Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424

DOI 10.1007/s11069-011-0082-4

ORIGINAL PAPER

Buildings’ seismic vulnerability assessment methods:

a comparative study

N. Alam • M. Shahria Alam • S. Tesfamariam

Received: 19 September 2011 / Accepted: 25 December 2011 / Published online: 19 January 2012
 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract A critical review and comparison of existing seismic vulnerability assessment

techniques for buildings are carried out to evaluate their suitability for use in seismic risk
assessment. The methods considered are ‘‘Hybrid’’ vulnerability assessment method,
FEMA 154 (Rapid Visual Screening), Euro Code 8, New Zealand Guidelines, Modified
Turkish method and NRC Guidelines. A scoring system is proposed to select the suitable
vulnerability assessment technique to be utilized for three different case studies conducted
in different seismicity and geological zones, that is, Dhaka, and Rangamati cities, in
Bangladesh, and Kelowna, in Canada. The ranking considers general description of vul-
nerability, building response factors, variance in output, applicability and ease of use,
which are identified as the key characteristics required for vulnerability scales used in
seismic risk evaluation. A sensitivity analysis has been carried out for the different
methods with regard to different weighting criteria. Furthermore, a multi-criteria decision-
making tool AHP has also been utilized to find out the suitable alternatives for seismic
vulnerability assessment of buildings. It was observed that the Hybrid method adequately
satisfies all the criteria necessary for their use in seismic risk assessment. Vulnerability
maps of different study areas using Hybrid method have been integrated into a GIS
framework to visualize the building vulnerabilities in a spatial manner, which will facilitate
the authority to manage effective seismic hazard risk reduction measures, including
upgrading, repairing and retrofitting of structures.

Keywords Vulnerability assessments
Physical vulnerable parameters

Seismic risk assessment

1 Introduction

The term ‘‘seismic vulnerability’’ is defined as the susceptibility of a population of

buildings to undergo damage due to seismic ground motion (Cockburn and Tesfamariam

N. Alam
M. S. Alam
S. Tesfamariam (&)

School of Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada
e-mail: Solomon.tesfamariam@ubc.ca

123
406 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424

2011; Hill and Rossetto 2008; FEMA 1999). Regional seismic vulnerability assessment
framework is an essential tool for governments and decision makers to optimally allocate
resources and mitigate consequences of earthquakes (Cockburn and Tesfamariam 2011;
Tesfamariam and Saatcioglu 2008). Existing vulnerability assessment methods vary with
different assumptions, for example, quantification of seismic hazard, building vulnerability
assessment and building type (Bertogg et al. 2002). There is an increasing research in the
development of seismic vulnerability assessment techniques (e.g., Calvi et al. 2006; Okada
and Takai 2000; Gueguen et al. 2007; Lang and Bachmann 2004; Lantada et al. 2010;
Martinelli et al. 2008; Roca et al. 2006; Spence et al. 2008; Sucuoglu et al. 2007;
Tesfamariam and Saatcioglu 2010).
In this paper, comparison and critical review of existing regional building vulnerability
assessment methods [FEMA 154 (ATC-21 1988), Euro Code 8 (CEN 2004), New Zealand
Guidelines (NZSEE 2000, 2003), Modified Turkish method (Bommer et al. 2002), NRC
Guidelines (NRCC 1993) and Hybrid method] are carried out by extending method pro-
posed by Hill and Rossetto (2008). A new Hybrid method is proposed by combining the
parameters of FEMA 310 (FEMA 310 1998) and IITK-GSDMA (IITK-GSDMA 2007)
approaches and comparing with the existing methods. Table 1 shows various vulnerability
factors, which are frequently utilized in different seismic vulnerability assessment
techniques.
To highlight utility of the different vulnerability assessment methods, three different
case studies are considered: Dhaka, and Rangamati cities, in Bangladesh and Kelowna, in
Canada. Vulnerability maps of the study areas using different methods have been inte-
grated into a GIS (geographic information system) framework for visualization.

2 Review on existing vulnerability assessment methods

In this study, the tools have been selected for their relevance to the predominant building
classes as well as to the contemporary practices in seismic vulnerability assessment of
buildings. A Hybrid tool has been defined for the vulnerability assessment incorporating
FEMA 310 and IITK-GSDMA methods, to cover the location-specific physical compo-
nents present both in developed and in developing countries. Other vulnerability assess-
ment tools are selected from a wide range of published papers in the fields of seismology,

Table 1 Major vulnerability factors considered in different vulnerability assessment methods

Vulnerability Soft Heavy Short Pounding Age Building Visible Uncertainty
assessment story overhang column possibility of the height ground within the
method structure settlement model

FEMA 154 N N N N Y Y N N
FEMA 310 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N
IITK-GSDMA Y Y Y Y Y Y N N
Euro Code 8 – – – N Y Y – Y
New Zealand Code Y Y Y Y Y Y – Y
NRC Y N Y Y Y – N N
Modified Turkish Y Y Y Y Y Y N N
method

N not considered, Y considered, – not clearly mentioned

123
Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424 407

Table 2 Comparison of vulnerability scales for different seismic vulnerability assessment techniques
Seismic vulnerability assessment Vulnerability scales
techniques

New Zealand Code Low Medium High

Euro Code 8 Damage limitation Significant Near-collapse
(low) damage (high)
(medium)
Turkish Low Moderate High
NRC Guidelines Low Medium High
FEMA 154 Low High
Hybrid method (proposed) Light Moderate High Very high/collapse

structural vulnerability and earthquake engineering. The different vulnerability assessment

techniques have different input factors and scales. In the cases of New Zealand Code, Euro
Code 8, Turkish Method and NRC, the vulnerability scales are classified into three dif-
ferent classes (i.e., low, medium and high), whereas in the case of FEMA 154, vulnera-
bility is classified only into two groups (i.e., low and high). Moreover, the suggested
Hybrid method comprises four different classes of vulnerability, that is, light, moderate,
high and very high. Finally, a correlation between all these methods is summarized in
Table 2.

2.1 FEMA 154

To identify, inventory and rank potentially seismically hazardous buildings, Rapid Visual
Screening procedure has been formulated in FEMA 154 (2002). This method is a relatively
quick procedure in developing a list of potentially risky buildings, without the expensive
detailed seismic analysis of individual buildings. A sidewalk survey approach is included,
which enables the surveyors to classify the buildings into two classes using a cutoff scores,
namely buildings acceptable as risk to life safety or buildings that may be seismically
hazardous, where a detailed evaluation is required. A high score (i.e., above the cutoff
score) indicates the adequate seismic resistance of a building, whereas if a building
receives a low score, it should be assessed in detail by a professional engineer. Based on
these detailed analysis, final needs for rehabilitation can be determined.

2.2 FEMA 310

FEMA 310 (1998) is an advanced seismic evaluation procedures for existing buildings,
which was expanded following NEHRP Handbook for seismic evaluation of existing
buildings (FEMA 1992). FEMA 310 document describes a three-tiered procedure of
increasing detail and reducing margin of safety for the seismic evaluation of existing
buildings. Some structural, non-structural and foundation aspects have been discussed in
the Tier 1 screening phase in the form of checklists for the chosen level of performance and
given region of seismicity. Detailed assessment Tier 2 and Tier 3 evaluations are per-
formed only if one finds the Tier 1 assessment too conservative and there would be a
significant economic or other advantage to a more detailed evaluation. However, a higher
degree of understanding on the part of design professionals is required and sometimes it
can be confusing for the lack of details.

123
408 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424

2.3 EURO Code 8

The Euro Code 8 has been approved by CEN as a prospective standard for provisional
application (CEN 2004). One of the main aims of this document is to provide criteria for
the seismic evaluation of existing structures. Here, the assessment process accounts both
non-seismic and seismic actions for an existing building, for the period of its intended
lifetime. A model uncertainty factor covering the additional uncertainties related to the
analysis of the pertinent structure can be incorporated. Jalayer et al. (2010) utilized this
method to validate the influence of structural modeling uncertainties in seismic evaluation
of reinforced concrete structures.

2.4 New Zealand Guidelines

The New Zealand Guidelines (NZSEE 2000, 2003) describe the key steps and procedures
involved in assessing existing buildings of various material types and configurations. The
New Zealand Guidelines begin with rapid evaluation procedure based on a visual screening
procedure of ATC-21 (1988). The structural score of this assessment is based on
approximately fourteen structural criteria that are the indicators of potential building
damage. However, the detailed structural assessment in New Zealand Guidelines is per-
formed at the component level. To account for the uncertainty with regard to the reliability
of available information on the configuration and condition of a component, a knowledge
factor (J) is introduced.

2.5 Modified Turkish method

In the Modified Turkish method, a multiple-level seismic vulnerability assessment for the
existing reinforced concrete (RC) buildings is provided (Bommer et al. 2002; Kaplan et al.
2008; Sadat et al. 2010). The Modified Turkish vulnerability assessment method can be
classified into three main groups depending on their level of complexity. The first one is a
walk-down evaluation, which does not require any analysis and determines the priority
levels of buildings that require immediate intervention. Preliminary assessment method-
ologies are utilized if more in-depth evaluation is required. Data on the dimensions of the
structural and non-structural elements in the most critical story are required for this level of
assessment, whereas the third-level assessment applies linear or nonlinear analyses of the
selected structures, which requires the as-built dimensions and the reinforcement details of
all structural elements.

2.6 IITK-GSDMA

IITK-GSDMA is a wide-ranged guideline to assess the seismic vulnerability of different

types of buildings within the Indian subcontinent region (Durgesh 2005). The guideline has
been generated based on the many years of practice of seismic evaluation of existing
buildings in different seismically risky countries of the world [e.g., FEMA 310 (1998),
FEMA 356 (2000), New Zealand Code (NZSEE 2000, 2003) and Euro Code 8 (CEN
2004)]. Particular classes of buildings, for example, unreinforced masonry (URM) and
non-ductile RC frame buildings, have been given special consideration for the assessment
within this method.

123
Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424 409

2.7 NRC Guidelines

National Research Council of Canada (NRCC) proposed a building vulnerability assess-

ment methodology termed as NRC Guidelines (NRCC 1993), which is based on ATC-21
(1988). The NRC Guidelines consist of both structural and non-structural hazards, and the
importance of the building is determined from the use and occupancy classes, where
current Canadian construction practices are given more emphasis (NRCC 1993). Like
FEMA 154, in NRC Guidelines, a final cutoff score is developed, upon which the decisions
can be made.

3 Proposed scoring system to rank different vulnerability assessment methodologies

Three different criteria (general description, physical vulnerable parameters and descrip-
tion of output) have been considered to rank different vulnerability assessment methods. A
performance scoring system is developed following Hill and Rossetto (2008) to rank the
vulnerability assessment methodologies according to these criteria. The scoring system is
shown in Table 3, which consists of three main criteria with 17 subcriteria. The system

Table 3 Important characteristics of vulnerability assessment methods (after Hill and Rossetto 2008)
Criteria Definition

Criteria A: general description of vulnerability

A1 ease of measurement Clearly distinguishable states and easily
applicable to buildings
A2 scope Wide range of building types
A3 global Global vulnerability component
A4 local Local vulnerability components
A5 site-specific factors Site-specific factors
A6 applicability/adoptability Relevancy to Canadian building types
to Canadian building types
A7 experimental values Consideration of experimental values from
laboratory testing and NDT
Criteria B: physical vulnerable parameters
B1 ease of measurement Can the parameter be straightforwardly measured from
analytical results or from populations of buildings?
B2 scope Wide range of variability in parameters
B3 non-structural component Non-structural vulnerable parameters
B4 Canadian relevance/applicability/ How relevant are the descriptions of the parameters
adoptability to different building types to different building types?
B5 quantity of database Sources and quantity of data
B6 calibration Experimental/analytical/judgment
Criteria C: description of output
C1 damage grade Defined damage grade
C2 scope of risk Wide range of risk variances
C3 non-structural component Impact of non-structural vulnerable parameters
C4 Canadian relevance/applicability/ Relevancy to Canadian situation
adoptability

123
410 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424

Table 4 Definition of ‘‘significant,’’ ‘‘moderate,’’ ‘‘minimum,’’ or ‘‘unsatisfactory’’ in quantifying cate-

gories (after Hill and Rossetto 2008)
Condition Definition Score

Unsatisfactory Not minimum or unspecified 0

Minimum If the guideline meets the minimum requirement for the criteria 1
Moderate 2 observations are available for any criteria 2
Significant 3 or more observations available for any criteria 3

aims to eliminate most of the subjectivity involved in the ranking of different scales. Since
some subjectivity remains in respect of assigning categories, scoring results are only used
as a qualitative indication of performance or reliability.
To provide a clear indication of each methodology’s performance or reliability, an
affirmative statement (where three or more observations are available) is given as three
points, a moderate statement (two observations are available) is given as two, an unsat-
isfactory statement as zero point, whereas the method that partially fulfills the requirement
(only one observation is available) is given one point. For the subcriteria, considering
quantity of data, the scoring is based on the Table 4. The total score of criteria is calculated
by summing up the scores assigned to the respective subcriteria.
Criteria A of the scoring system deals with the basic input description of vulnerability
assessment tools, that is, ease of measurement, range of building types covered, site-
specific factors, including local and global aspects. This is important for the people
working in the field. In criteria B, mostly physical measurable vulnerability factors have
been considered, which is very useful for analyzing the structural behavior. It deals with
the scope of vulnerable parameters, quantity of database, applicability of tools as well as
non-structural components of the structures. However, criteria C of the proposed scoring
system deals with the association of the output factors, which encompasses the well-
defined damage grades, risk variances, impact of non-structural components as well as the
applicability to Canadian context. The individual scores for the six vulnerability assess-
ment methods for the performance criteria A, B and C are summarized in Tables 5, 6 and
7, respectively. For criteria A, the proposed Hybrid method, NRC Guidelines and FEMA
154 score higher than the other three methods, whereas for criteria B, the Hybrid method,
NRC Guidelines, FEMA 154 and New Zealand Guidelines score higher. For criteria C,

Table 5 Individual scores of Criteria A for various vulnerability assessment methods

Subcriteria FEMA Euro New Zealand Modified Hybrid NRC
154 Code 8 Guidelines Turkish Guidelines

A1 ease of measurement 3 1 1 1 3 2
A2 scope 3 3 3 0 3 3
A3 global 1 3 3 1 3 1
A4 local 3 1 3 1 3 3
A5 site-specific factors 3 1 1 1 3 3
A6 applicability/adoptability to 3 1 2 0 3 3
Canadian building types
A7 experimental values 0 0 0 0 3 2
Sum 16 10 13 4 21 17

123
Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424 411

Table 6 Individual scores of Criteria B for various vulnerability assessment methods

Subcriteria FEMA Euro New Modified Hybrid NRC
154 Code Zealand Turkish Guidelines
8 Guidelines

B1 ease of measurement 2 0 0 0 0 2
B2 scope 1 1 1 1 3 2
B3 non-structural component 0 1 1 0 3 3
B4 Canadian relevance/applicability/ 2 1 1 0 3 3
adoptability to different building
types
B5 quantity of database 1 3 3 3 3 3
B6 calibration 1 1 1 1 3 2
Sum 7 7 7 5 15 15

Table 7 Individual scores of Criteria C for various vulnerability assessment methods

Subcriteria FEMA Euro New Zealand Modified Hybrid NRC
154 Code 8 Guidelines Turkish Guidelines

C1 damage grade 3 1 1 3 3 1
C2 scope of risk 1 1 3 1 3 2
C3 non-structural component 1 1 1 0 3 3
C4 Canadian relevance/ 3 0 2 0 1 3
applicability/adoptability
Sum 8 3 7 4 10 9

proposed Hybrid method scores higher due to the versatile character in the input variables.
NRC Guidelines also score high, since the Canadian applicability was considered.

3.1 Multi-criteria decision analysis for selection of suitable seismic vulnerability

assessment tool

AHP is a decision-aiding tool developed by Saaty (1980). The main goal of AHP is to
quantify the relative priorities for a given set of alternatives on a ratio scale, based on the
judgment of the decision maker, and it stresses the significance of the perceptive judgments
of a decision maker as well as the consistency of the comparison of alternatives in the
decision-making process (Saaty 1990). It was intended to compare the vulnerability
assessment methodologies to select a proper tool for assessing the seismic risk for a group
of buildings. Three criteria were considered for comparing different assessment tools. The
general description of vulnerability, physical vulnerable parameter and the description of
outputs are denoted as the criteria A, B and C, respectively. Using the hierarchy of the
proposed problem (Fig. 1), pairwise comparisons are carried out (the AHP weights are
summarized in Table 8). Finally, using these weights, and the hierarchical structure shown
in Fig. 1, the six alternatives are ranked, which is provided in Table 9.
Small variations in the relative weights may result in a major change in the final
ranking. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis is carried out to assess the influence of relative
weights (scenarios I-IV, Table 8) on the final score and ranking (Table 9). From Table 9, it
is evident that the Hybrid method and the NRC Guidelines are the best alternatives;
however, there is a little variation in the ranking in case of Turkish method.

123
412 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424

Goal Selection of suitable seismic vulnerability assessment

technique

Criteria A: Criteria B: Criteria C:

Criteria General description of Physical vulnerable Description of output
vulnerability parameters
Sub-criteria: Sub-criteria: Sub-criteria:
A1 Ease of measurement B1 Ease of measurement C1 Damage grade
A2 Scope B2 Scope C2 Scope of risk
A3 Global B3 Non-Structural Component C3 Non-Structural Component
A4 Local B5 Quantity of database C4 Canadian relevance/
A5 Site Specific Factors B6 Calibration Applicability/adoptability
A6 Applicability /adoptability to
Canadian building types
A7 Experimental values

Alternatives A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6

A1: FEMA 154

A2: Euro Code 8
A3: NZ Code
A4: Modified Turkish Method
A5: Hybrid Method
A6: NRC guidelines

Fig. 1 Hierarchy of the proposed problem

Table 8 Weighting scenarios (after Hill and Rossetto 2008)

Weighting scenarios Criteria Description
for scoring system
A (%) B (%) C (%)

I 33.33 33.33 33.33 Default

II 50 25 25 To highlight scales more suited for in-field measurement
III 25 50 25 To highlight scales more suited for analysis of structures
IV 25 25 50 To highlight scales more suited for decision makers
AHP 9 17 74

4 Case studies

In order to investigate the applicability of the selected methods, three different case studies
are conducted for (1) 93 buildings of older portion of Dhaka city, Bangladesh; (2) 485
representative masonry and reinforced concrete buildings in Rangamati city, Bangladesh;
and finally, (3) 20,000 buildings of the city of Kelowna, Canada. Long period surface
waves (Raleigh waves) are highly predominant, in between 150 and 550 km distance from
the epicenter (Bapat 2008), which is responsible for the damages to tall buildings only
(height greater than 17 m). Such cases are found in the Mexico city for Pacific Coast
earthquake (Mw8.1, distance 500 km) in 1985 (Bapat 2008) and Ahmadabad city for Bhuj

123
Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424 413

Table 9 Overall results of the sensitivity analysis

Seismic vulnerability assessment techniques Ranks

AHP Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV

FEMA 154 4 3 3 2 2
Euro Code 8 6 5 5 4 4
New Zealand Guidelines 3 4 4 3 3
Turkish 5 6 6 5 4
Hybrid method 1 1 1 1 1
NRC Guidelines 2 2 2 1 1

(Gujarat) earthquake (Mw7.7, distance 320 km) in 2001 (Singh et al. 1988). As most of the
buildings are within the surveyed area, they are within the height limit of 17 m, and the
long period surface wave effects have not been considered in the current study. Thus, shear
waves and the associated damages provided in existing building codes are considered in
these case studies, which are prominent within about 40–60 km radius from the epicenter
of the earthquake. As the Modified Turkish method only considers the reinforced concrete
buildings, it cannot be applied for a general case study, like Kelowna, where other types of
buildings are present. Hence, for this case study, Hybrid vulnerability assessment method,
FEMA 154 (Rapid Visual Screening), Euro Code 8, New Zealand Guidelines and NRC
Guidelines have been considered to check the applicability.

4.1 Case study for older portion of Dhaka city, Bangladesh

A total of 93 buildings are selected at Shakhari Bazar in the older part of Dhaka City,
which are representative buildings of the older portion of the city. Despite their rarity and
moderate intensity, earthquakes in the center and particularly in older portion of Dhaka
city, Bangladesh, have the potential to cause extensive damage and associated socioeco-
nomic losses, due to the vulnerability of the local building stock (Alam et al. 2010). The
soil characteristic of the study area has been compiled from ‘‘Seismic Hazard Map of
Dhaka City’’—recently completed project under Comprehensive Disaster Management
Program (CDMP 2009) of Ministry of Food and Disaster Management of Bangladesh
Government. The study area was classified as class D, with a 30-m-deep shear wave
velocity (Vs30) ranging from 180 to 360 m/s. The major seismic sources within Bangla-
desh are shown in Fig. 2 (CDMP 2009). For this study, Madhupur fault has been taken as
the major source of probable seismic activity.
With a probable earthquake of Mw7.5 in Madhupur fault, the peak ground acceleration
distribution for Dhaka city has been depicted in Fig. 3 (CDMP 2009). Figure 3 shows that
Shakhari Bazar is in moderate to high seismic hazard potential (PGA = 300 * 500 Gal).
From the single microtremor analysis, the predominant period of the study area has been
found in a range of 0.75–1.0 s. (CDMP 2009), whereas the fundamental period of the
structures have been found in a range of 0.38–0.71 s (UBC 1997, ATC 1978, NEHRP
1994), which is less than the predominant period of the study area.
Figure 4 shows some examples of soft story (ground floors being used as shop), and
Fig. 5 depicts heavy overhanging floors and a major vertical irregularity of a building in
multistory buildings in Shakhari Bazar. The existing vulnerable parameters within the
study area have been shown in Fig. 6. From the assessment of different buildings, it was

123
414 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424

Fig. 2 Earthquake fault zones in Bangladesh (CDMP 2009)

Fig. 3 Peak ground acceleration (Gal) in Dhaka city for a probable earthquake (Mw7.5) in Madhupur fault
(CDMP 2009) [1 Gal = 0.01 m/s2] a location of Shakhari Bazar b PGA distribution in Dhaka City

found that most of the buildings have pounding possibilities (90%) and elevation irregu-
larities (75%).
The overall analysis result has been shown in Fig. 7. It can be stated that the proposed
Hybrid method, New Zealand Guidelines and the NRC Guidelines have more segregation
in risk class than the other two methods, which increase the usability of the results. Hence,
from multi-criteria decision analysis and the real-life case study, the proposed Hybrid

123
Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424 415

Fig. 4 Example of soft story (ground floors being used as shop in Shakhari Bazar)

Fig. 5 Typical heavy overhangs (left) and vertical irregularities (right) found in the old part of Dhaka City

Fig. 6 Presence of vulnerability

factors for Shakhari Bazar

method can be selected as the preferable method for any region-wide seismic vulnerability
assessment study.
Finally, the vulnerability maps using Hybrid method has been developed and depicted
in Fig. 8. From Fig. 8, it can be shown that building in Shakhari Bazar area, about 17%

123
416 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424

100%
Very High

High
80%
Moderate
Low
Number of buildings

60%

40%

20%

0%
Hybrid method RVS ( FEMA 154) New Zeland Euro Code 8 NRC guideline
guideline

Fig. 7 Vulnerability assessment results for 93 representative buildings in the old portion of Dhaka City,
Bangladesh

Fig. 8 Presence of vulnerability factors for Shakhari Bazar

buildings fall under high risk, where 7% buildings are under severe seismic risk, which
may lead to extensive physical and socioeconomic damage.

4.2 Case study for the Rangamati city, Bangladesh

A case study for representative 485 masonry and reinforced concrete buildings in
Rangamati city of Bangladesh has been conducted to assess the applicability of the vul-
nerability assessment methods. The Rangamati zone has been proposed as seismic zone 3
for Bangladesh recently (http://jce-ieb.org.bd/pdfdown/ce300201.pdf), having PGA of 250
Gal. The city is physically constructed mostly with earthen and rocky hills (http://
rhdcbd.org). The existing vulnerable factors within the surveyed buildings are shown in
Fig. 9.
After analyzing with different seismic vulnerability assessment techniques, it was found
that the seismic vulnerability has NRC Guidelines, New Zealand Guidelines as well as the
Hybrid method. The results are shown in Fig. 10.

123
Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424 417

Fig. 9 Presence of vulnerability

factors in Rangamati, Bangladesh

100%
Very High
High

80% Moderate
Low
Number of buildings

60%

40%

20%

0%
Hybrid method RVS ( FEMA 154) New Zeland Euro Code 8 NRC guideline
guideline

Fig. 10 Vulnerability assessment result for Rangamati, Bangladesh

Table 10 Weights for different

Vulnerability state Weight assigned
seismic vulnerability states (after
Cockburn and Tesfamariam
2011) Low 0.10
Moderate 0.33
High 0.75
Very high 1

For mapping purpose, the grids are assigned to a single vulnerability score (Cockburn
and Tesfamariam 2011). Buildings under each vulnerability state are converted to per-
centage within a grid. After that with the help of weights assigned to each vulnerable state
described in Table 10, the overall vulnerability state is obtained. Figure 11 shows the
spatial distribution of seismic vulnerability in Rangamati city, over 0.5 km 9 0.5 km
grids.

123
418 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424

Fig. 11 Vulnerability assessment result for Rangamati, Bangladesh, with Hybrid method

4.3 Case study for the city of Kelowna, Canada

A case study for the 20,000 buildings in the city of Kelowna is conducted. The overall soil
of the study area is derived from the lower and middle Jurassic class rocks (http://
gsc.nrcan.gc.ca). From the expert opinion, about a 2-km strip of Kelowna downtown area
from the Okanagan lake shore has been assigned as soft soil, which has an amplification
factor of 1.3; hence, the area is more vulnerable to seismic hazard. For compilation of
building data, a rapid visual survey has been conducted with the help of Google map for
the study. Some physical surveys have also been conducted to validate the work. The base
map developed for the city of Kelowna is shown in Fig. 12, where Fig. 13 shows the
distribution of buildings by height. From these figures, it is evident that the building
density is more in downtown area and the Rutland area. Figure 13 also depicts that 91% of
the buildings within the city is low-rise (1–3 stories) building, which are mainly timber
structures. The remaining 9% buildings are mainly made of timber or reinforced concrete.
The study reveals that about 8% buildings within the city are made of reinforced cement
concrete, and the rest are timber and other types of buildings. Figure 14 shows the existing
vulnerability factors within the city. From the study, it was found that 48% buildings of the
Kelowna city have the plan irregularities. Another major vulnerability factor found in
Kelowna is the non-structural component of buildings (18%). However, very few Kelowna
buildings have also the pounding possibility and vertical irregularities, most of which are
located in downtown area.
Figure 15 shows the results from different seismic vulnerability techniques for the city.
This chapter reveals that the proposed Hybrid method, the New Zealand Guidelines and the

123
Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424 419

Fig. 12 Base map of the city of Kelowna

Fig. 13 Distribution of Low rise (1-3 storeys)

buildings by height Medium/ high rise (>3 storey)

9%

91%

123
420 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424

Fig. 14 Presence of Plan irregularity Non-structural component

vulnerability factors in Kelowna
Vertical irregularity 1% Pounding possibilities
city, Canada

18%

0.04%

48%

100%
Very High
High
80% Moderate
Low
Number of buildings

60%

40%

20%

0%
Hybrid method FEMA 154 New Zealand Euro Code 8 NRC guidelines
guideline

Fig. 15 Vulnerability assessment result for the city of Kelowna

NRC Guidelines (NRCC 1993) have more segregation in risk classes, which will be a
suitable benchmark for decision-making. Assessing with the Hybrid method, the Kelowna
case study finds 48% of the buildings in moderate vulnerability state, whereas 52% of the
buildings were assessed as low vulnerable buildings. A sample calculation for mapping is
shown in Table 11. The spatial distribution of the vulnerable area assessed with Hybrid
method has been integrated with GIS interface in 0.5 km 9 0.5 km grid resolution, which
is depicted in Fig. 16. From the case study, it is clearly evident that the downtown area is
more vulnerable to seismic hazard, compared to other areas in Kelowna.

123
Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424 421

Table 11 Sample seismic vulnerability assessment calculation for a 0.5 km 9 0.5 km grid (after
Cockburn, and Tesfamariam 2011)
Grid ID Building type Seismic vulnerability Overall vulnerability state

Wooden Concrete Low Medium

11 0.84% 0.16% 46.67% 53.33% Moderate

Fig. 16 Distribution of seismic vulnerability of buildings (per 0.25 km2) in Kelowna

5 Conclusion

This study has identified important characteristics that should be taken into account to
select a suitable seismic vulnerability assessment method for buildings. Following are the
summary of the findings from the study:

123
422 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424

• A scoring system was developed for the qualitative review of various vulnerability
assessment techniques, and a particular attention was given to potential use in Canada.
• It was found that a vulnerability assessment technique termed as Hybrid method, that
is, combination of FEMA 310 and IITK-GSDMA, captures to a greater extent the
characteristics that a suitable vulnerability assessment method should possess.
However, its applicability to Canada is limited by the fact that it is calibrated (in
terms of response parameters) with data from the USA and Bangladesh, respectively.
The NRC Guidelines follow the building categories of Canada; however, it lacks the
detailed assessment. Moreover, the comparison between different vulnerability scales
has been developed within the study, which can be an appropriate tool for the assessor
to translate the vulnerability in a proper way.
The developed ranking system for the seismic vulnerability assessment techniques
shows that the proposed Hybrid method outranks the other methods in all perspectives.
From two different case studies, it was found that the Hybrid method has the better
variances in risk statement, which can be a better state for the decision makers. The New
Zealand Guidelines and the NRC Guidelines are also found to perform better in the
developed ranking system. In Shakhari Bazar, Dhaka, Bangladesh, about 17% buildings
fall under high risk, where 7% of buildings are under severe seismic risk, whereas in the
case of Rangamati city, about 3% of buildings fall under high seismic risk. This difference
might occur due to the age of the surveyed buildings, as the buildings in Rangamati city are
relatively new (constructed in 1990–2011) compared to the 93 old buildings in Dhaka
(100–200 years old). However, in the case of Kelowna city, Canada, 48% buildings were
found to be moderately vulnerable to seismic hazard, most of which are situated in the
Kelowna downtown area. In seismic risk assessment, many sources of data may be used to
estimate the building vulnerability, among which is the past earthquake damage survey
data. Existence of various vulnerability assessment approaches raises concern to have a
simplistic effective vulnerability assessment tool worldwide. The authors believe that the
proposed Hybrid method provide a more robust basis for the interpretation of vulnerability
and recommend future studies of vulnerability assessment method to include more con-
sistent and detailed descriptions for use with Canadian building stock.
The current study only focuses on the pre-seismic vulnerability assessment tools. The
future study may emphasize on conducting some case studies both for pre- and post-
seismic vulnerability assessment in developed as well as in developing countries to gen-
erate a validated uniform seismic vulnerability assessment tool.

Acknowledgments The financial support from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada (NSERC) under Discovery Grant Program is acknowledged.

References

Alam MN, Mashfiq K, Rahman A, Haque SM (2010) Seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings in
heritage and non-heritage areas in the older part of Dhaka city. 3rd International Earthquake Sym-
posium, Bangladesh Dhaka, 5–6 March 2010, ISBN: 978-984-8725-01-6
ATC (1978) Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings. Applied
Technological Council. Palo Alto, CA
ATC-21 (1988) Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a handbook. Applied
Technology Council, Redwood city, CA, USA
Bapat A (2008) Damage to tall structures situated at long distance from epicenter due to long period seismic
waves and effect on structures on filled lands. In: Proceedings of 6th International Conference of Case
Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, University of Missouri, Arlington, Washington,USA

123
Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424 423

Bertogg M, Hitz L, Schmid E (2002) Vulnerability functions derived from loss data for insurance risk
modelling: findings from recent earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the twelfth European conference on
earthquake engineering (paper 281), London, September 2002
Bommer J, Spence R, Erdik M, Tabuchi S, Aydinoglu N, Booth E, DelRe D, Peterken O (2002) Devel-
opment of an earthquake loss model for Turkish catastrophe insurance. J Seismol 6:431–436
Calvi GM, Pinho R, Magenes G, Bommer JJ, Restrepo-Velez L, Crowley H (2006) Development of seismic
vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years. ISET J Earthq Technol 43(3):75–104
CDMP (2009) http://www.cdmp.org.bd/
Cockburn G, Tesfamariam S (2011) Earthquake disaster risk index for Canadian cities using Bayesian belief
networks. Georisk: assessment and management of risk for engineered systems and Geohazards
(accepted)
CEN, Comité Européen de Normalization (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance-
part 1. General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings (EN 1998–1), Brussels
Durgesh CR (2005) IITK-GSDMA guidelines for seismic evaluation and strengthening of buildings. IITK-
GSDMA Project on Building Codes, Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority and Indian Institute
of Technology Kanpur
FEMA (1992) NEHRP handbook for the seismic evaluation of existing buildings. Building Seismic Safety
Council, Washington, DC
FEMA 310 (1998) Handbook for the seismic evaluation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, DC
FEMA (1999) Earthquake loss estimation methodology—earthquake HAZUS99. Service release 2 (SR2)
technical manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC
FEMA (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA 356, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC
FEMA 154 (2002) Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a handbook. Edition 2,
ATC 154 (originally published in 1988), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC
Gueguen P, Michel C, Lecorre L (2007) A simplified approach for vulnerability assessment in moderate-to-
low seismic hazard regions: application to Grenoble (France). Bull Earthq Eng 5(3):467–490
Hill M, Rossetto R (2008) Comparison of building damage scales and damage descriptions for use in
earthquake loss modelling in Europe. Bull Earthq Eng 6(2):335–365
IITK-GSDMA (2007) Iitk-gsdma guidelines for seismic design of liquid storage tanks. Gujarat State
Disaster Management Authority and Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
Jalayer F, Iervolino I, Manfredi G (2010) Structural modeling uncertainties and their influence on seismic
assessment of existing RC structures. Struct Saf 32:220–228
Kaplan H, Yilmaz S, Akyol E, Sen G (2008) A new rapid seismic vulnerability assessment method for
Turkey. The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China
Lang K, Bachmann H (2004) On the seismic vulnerability of existing buildings: a case study of the city of
Basel. Earthq Spectra 20(1):43–66
Lantada N, Irizarry J, Barbat AH, Goula X, Roca A, Susagna T, Pujades LG (2010) Seismic hazard and risk
scenarios for Barcelona, Spain, using the risk-UE vulnerability index method. Bull Earthq Eng
8(2):201–229
Martinelli A, Cifani G, Cialone G, Corazza L, Petracca A, Petrucci G (2008) Building vulnerability
assessment and damage scenarios in Celano (Italy) using a quick survey data-based methodology. Soil
Dyn Earthq Eng 28(10–11):875–889
NEHRP (1994) Recommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations for new buildings.
Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC
NRCC 36943 (1993) Manual for screening of buildings for seismic investigation. Institute for Research in
Construction, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, p 88
NZSEE (2000) An initial evaluation process for identifying buildings not safe in earthquake. August, p 27.
(Prepared for Building Industry Authority), New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering,
Wellington
NZSEE (2003) Assessment and improvement of the structural performance of buildings in earthquakes
[draft]. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Wellington
Okada S, Takai N (2000) Classifications of structural types and damage patterns of buildings for earthquake
field investigation. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering (paper
0705), Auckland
Roca A, Goula X, Susagna T, Chavez J, Gonzalez M, Reinoso E (2006) A simplified method for vulner-
ability assessment of dwelling buildings and estimation of damage scenarios in Catalonia, Spain. Bull
Earthq Eng 4(2):141–158
Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

123
424 Nat Hazards (2012) 62:405–424

Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26
Sadat MR, Huq MS, Ansary MA (2010) Seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings of Dhaka city. J Civil
Eng (IEB) 38(2):159–172
Singh SK, Mena E, Castro R (1988) Some aspects of source characteristics of the 19 September 1985
Michioacan earthquake and ground motion amplification in and near Mexico City from strong motion
data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 78(2):451–477
Spence R, So E, Jenny S, Castella H, Ewald M, Booth E (2008) The global earthquake vulnerability
estimation system (GEVES): an approach for earthquake risk assessment for insurance applications.
Bull Earthq Eng 6(3):463–483
Sucuoglu H, Yazgan U, Yakut A (2007) A screening procedure for seismic risk assessment in urban building
stocks. Earthq Spectra 23(2):441–458
Tesfamariam S, Saatcioglu M (2008) Risk-informed seismic evaluation of reinforced concrete buildings.
Earthq Spectra 24(3):795–821
Tesfamariam S, Saatcioglu M (2010) Seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete buildings
using hierarchical fuzzy rule base modeling. Earthq Spectra 26(1):235–256
Uniform Building Code (1997) Uniform building code. International Conference of Building Officials,
Whittier, CA
Yakut A (2004) A preliminary seismic assessment procedure for reinforced concrete buildings in Turkey.
13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada

123