Putul Haldar, Yogendra Singh, Dominik H. Lang, D.K.

Paul 1405

IVARA – A TOOL FOR SEISMIC

VULNARABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT
OF INDIAN HOUSING
Putul Haldar,1 Yogendra Singh,2 Dominik H. Lang3 and D.K. Paul4

ABSTRACT

The devastating past earthquakes in India have demonstrated the urgent need for seismic risk
evaluation. Despite several major earthquakes in past, unfortunately, a systematic methodology for
risk assessment complying with Indian condition is lacking. This paper presents a fully transparent
spreadsheet based software tool characterized by simplicity and complete accessibility, for seismic
risk estimation, based on seismic intensity. Different building types in India are identified and
compared with MSK, EMS, PSI and HAZUS classifications and have been incorporated in this
software package. Classified Model Building Types’ vulnerability has been estimated using the
MSK-EMS and PSI intensity scales. The methodology leads to estimation of direct economic loss
and number of expected casualties and injuries at day and night time and also evaluates expected
number of shelter loss i.e., number of homeless people in different building types subjected to
different seismic intensities. Considering the uncertainty associated with definition of damage grade
in intensity scales, Lower and Upper Bound estimates are introduced. The tool has been demonstrated
through postulated risk assessment of Dehradun city.

INTRODUCTION
Seismic vulnerability and risk assessment is the primary step in any disaster mitigation plan for a
seismically active region. Huge life and property losses, even under moderate earthquakes in Killary
(1993), Jabalpur (1997), Chamoli (1999) and Bhuj (2001), have demonstrated the vulnerability of
the housing stock in India. Although, India is among the most seismically active regions of the
world, most of the buildings are not designed for earthquake load, at all. Sometimes earthquake

1
Research Student, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee-247667, India.
reach2putul@gmail.com
2
Assoc. Professor, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee-247667, India. yogenfeq@
iitr.ernet.in
3
Research Engineer, NORSAR, International Centre of Geohazards (ICG), Kjeller, Norway. dominik@
norsar.no
4
Professor, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee-247667, India. dpaulfeq@iitr.
ernet.in
1406 14th SEE-2010

forces are considered in analysis but construction and detailing do not comply with the standards.
Lack of awareness and weak enforcement has resulted in a huge stock of seismically deficient
buildings. Therefore, there is an urgent need to classify the Model Building Types (MBTs), assess
the damage probabilities of the identified MBTs, and develop a user friendly open source tool that
can be used at city or regional level to estimate the seismic risk in order to plan comprehensive
mitigation measures.
Several attempts have been made globally to develop seismic risk assessment tools. However, the
main limitation of available tools in context of India is that the vulnerability parameters used have
been derived for the building types of specific countries/regions, and therefore application to other
parts of world requires additional research. In the present study, an open source MS-Excel based
seismic risk assessment tool – ‘IVARA’ (Seismic Vulnerability And Risk Assessment of Indian
Housing), characterized by simplicity and complete accessibility and suitable for Indian housing
stock has been developed. The software provides estimates of the direct economic loss, life losses
and injuries at day and night time, and number of homeless people. One of the beautiful features of
the software is that the software can be used efficiently even where sufficient post earthquake damage
data is unavailable to calibrate analytical studies as the software considers hazard in terms of seismic
intensity and the vulnerability of housing stock by empirical Damage Probability Matrices (DPMs).
34 different MBTs representing existing buildings of the Indian subcontinent have been identified
(Prasad et al., 2009) and implemented in the software. The developed tool has been demonstrated
through a case study of a typical north Indian city.

THE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE

The schematic outline of the developed tool ‘IVARA’ is shown in Fig.1.The tool consists of four
main modules. The input module consists of information on building inventory and hazard scenario.
IVARA allows hazard in terms of seismic intensity. Building inventory input includes total area,
population, value of structural and nonstructural components and building contents, for each MBT
exposed to seismic hazard.

Fig. 1: Schematic Diagram of IVARA

Putul Haldar, Yogendra Singh, Dominik H. Lang, D.K. Paul 1407

Fig. 2 shows a snapshot of input data required for building inventory from the user, for loss
estimation of a typical occupancy class. Currently the software classifies occupancy in typical
Indian cities into four classes, namely residential, low commercial, medium commercial and high
commercial occupancy classes. However, the user can define any number of classes based on local
conditions and available information.
Vulnerability module calculates DPMs for the defined MBTs using MSK-EMS and PSI intensity
scales. Loss module provides the social and economical loss ratios for different MBTs and damage
grades as discussed in the subsequent section below.

Fig. 2: Typical Input Information on Building Inventory Required for IVARA

Fig. 3: Main Page of the Tool-IVARA

1408 14th SEE-2010

Fig. 3 shows the main page of the software depicting the estimated loss for the given intensity.
Once the input data on building inventory characteristics of residential and commercial localities
of the region is provided, risk estimates for different earthquake ground shaking intensities can be
evaluated. The 34 Model Building Types defined in IVARA, the user has to provide the database
on building inventory information, i.e., the built-up area, structural and non-structural replacement
cost, day and night time population of the study region.

CLASSIFICATION OF BUILDING INVENTORY

India is a land of diversity that may be in the construction of building stock dominated by the
locally available materials, traditional constructional practices or topography of the area. Further,
unlike other developed countries, India has a very little relevant information of building stock at city
level. In this study, 34 Model Building Types as shown in Table 1, compiled by Prasad et al. (2009),
representing existing buildings of the Indian subcontinent, have been implemented in the software. In
this compilation, the existing constructions have been broadly classified into three classes, according
to vertical framing system, namely, Adobe and Random Rubble Masonry construction, Masonry
wall construction using Rectangular Units, and Framed structures considering their importance
in earthquake resistance. Considering the crucial role of roof/ floor system in developing integral
action with the vertical framing system, six different types of roofs/ floors have been identified
and their different commonly used combinations with vertical frame systems have been considered
for the MBTs. Since natural period of vibration and base shear of the buildings strongly depend
on their height, number of storey also play an important role in the vulnerability classification and
has been taken into account as per prevailing practice for load bearing wall buildings and framed
structures.

Table 1: Classification of Model Building Types in the Indian Subcontinent (Prasad et al., 2009)

Most likely Vulnerability class as per

Description of Indian model building types
SL. existing classifications
Label
No. Roof/Floor Stories
Wall/Framing type MSK EMS PSI HAZUS
Type*
* Roof/Floor types: R1 - Heavy sloping roofs-stones/burnt clay tiles/thatch on sloping rafters; R2 - Heavy
Flat flexible heavy roof - wooden planks, stone/burnt clay tiles supported on wooden/steel joists with thick mud
overlay; R3 - Light sloping roofs - corrugated asbestos cement or GI sheets on sloping rafters without cross
bracing; R4 - Trussed roof with light weight sheeting (without cross bracing); R5 - Trussed/hipped roof with
light weight sheeting (with cross bracing); R6 - Flat rigid reinforced concrete or reinforced masonry slab

Adobe and Random Rubble Masonry

1 AM1 Rammed mud/ sun-dried bricks/ R1, R2 1-2
AA1
2 AM2 rubble stone in mud mortar R3 1-2
3 AL1 R1, R2 1-2
Rubble stone in lime-surkhi
4 AL2 R3, R4 1-2
mortar A A Not defined
5 AL3 R5 1-2
AR1
6 AC1 R1, R2 1-2
7 AC2 Rubble stone in cement mortar R3, R4 1-2
8 AC3 R5, R6 1-2
Putul Haldar, Yogendra Singh, Dominik H. Lang, D.K. Paul 1409

Masonry consisting of Rectangular Units

9 MM1 R1, R2 1-2
Burnt clay brick/ rectangular stone
10 MM2 R3, R4 1-2 A A AA1
in mud mortar
11 MM3 R5 1-2
12 ML1 R1, R2 1-2 BB1,
Burnt clay brick/ rectangular stone
13 ML2 R3, R4 1-2 BD1
in lime-surkhi mortar
14 ML3 R5, R6 1-2 BB2
B
15 MC1 R1 ,R2 1-2 BB1,
B
Burnt clay brick/ rectangular BD1, Not defined
16 MC2 R3, R4 1-2
stone/ concrete blocks in cement BC1
17 MC3L mortar 1-2
R5, R6 C BB2
18 MC3M 3+
19 ME1L Burnt clay brick/ rectangular 1-2
stone/ concrete blocks in cement
Not Not Not
mortar and provided with seismic
20 ME1M R5, R6 3+ defined defined defined
bands and vertical reinforcement
at corners and jambs
Framed Structures
21 RC1L RC frame/ shear wall with URM 1-3 C3L-Precode
infills – constructed without any
C C CC1
22 RC1M consideration for earthquake 4-7 C3M-precode
forces
23 RC2L RC frame/ shear wall with 1-3 C3L
24 RC2M URM infills - earthquake forces 4-7 C3M (Pre-
considered in design but detailing
Not Code/
of reinforcement and execution D
defined Low-
25 RC2H not as per earthquake resistant 8+ C3H Code)
guidelines (Low-Code/ Moderate-
Code)
26 RC3L RC frame/ shear wall with URM 1-3 Not C3L (Pre-
27 RC3M infills - designed, detailed and 4-7 defined/ C3M Code/
executed as per earthquake R6 Not Low-
E
resistant guidelines defined/ Code/
28 RC3H (Low-Code/ Moderate-Code/ High 8+ Not
DC- C3H Moderate
defined
Code) UBC-2 Code)
29 ST1L 1-3 S5L Pre-Code/
30 ST1M Steel moment frames with URM 4-7 S5M Low-
infills(Low-Code/ Moderate-Code/ Code/
31 ST1H High Code) 8+ S5H Moderate-
Not Code
E
32 ST2L 1-3 defined S2L Pre-Code/
33 ST2M Steel braced frames 4-7 S2M Low-
(Low-Code/ Moderate-Code/ High Code/
34 ST3H Code) 8+ S2H Moderate
Code
1410 14th SEE-2010

VULNERABILITY OF INDIAN HOUSING STOCK

Seismic Vulnerability of a structure, described as the susceptibility to damage by ground shaking of
a given intensity, can be represented either by fragility curves or via Damage Probability Matrices
(DPMs). Vulnerability functions for MBTs can either be developed using statistical damage obtained
from the past earthquakes or using experimental/analytical simulations. Due to unavailability of
adequate post earthquake damage data of Indian buildings, the damage probabilities in the intensity
based tool, IVARA, have been evaluated using their equivalence to the building classes in MSK
(Sponheuer and Karnik 1964), EMS (Grünthal ed., 1998), Parameter-less Scale of Seismic Intensity
- PSI (Spence et al., 1992) scales. MSK64 is traditionally used for Indian earthquake damage
surveys (Vulnerability Atlas; 1997, 2006), as the building types defined in this scale closely match
with the Indian MBTs. More recent EMS98 scale follows MSK64 scale in terms of the intensity
severity definition (Giovinazzi, 2005) but classifies building types in a more detailed manner giving
consideration to well engineered buildings as well as non-engineered buildings. The PSI scale
represents an even more detailed classification of load bearing walls and framed structures depending
on the degree of seismic resistant design.

DPMs Based on Lower Bound and Upper Bound Estimates

In intensity scales, extent of seismic damage to different types of buildings is used to define the
severity of ground motion. In MSK and EMS scales, the extent of damage is not provided in terms
of discrete probabilities rather probable ranges have been provided. Keeping in mind the uncertainty
associated with the descriptive damage grades and the suggested ranges, it is not possible to define
a unique damage probability based on these intensity scales. Therefore, in the present study ‘Upper
Bound’ and ‘Lower Bound’ DPMs proposed by Prasad et al. (2009) have been implemented in
IVARA. The probability ranges of 10-20%, 15-55%, and 55-100%, with ±5% uncertainty, for the
descriptive terms ‘few’, ‘many’, and ‘most’, respectively, based on EMS-98, have been used to define
the Lower and Upper Bound DPMs (Table 2) for the identified MBTs. While defining Upper Bound
DPMs, first, the Upper Bound probability of the most severe grade of damage has been assigned,
and then the probabilities of less severe grades have been adjusted to keep the sum 100%. Similarly
for estimating the Lower Bound DPMs, Lower Bound probability in the most severe damage grade
has been assigned and the probabilities of the lower damage grades have been assigned as per the
description in EMS. Arya (2003) has suggested some modifications in the damage probability
distribution corresponding to Intensities VI-IX, based on his experience of past earthquake damage
surveys in India. He has assigned slightly higher damage expectancy to Indian buildings, and also
proposed a broader damage distribution, covering lower damage grades, as compared to MSK and
EMS. These modifications have also been incorporated in the Lower Bound and Upper Bound
DPMs presented in Table 2.

DPMs Based on Parameterless Scale of Seismic Intensity (PSI)

To avoid the subjectivity and difficulties associated with macro-seismic intensity scales while
assigning discrete intensity values of the same area according to observed damage by different survey
groups, Spence et al. (1992) have developed Parameterless Scale of Seismic Intensity (PSI Scale), a
continuous seismic intensity scale, based on the earthquake damage data of 70,000 buildings in 13
different earthquakes worldwide. It offers a more detailed classification of load bearing structures
as compared to any other intensity scales that covers most of the Indian building typologies and
Putul Haldar, Yogendra Singh, Dominik H. Lang, D.K. Paul 1411

therefore has been used for vulnerability assessment of Indian housing in IVARA. Table 3 shows
the mean values and standard deviations of PSI scale, used for Indian MBTs, for different damage
grades.

Table 2: Lower and Upper Bound Damage Probabilities of Classified MBTs (Prasad et al., 2009)

MSK/ Damage Probability (%)

Proposed
EMS Lower Bound Damage Scenario Upper Bound Damage Scenario
MBT
Intensity Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5
AM1, AM2, VI 15 10 0 0 0 55 20 0 0 0
AL1, AL2, AL3, VII 18 17 55 10 0 0 0 80 20 0
VIII 0 18 17 55 10 0 0 0 80 20
AC1
IX 0 0 43 42 15 0 0 23 22 55
AC2, AC3,
X 0 0 0 45 55 0 0 0 0 100
MM1, MM2 XI 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100
MM3 XII 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100
VI 15 10 0 0 0 55 20 0 0 0
VII 75 15 10 0 0 25 55 20 0 0
ML1, ML2, VIII 0 35 55 10 0 0 0 80 20 0
ML3, MC1, IX 0 0 75 15 10 0 0 25 55 20
MC2 X 0 0 43 42 15 0 0 23 22 55
XI 0 0 23 22 55 0 0 0 0 100
XII 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100
VI 10 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0
VII 52 10 0 0 0 67 20 0 0 0
MC3L, MC3M, VIII 35 55 10 0 0 0 80 20 0 0
RC1L, IX 0 75 15 10 0 0 25 55 20 0
RC1M X 0 0 75 15 10 0 0 25 55 20
XI 0 0 30 55 15 0 0 0 45 55
XII 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100
VII 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0
VIII 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0
RC2L, RC2M, IX 85 15 0 0 0 30 55 15 0 0
RC2H X 0 75 15 10 0 0 25 55 20 0
XI 0 0 75 15 10 0 0 25 55 20
XII 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 100
RC3L, RC3M, IX 100 0 0 0 0 85 15 0 0 0
RC3H, ST1L, X 75 15 10 0 0 25 55 20 0 0
ST1M, ST1H, XI 0 75 15 10 0 0 25 55 20 0
ST2L, ST2M, XII 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 100
ST3H

SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT

Using the developed DPMs using the mean values and standard deviations of PSI scale (Table 3)or
EMS-MSK scale as shown in Table 2 , Life Loss, Injuries and Direct Economic Losses have been
estimated.

Loss Model
As described above, loss module consists of direct economic losses, and life loss and injuries.
Due to lack of statistical studies regarding injury and life loss patterns, and economic loss ratios
1412 14th SEE-2010

Table 3: Mean Values of PSI Intensity Corresponding to Various Damage Grades for the Common
Building Types Defined in PSI Scale (Coburn and Spence, 2002)

Damage Grade
MBT of PSI Scale
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
AA1 3.9 6.6 8.9 10.5 12.4
AR1 3.2 5.9 8.2 9.8 11.7
BB1 4.9 7.8 10.0 11.6 13.3
BB2 6.5 9.4 11.6 13.2 14.9
BC1 5.6 8.5 10.7 12.3 14.0
BD1 4.0 7.1 9.0 10.5 12.4
CC1 7.9 10.3 11.3 12.9 14.1
DB1 7.5 10.6 13.0 15.0 17.0
DC-UBC2 8.8 10.5 12.5 14.1 15.2

with respect to different damage states based on Indian past earthquakes, therefore, in the present
study, the expected life-loss and injuries have been estimated using the Casualty Rates, prescribed
in HAZUS.

Estimation of Life Loss and Injuries

The probability of a Severity Level due to different damage states for a building type can be obtained
as
5
P( Si ) MBT = ∑ (P( Si / Grj ) × P(Grj ) MBT ) (1)
j =1

where, P(Si)MBT = Probability of Severity Level i in a MBT, P(Si / Grj) = Casualty rate of severity i
for damage grade j, and P(Grj)MBT = Probability of occurrence of damage grade j in a MBT. For a
group of similar buildings, the total number of injuries or life loss can be obtained by multiplying
this probability with the total number of occupants.

Estimation of Direct Economic Losses

The direct economic loss is caused mainly due to three types of damages, namely structural damage,
non-structural damage, and damage of contents. HAZUS has provided loss ratios as percentage of
building replacement value for all the three types of damages. As the contribution of non-structural
components in the cost of Indian buildings is rather low and not known explicitly, in the present
study, the loss due to building damage has been considered jointly for structural and non-structural
components and the Loss Ratio for different Damage States has been considered as per HAZUS
(Table 4).
Table 4: Loss Ratio at Different Damage States

Structural and Non-Structural Loss (%) Content Loss (%)

Damage State
in terms of Building’s Replacement Cost in terms of Building’s Content Value
Slight 2.00 1.00
Moderate 10.00 5.00
Extensive 50.00 25.00
Complete 100.00 50.00
Putul Haldar, Yogendra Singh, Dominik H. Lang, D.K. Paul 1413

The total structural and non-structural loss due to building damage for a given occupancy class
can be estimated as (HAZUS, 2006)
⎡
N 5 ⎤
CBDi = ∑ ⎢ FAMBT ,i × TBAi × ∑ (P (Grj ) MBT × LR j )× RVMBT ⎥ (2)
MBT =1 ⎣ j =1 ⎦
where, CBDi = Cost of building damage in Occupancy Class i, FAMBT,i = Percentage floor area of
a MBT in Occupancy Class i, TBAi = Total built-up area of Occupancy i, P(Grj)MBT = Probability
of Damage Grade j in a MBT, LRj = Building Loss Ratio for Damage Grade j, including structural
and non-structural damage, RVMBT = Building Replacement Value for a MBT.
Similarly, the total loss due to damage of contents in a given occupancy class can be estimated
as,
⎡
N 5 ⎤
CCDi = ∑ ⎢ FAMBT ,i × TBAi × ∑ (P (Grj ) MBT × CLR j )× RVMBT ⎥ (3)
MBT =1 ⎣ j =1 ⎦
where, CCDi = Cost of Contents Damage in Occupancy Class i, FAMBT, i = Percentage CCDi =
floor area of a MBT in Occupancy Class i, TBAi = Total built-up area of Occupancy i, P(Grj)MBT =
Probability of Damage Grade j in a MBT, CLRj = Contents Loss Ratio for Damage Grade j, CVRi
= Contents Value of a MBT in Occupancy Class i.

CASE STUDY

The developed tool has been demonstrated through a case study of a typical north Indian city,
located in the foothills of Himalayas. It is an old city in northern India and became the capital of
the newly formed state of Uttarakhand, which resulted in rapid growth of the city. Proximity to
the seismically active Himalayan region, rapid growth, high population density, and a variety of
housing stock ranging from very old traditional adobe/stone buildings to the newly constructed
masonry and RC buildings, generally without the implementation of seismic codes, pose a severe
earthquake risk to the city.
According to Indian seismic zonation map IS: 1893, 2002 the whole country is divided into four
Seismic Zones II, III, IV and V with corresponding expected MSK seismic intensity of VI, VII,
VIII and IX, respectively. As per IS: 1893-2002 Dehradun lies in Seismic Zone IV. It is important
to note that the local site conditions are expected to influence the local seismic hazard and hence
the estimated loss, significantly. However, in the absence of information about variation of soil
strata within the city, the effect of the same has been ignored considering uniform ground shaking
corresponding to Indian standard soil Type-I.
Direct economic loss per m2 of built-up area, total direct economic loss, life-loss, injuries and
number of homeless people of the city have been calculated using the developed tool. Table 5 shows
these estimates for the whole city, corresponding to seismic intensity VIII, IX and X using the Lower
Bound (LB), Upper Bound (UB) vulnerability matrices, and PSI scale, respectively.
It can be observed from Table 5 that PSI scale estimates life-loss higher than the Upper Bound
MSK-EMS estimates at lower intensity (VIII) and closer to Upper Bound MSK-EMS estimates at
higher intensities (IX and X), and injuries close to the Lower Bound MSK-EMS estimates at lower
intensity and within the Upper Bound and Lower Bound estimates at higher intensities. However, it
predicts economic loss within the Upper Bound and Lower Bound estimates for all the intensities. It
can also be observed that there are differences in the loss estimates based on the MSK-EMS and PSI
1414 14th SEE-2010

approaches. The difference, even in two seismic intensity scales, is due to a more refined building
classification and better distributed vulnerability functions in case of PSI scale. It can be observed
that the damage predicted by MSK-EMS scales is concentrated within few grades (Table 2) while
PSI scale is continuous and distributes the damage in all the five grades.
Table 5: Risk Estimates for Dehradun City Using IVARA

MSK Intensity VIII MSK Intensity IX MSK Intensity X

MSK-EMS MSK-EMS MSK-EMS
Lower bound- PSI Lower bound- Lower bound-
Estimated PSI Estimates PSI Estimates
Upper Bound Estimates Upper Bound Upper Bound
Parameter
Estimates Estimates Estimates
Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day
Time Time Time Time Time Time Time Time Time Time Time Time
572- 375 2,351- 1,439 10,473- 6,580 -
Life-loss 1,449 913 5,388 3,363 16,948 10,542
1,142 - 748 6,082 – 3,801 24,080 14,976
9,762- 6,156- 22,092- 13,685- 61,820- 38,679-
Injuries 10,861 6,796 32,576 20,285 84,150 52,298
15,694 9,950 45,479 28,243 1,24,302 77,342
Homeless 1,22,930-
88,898 2,10,644-3,95,744 2,02,978 1,22,930- 2,04,428 3,40,082
People 2,04,426
Direct
Economic 7.14-12.03 13.64-27.29
9.71 billion 22.71 billion 29.11-43.99 billion 41.68 billion
Losses billion billion
(in INR)

CONCLUSIONS

A simple and user friendly open source spread sheet based tool for quick seismic risk assessment
using seismic intensity has been presented. It estimates direct economic loss, life loss and injuries
at day and night time, and number of homeless people of the study region. Currently, the tool has
been tailored for Indian housing stock but can be easily adopted for any region. The tool provides
estimates using two approaches: (i) Lower Bound and Upper Bound DPMs based on the MSK and
EMS98 intensity, and (ii) PSI intensity scale. The tool enables a direct comparison of risk estimated
using different approaches but the same building inventory and loss models. The simplicity of the
tool will enable the user to access and modify the source and introduce new features. The tabular
format of input will enable easy sharing of information on hosing stock, vulnerability functions
and loss functions. It is important to note that the case study of Dehradun, used to demonstrate the
developed tool can be considered as postulated risk scenario that the historical city poses.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The study has been done under the Indo-Norwegian collaborative programme on “Earthquake Risk
Reduction in Himalaya with institutional cooperation between India and Norway”. The support
from the Norwegian collaborators and Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India
is gratefully acknowledged.
Putul Haldar, Yogendra Singh, Dominik H. Lang, D.K. Paul 1415

REFERENCES

1. Arya, A.S., (2003). “Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings in Various Seismic Zones in India”, Capacity
Building Advisor, GOI-UNDP (DRM), New Delhi.
2. Coburn, A., and Spence, R., (2002). Earthquake Protection, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2nd Edition.
3. FEMA (1999), “HAZUS-99 Technical Manual”, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
DC, U.S.A.
4. Giovinazzi, S. (2005). The Vulnerability Assessment and the Damage Scenario in Seismic Risk Analysis,
PhD thesis, Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina at Braunschweig, Germany and University of
Florence, Florence, Italy.
5. HAZUS, (2006), “HAZUS-MH MR2 Technical Manual, developed by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency through agreements with the National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.
6. IS 1893, (2002). “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures (Part-1)”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India.
7. Medvedev, Sponheuer, and Karnik, (1965). “Medvedev-Sponheuer-Karnik (MSK) intensity scale”, Quoted
from ATC -13, 1985.
8. Prasad. J. S. R., (2009). Seismic Vulnerability and Risk Assessment of Indian Urban Housing, Ph.D.
Thesis, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Uttarakhand.
9. Spence, R.J.S., Coburn, A.W., & Pomonis, A., 1992. “Correlation of ground motion with building damage:
The definition of a new damage-based seismic intensity scale”, Earthquake Engineering Tenth world
conference, Balkema, Rotterdam.
10. Vulnerability Atlas of India, 1997/2006. Building Materials & Technology Promotion Council, Ministry
of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi.
11. , G., (1998). “European Macroseismic Scale, Center Europeen de Geodynamique at de
Seismologie”, 15, Luxembourg.