GEM Basic Building Taxonomy - Beta V1.0
A global taxonomy of buildings is of critical importance for the development of homogeneous global databases in GEM. We have been working on a GEM Building Taxonomy for some time now, and would hereby like to present V1.0 of the GEM Basic Building Taxonomy - Beta Version. A brief explanation of the process:
- In April 2011 we developed version 0.1 of a GEM Building Taxonomy, which was commented on by collaborators of the GEM global component projects focused on global exposure and physical vulnerability and other experts (see post)
- In May 2011 a Building Taxonomy workshop took place where it was decided to first develop a basic building taxonomy for GEM, test that and after that work on a detailed building taxonomy.
- Included in this post is the report that describes and explains version 1.0 of the GEM Basic Building Taxonomy - Beta. Beta, because it will be field-tested and evaluated in other ways over the next few months before a regular, tested v1.0 will be released.
- The GEM Detailed Building Taxonomy will be developed in 2012.
You can download the report of v1.0 of the GEM Basic Building Taxonomy (beta) below and we would like to invite you to submit comments on it. We particularly welcome feedback on usability and applicability of the GEM Basic Building Taxonomy in local/regional contexts.
Please note that we are planning to release an online version of the glossary related to this Basic Building Taxonomy, which will include a description and graphic illustration for each term in the taxonomy. Towards the end of January 2012 you can expect a post and links to the glossary.
Many thanks,
The O&T Taxonomy team
** Please note that we updated the report on January 12th after the initial release on January 9th, because Table 8 was missing in the appendix
Please log in, or if you are not a member yet, sign up now!
Rate this comment!
Green/Up: ‘I find this comment important’,
Red/Down : ‘Please do not consider this comment’.
Congratulation to the authors for compiling a comprehensive document. I have following observations (As my entry to this forum is relatively new, my apologies in advance if some of the issues have already been discussed in the forum and settled):
1. Some of the attributes that are listed in Tier 2 could be included in Tier 1 such as Vertical and Plan irregularity. Few important considerations of Tier 1 assessment are that the surveyor need not enter the building, the time required to assess the building is minimum, distance assessment is possible (e.g. remote sensing or satellite image) and no information is required that need interaction with the building occupant (e.g. date of construction). As few irregularity attributes can be assessed externally and from distance sources, they better be included in Tier 1.
2. Table 2 (Lateral Load Resisting System). I think it's necessary to include one more attribute i.e. Moment Frame with or without Shear wall. Or, is it equivalent to say 'infilled flat slab/plate or infilled waffle slab?'
Does infilled frame also include 'composite masonry?' In Nepal, infilled frames are Moment Frames with infill brick walls. However, in many countries (e.g. Indonesia), the construction is completely different and frame/walls behave in composite fashion.
3. My suggestion would be to include Floor and roof as one attribute under Floors with Top floor (roof) included in Tier 1 and Intermediate floors in Tier 2. Although the current approach is also similar, one redundant table can be saved.
4. Table 7 Strucutral Irregularity. I recommend to include following attributes in addition to the existing ones (For load bearing structures with masonry walls):
4.1 Percentage of opening
4.2 Slenderness ratio (In recent earthquake in eastern Nepal, majority of masonry walls collapse was either due to long walls without cross walls or due to high walls.)
Both of these can be included in Tier 1 (although visit to the building will be necessary).
Jishnu Subedi
Kathmandu, Nepal
Rate this comment!
Green/Up: ‘I find this comment important’,
Red/Down : ‘Please do not consider this comment’.
Login to rate
Dear Svetlana,
congratulations on the release.
I think it is a wise decision to rely on material and separate horizontal and vertical system. This is what I've done when having to classify the Romanian built substance.
Although most of that work is in German (like how to recognise complex typologies outgoing from what is checked in the checklist), I have an introductory chapter including the checklist, and the surveyed characteristics in this book
http://www.cuvillier.de/flycms/de/html/30/-UickI3zKPS72fko=/Buchdetails.html?SID=NlbdmV52723c
There are also some GIS extracts on the area in Bucharest - but it is hard to explain how in the MSAccess database the way features are recognised was introduced to lead to typologies.
I never managed to publish a proper paper on this since I am asked for maps on how I came to the idea that these are the typologies and not more.
The book includes two reports more than the WHE: multistorey masonry and RC skeleton with commercial ground floor. Also, there are some typologies I know about but there is no report, such as masonry building from mid 19th century with timber facades and contemporary housing typology (single family and multifamily - a book on single family by my group is coming out this Friday).
I've put the students in the course I am co-teaching on protection of localities against risks to recognise these typologies and the WHE typologies in a Bucharest area, I am curious what they'll come with but unfortunately they are less hard working than the previous series.
I don't know how to attach files here, hence the link, although it does not include much. There are some things on characteristics recognition in my CHRESP paper
http://morana-rtd.com/chresp/CHRESP2008_Postprint_12_2100.pdf
unfortunately despite promisse this book was not made public ...
kind regards
Maria