is the comparison between current post earthquake damage
assessment methodologies used in N. Macedonia and USA. In N. Macedonia there is so called
Uniform methodology for damage assessment [4] used for damage assessment regardless the
hazard type. Besides this, there is also post earthquake specific damage assessment methodology
(IZIIS-79-005) prepared by Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology
(IZIIS-UKIM) [5]. Similarly, in the USA the evaluation of earthquake damage is performed with
the use of ATC-20 methodology prepared by Applied Technology Council (ATC) [8]. The
differences between those two methodologies are analyzed and possible improvements in the
current earthquake damage assessment methodology in N. Macedonia are suggested.

1.1. POST EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY USED

IN N. MACEDONIA
In N. Macedonia damages, regardless of the type of hazard (natural or man-made), are
assessed with a Uniform methodology for damage assessment [4] approved with the Official
Gazette No.75/2001 [4]. This Uniform methodology for damage assessment was first formulated in
1979 [10] which later was updated in 1987 [11] and 2001 [4].

420
 GNP 2 0 2 0

According to the Uniform methodology for damage assessment the hazards are classified as
natural (earthquakes, landslides, floods etc), accidental hazards (traffic and mining accidents,
explosions etc), and other hazards (terrorism and wars) [4].
The main aim of this Uniform methodology for damage assessment is to provide
information about the cause, type and size of the damage (number of casualties and affected
people), define the territories affected by a certain hazard or multi-hazards and economic losses
[4]. Within the Uniform methodology for damage assessment the categorization of damage is
applied only in case of catastrophic earthquakes, big floods and wars [4] (Table 1).
Table 1: Uniform methodology damage categories [4]

Damage Description of the damage

category
Buildings with small damages of the roof covering, plaster, glass and
First category
chimneys
Bigger area of damaged roof covering, glass, falling of chimneys,
Second category cracking and spalling off of plaster from wall surface, smaller cracks
on bearing walls and bigger number of cracks on partition walls
Partially damaged roof structure, small cracks at rc columns, falling
Third category
of partition walls, damaged furniture
RC columns with number of cracks, falling of structural parts of the
Fourth category
roof, falling of partition walls, damaged installations
Damaged or deformation of structural elements, diagonal cracks at rc
Fifth category columns, cracks at beam to column joints and other damages to
structure which can be repaired
Sixth category Buildings with ruined structural system or collapsed buildings.

Table 2: Uniform methodology field damage assessment forms [4]

S-01 Damage assessment of buildings

S-02 Damage assessment of equipment
S-03 Damage assessment of other goods
S-04 Damage assessment of cultural land and buildings
S-05 Damage assessment of cultural goods
S-06 Damage assessment of companies
S-07 Evaluation of the assessed damages at companies
S-08 Average monetary values of materials needed for the damage assessment
S-POM Assessment of the repair costs and evaluation of the saved goods

Regarding the earthquake damages, in N. Macedonia, besides the Uniform methodology for
damage assessment [4] there is also a methodology prepared by the Institute of Earthquake
Engineering and Engineering Seismology [5] specifically designed for estimation of damages result
of earthquakes [5]. The damage categories, usability levels and description of damages formulated
by IZIIS methodology are shown in Table 3.

421
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

Table 3: Damage categories, usability levels and description of damages according to

methodology developed by IZIIS [5]

N Damage
Code: Usability Damage description Labeling
Nr. Category
One
Undamage No visible damage to structural elements.
1.1 Usable green
d buildings Narrow cracks on plaster
line
Minor damage in non-structural elements
and structural system. Clear cracks on
1 plaster surface of walls and ceilings.
1 Lightly Spalling off of plaster parts from walls Two
1.2 Usable damaged and ceilings. Remarkable clear cracks, green
buildings damages or partial collapse of chimneys, lines
attic and gable walls. Loosening, partial
sliding and falling of the roof cover.
Clear cracks in structural elements.
Diagonal and other cracks in structural
walls. Diagonal cracks on walls in
Buildings
between window openings and similar
with
Tempora structural elements. Wide cracks in rc One
slightly
2.1 rily structural elements: columns, beams and yellow
damaged
unusable walls. Heavily damaged or collapsed line
structural
chimneys, ceilings and gable walls.
system
Loosening, sliding and falling of roof
2
cover.
Remarkable cracks on walls, in some
2
cases the wall tears appart and its
Buildings material crushes. Remarkable cracks and
Tempora with material crushing of walls in between Two
2.2 rily damaged window openings. Bigger cracks and yellow
unusable structural material crushing of the rc elements: lines
system columns, beams and walls. Small
displacement of the structural elements
and the building itself.
Buildings Severely damaged and displaced
with structural elements. Severely damaged
heavily beam to column connections. Huge One red
3.1 Unusable
damaged amount of material crushing of structural line
3 structural elements. Visible displacement of the
3 system building. Major settlements of ceilings.
Partially or Severely crushed structural elements.
totally Partially collapsed structural elements. Two red
3.2 Unusable
collapsed Remarkably displaced, partially or totally lines
buildings collapsed buildings.

422
 GNP 2 0 2 0

According to IZIIS methodology [5], a team consisting of civil engineer, civil technician,
guide and driver during the site surveillance, on the visible side of the building, should label the
building with damage level color according to its usability state; write the number of the damage
category and code of the assessment team as well as the number of the assessed building [5]. The
same information about the inspected building should be also written in the form IZIIS-Z-101 [5]
(Table 4). If a building is in the first category (undamaged or lightly damaged) it can be used after
the needed repairs are completed. Building labeled with yellow color needs repair or strengthening
of the structural elements. Unusable building needs to be re-evaluated with technical elaborate in
order to decide whether it is feasible to repair or to be demolished [5]. This methodology was
practically used in many regional earthquakes, such as: Montenegro (1979), Kopaonik - Serbia
(1980), Knin - Croatia (1986), Gevgelija - N. Macedonia (1990) and Bitola - N. Macedonia (1994)
[6]. The content of site surveillance form IZIIS-Z-101 is given in Table 4.
Table 4: IZIIS-Z-101 [5]

1. Code of the working team: 17. Foundation walls:

2. Code of the building: 18. Foundation soil properties:

3. Municipality: 19. Construction state:

4. Location: 20. Usability state:

5. Ownership: 21. Number of flats:

Type of use: 22. Number of households:

6.
Owner of the building: 23. Number of residents:

7. Address of the owner: 24. Classification of the damages:

8. Year of construction: 25. Sketch of the building outlines:

1.2. POST EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY USED

IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (ATC-20)
In the USA the damage assessment in the field of earthquake hazards is processed according
to the ATC-20 methodology defined by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) [7]. This
methodology consists of three phases: Rapid evaluation, Detailed evaluation and Engineering
evaluation as shown in Figure 2. Rapid evaluation is the first phase where qualified individuals
within a period of 10-20 minutes observe a building and label it with one of the safety posts:
Inspected, Restricted use or Unsafe [8]. After the Rapid evaluation phase, buildings labeled as
Restricted Use and Unsafe are evaluated in the phase of Detailed evaluation which is a more
detailed assessment with duration from 1 up to 4 hours.

423
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

Once again the buildings are labeled according to their safety level [8]. The detailed
explanation of the labels is given in Table 5. At the detailed evaluation stage it is decided whether
a building should be submitted to engineering evaluation phase which lasts from 1 up to 7 days and
is requested by the property owner or the insurance company [8].

Figure 1: ATC-20-1. Post earthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings [9]

Table 5: ATC-20-1, Building Safety Evaluation Classifications [8]

Posting Classification Description

Inspected (Green) No apparent hazard is found, although repairs may be required. The
original seismic resistance is not significantly decreased. No
restriction on use or occupancy.
Restricted Use A hazardous condition exists (or is believed to exist) that requires
(Yellow) restrictions on the occupancy or use of the structure. Entry and use
are restricted as indicated on the placard.
Unsafe (Red) Extreme structural or other hazard is present. There may be imminent
risk of further damage or collapse from creep or aftershocks. Unsafe
for occupancy or entry, except as authorized by the local building
department.
Area Unsafe (Red) Designated area is unsafe. It must not be entered, except by
authorities. This is a special posting category when there is fall
hazard.

424
 GNP 2 0 2 0

Table 6: Major differences of post earthquake damage assessment methodologies used in N.

Macedonia (IZIIS) and USA (ATC-20)

Country: N. Macedonia USA

Institution/ IZIIS (Institute of Earthquake ATC (Applied Technology Council)

organization: Engineering and Engineering
Seismology)
Post earthquake One level Time frame: Three levels of Time frame:
damage assessment damage 20-40 minutes damage
methodology assessment assessment:
1.rapid
10-20 minutes
evaluation
2.detailed
evaluation 1-4 hours
3.engineering
evaluation 1-7 days
Damage Assessment IZIIS_79-005 ATC-20
Methodology: (usability levels of buildings) (safety evaluation of buildings)
Building safety One level damage 1. Rapid Evaluation
evaluation assessment; usability
levels of buildings
Inspected

Unsafe
Usable

Restricted use

Usable 2. Detailed Evaluation:

Inspected
Temporarily
unusable
Unsafe

Temporarily Restricted use

unusable

3. Engineering Evaluation:
Unusable
Inspected

Unsafe
Unusable

425
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

1.3. CONCLUSION
Table 6 presents tabular comparison between the key aspects of post earthquake damage
assessment methodologies used by authorities in two countries, N. Macedonia and USA. While
ATC-20 offers three levels of damage assessment, N. Macedonian methodology offers one unique
level of assessment. Both methodologies are useful for post earthquake damage assessment. The
methodology offered by IZIIS is more detailed and requires more time, approximately 20-40
minutes per building damage evaluation by experienced professionals. On the other hand, the
ATC-20 rapid evaluation requires up to 20 minutes per building and is quite efficient for making
the critical decision about the safety level of the buildings in shorter time. During the rapid
evaluation phase buildings labelled as “Restricted Use” are further evaluated in detailed evaluation
phase. This levelling of the damage evaluation in three phases saves huge amount of time for the
damage assessment teams as well as, it is more efficient for providing initial (rapid) information to
the national authorities in order to decide for further actions in saving lives and giving support to
the damage affected population.
Having a hazard specified damage assessment methodology can increase the time efficiency
of providing the information about the damage type and level. Both of the post earthquake damage
assessment methodologies in their content of collected information are similar, but the ATC-20 is
more time efficient because it is processed in phases. With the purpose to speed up the data
collection the IZIIS damage assessment methodology can be in future upgraded with at least rapid
assessment form. Besides processing the damage assessment in phases, increasing the time
efficiency and providing real-time information can be achieved by use of state-of-the-art IT
technologies such as; internet platforms, GIS platforms and mobile applications.
After the hazardous event occurs, the speed and reliability of collected and processed
damage information is of outstanding importance for responsible national authorities as a base for
decision about the first aid actions as well as preventing further human loss, injuries and material
loss. Those data in the later stage are also basis for decision about the necessary protection and
prevention long term measures.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This paper represents syntesis of the activities carried out in the subject “Management of Urban
Disasters and Strategic Planning” which is part of first author’s doctoral study at the Institute of
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology (IZIIS) – UKIM.

LITERATURE

[1] Poljansek, K., Marin Ferrerm M., De Groeve, T., Clark, I., (Eds.) (2017). Science for disaster risk
management 2017: knowing better and losing less. EUR 28034 EN, Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg, 2017.
[2] European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document, Overview of Natural and Man-made
Disaster Risks the European Union may face, Brussels, 23.5.2017. SWD (2017)
[3] https://www.preventionweb.net/countries/mkd/data/
[4] Sluzben Vesnik na R. Makedonija, pg. 4516- Nr. 75, 19 September 2001

426
 GNP 2 0 2 0

[5] Instructions by IZIIS 79-005 (1979). Instructions for classification of the damage and usability levels
of buildings affected by earthquake. Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Engineerign Seismology
– UKIM, Skopje
[6] Ristovska (2020). Master thesis: Digital and GIS database of the damages caused by earthquake:
Skopje earthquake 26 July 1963, systematization, re-evaluation, spatial analysis and maping of the
damages. Institute of Earthauake Engineering and Engineering Seismology – UKIM, Skopje.
[7] [Christopher Rojahn, The Applied Technology Council: An Historical Perspective,
www.ATCouncil.org.]
[8] [Ronald Gallagher, Post earthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings at DOE Facilities, Second DOE
Natural Phenomena Hazards Mitigation Conference – 1989]
[9] D. OJALA, et.al. (2015). ATC-20-1: A Rough Guide to Using Your Trusty Field Manual for Safety
Assessment and Reconnaissance, EERI Annual Meeting.
[10] Sluzben List na SFRJ, pg. 578- Nr. 17, April 21, 1979
[11] Sluzben List na SFRJ, pg. 654- Nr. 27, April 10, 1987

427