See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323346745

Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment for RCC Buildings of Guwahati City

using Rapid Visual Screening

Article  in  Procedia Engineering · January 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.028

CITATIONS READS

19 2,145

2 authors:

Tanaya Sarmah Sutapa Das

RIKA India Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur
8 PUBLICATIONS   58 CITATIONS    45 PUBLICATIONS   282 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Conservation of Laterite Stone monuments (MHRD, India) View project

Disaster management plan for Guwahati View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tanaya Sarmah on 01 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Engineering00 (2017) 000–000
7th International Conference on Building Resilience; Using scientific knowledge to inform policy
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
and practice in disaster risk reduction, ICBR2017, 27 – 29 November 2017, Bangkok, Thailand
Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 214–221
Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment for RCC Buildings of
Guwahati City using Rapid Visual Screening
7th International Conference on Building Resilience; Using scientific knowledge to inform policy
and practice in disaster risk reduction, ICBR2017,
a 27 – 29 November
a,b, 2017, Bangkok, Thailand
Tanaya Sarmah , Sutapa Das 0F *
a
Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment for RCC Buildings of
Ranbir & Chitra Gupta School of Infrastructure Design & Management, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, 721302, India
b
Dept. of Architecture & Regional Planning, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, 721302, India
Guwahati City using Rapid Visual Screening
Abstract Tanaya Sarmaha, Sutapa Dasa,b, * 0F

a
The cityRanbir & Chitra Gupta School of Infrastructure Design & Management, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, 721302, India
of Guwahati b in north-east India falls under seismic zone V and is located in Assam gap of Himalaya. It has historically
Dept. of Architecture & Regional Planning, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, 721302, India
witnessed devastating earthquakes up to 8.7 on the Richter scale in 1897 and 1950. Unplanned rapid urbanization has increased its
seismic vulnerability of life and property. This paper attempts to develop a ward-level hazard map of the city through systematic
vulnerability analyses of the hazard by overlapping the ward map and the earthquake hazard microzonation map. Out of total 31
wards,
Abstractfive wards with highest density of population and taller buildings were taken as the most vulnerable areas and were selected
for this study. These buildings have reinforced cement concrete framed structure but with various options of roof. A structured
survey
The citywas
of carried
Guwahati outinwith Rapid Visual
north-east Screening
India falls under(RVS)
seismicforzone
existing
V andbuilding stock.
is located Total100
in Assam gapbuildings were randomly
of Himalaya. selected
It has historically
from the sample
witnessed of residential,
devastating earthquakescommercial,
up to 8.7 industrial, religious
on the Richter scaleand mixed
in 1897 anduse buildings
1950. from municipal
Unplanned tax record.
rapid urbanization hasThe buildings
increased its
were categorized
seismic in terms
vulnerability of and
of life nineproperty.
major vulnerability
This paper parameters
attempts to based on aIndian
develop references.
ward-level hazardThey
mapwere customized
of the city throughandsystematic
graded as
per US FEMA
vulnerability guideline
analyses which
of the is more
hazard comprehensive
by overlapping in dealing
the ward withthe
map and other buildinghazard
earthquake structures such as masonry
microzonation map. Out or lightweight
of total 31
timber structures. Buildings under survey were scored and ranked based on their seismic vulnerability.
wards, five wards with highest density of population and taller buildings were taken as the most vulnerable areas and were Though the preliminary
selected
scoring passed These
for this study. (score>0.3) all buildings,
buildings but further
have reinforced refinement
cement concrete isframed
neededstructure
to infer but
precisely. The result
with various is helpful
options of roof.inAformulating
structured
local
surveylevel
was policy
carried making
out withtoRapid
prioritize
Visualthe building(RVS)
Screening stock for
for existing
appropriate remedial
building stock.measures. The studywere
Total100 buildings also randomly
complements the
selected
earthquake resistant building codes and guidelinesof India developed for the new building construction.
from the sample of residential, commercial, industrial, religious and mixed use buildings from municipal tax record. The buildings
were categorized in terms of nine major vulnerability parameters based on Indian references. They were customized and graded as
©
per2017 The Authors.
US FEMA Published
guideline which by Elsevier
is more Ltd.
comprehensive in dealing with other building structures such as masonry or lightweight
Peer-review under Buildings
timber structures. responsibility
underof survey
the scientific committee
were scored of the 7th
and ranked International
based Conference
on their seismic on Building
vulnerability. Resilience.
Though the preliminary
scoring passed (score>0.3) all buildings, but further refinement is needed to infer precisely. The result is helpful in formulating
local level policy making to prioritize the building stock for appropriate remedial measures. The study also complements the
earthquake resistant building codes and guidelinesof India developed for the new building construction.
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.
* Corresponding author. Tel. +91-89021-32283; fax: +91-3222-288034
E-mail address: sutapa@arp.iitkgp.ernet.in

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility ofthe scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.

* Corresponding author. Tel. +91-89021-32283; fax: +91-3222-288034

E-mail address: sutapa@arp.iitkgp.ernet.in

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility ofthe scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.

1877-7058 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience
10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.028
 Tanaya Sarmah et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 214–221 215
2 Tanaya Sarmah & Sutapa Das / Procedia Engineering00 (2017) 000–000

Keywords: disaster; earthquake;Guwahati;Rapid Visual Screening;seismic vulnerability.

1. Introduction

North-east India sitting on the Assam gap of Himalayan region is one of the six most seismically active regions of
the world, and graded as seismic zone V of India. Seismic gaps are the sections of the tectonic plate boundary which
have not ruptured in the past 100 years and poses high potential for future great earthquakes. The Assam gap was
generated with respect to the 1897 and 1950 great Assam earthquakes [1]. The city of Guwahati, the capital of the
north-east Indian state of Assam regularly feels light and moderate tremors. It has alluvial setting in the valley of River
Brahmaputra. Kanti et al. [2] have reported high value for probabilistic seismic hazard parameters proving the
geological heterogeneity and increased seismicity of Guwahati. Rapid unplanned urbanisation increased the city’s
vulnerability by manifolds from the past hazards in terms of both losses of life and damage to the property [3].
Presently Guwahati has a total municipal area of 216 Sq. Km. and a population of 963,429 [4]. A future earthquake
with greater magnitude can ripapart Himalayan regions and this might trigger more catastrophic mega earthquakes.
Moreover, earthquake in Guwahati has a broader significance. From the map of India (Figure 1), it is apparent that
the seven states of north-east India are narrowly connected to the rest of the country. The connections are via national
highway (NH) 31, NH37, NH40 and a broad gauge railway line. If during an earthquake these road and rail
connectivity is hampered, it will cut-off the lifeline of the entire north-east region. There is a clear need to develop
both short term and long term mitigation measures to reduce the mayhem so that the people residing in and around
the city are not badly affected.
Though, several studies from geotechnical point of view have been conducted by various researchers to understand
the seismicity of Guwahati city [1-3] [5,6], unfortunately till date there is no comprehensive plan for mitigation of
earthquakes in Guwahati in terms of assessing seismic vulnerability of various building types. This research addresses
this knowledge gap by developing a ward level earthquake hazard profile to identify the vulnerable areas. The pilot
survey was conducted in late 2016 by the authors as a part of doctoral research which focuses on critical infrastructure
protection in disaster prone areas.

Fig. 1. Map of India showing strategic location of Guwahati with respect to North-east region

2. Literature Review

Disaster means "a catastrophe, mishap, calamity or grave occurrence in any area, arising from natural or man-made
causes, or by accident or negligence which results in substantial loss of life or human suffering or damage to, and
216 Tanaya Sarmah et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 214–221
Tanaya Sarmah & Sutapa Das / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 3

destruction of, property, or damage to, or degradation of, environment, and is of such a nature or magnitude as to be
beyond the coping capacity of the community of the affected area" [7]. India has been vulnerable to natural disasters
such as floods, droughts, cyclones, earthquakes and landslides on account of its geo-climatic conditions, among which
earthquake is the most critical one in entire North-East India. Apart from codes and guidelines for earthquake resistant
buildings [8,9], several other studies relevant to earthquake can be categorized broadly as: vulnerability assessment;
mitigation of losses [10-13]and post-disaster rehabilitation strategies [14-17].However, the first one forms the basis
of the other two.

2.1. Vulnerability assessment of building stock and RVS

Among several methods of assessing vulnerability of building stock, any particular method is chosen based on the
objective of the assessment and data availability [18]. ASDMA or Assam State Disaster Mitigation Authority [12]
have used GIS for such work and Singh [19]havegraded the building and population vulnerability during earthquakes
in Dehradun using GIS considering both day time and night time population. Agrawal and Chaurasia used both
quantitative approach (demand-capacity computation) and qualitative approach (rapid screening procedure). The
seismic score (S) inversely proportional to the seismic vulnerability was calculated based on visual inspection of a
building and noting the structural configuration i.e. lateral load resisting structural system and the construction
materials[20]. For Mumbai in seismic zone IV, damage probability matrices were used to find the mean level of
damage corresponding to ground motion intensity as a conditional probability factor [21].
RVS or rapid visual screening is one of the highly recommended methods for seismic assessment and can be carried
out without any structural calculations, but by using a sidewalk visual survey of a building and filling up a data
collection form by the surveyor [22]. This gives an idea where detailed study has to be done based on prioritization of
the vulnerability and suggest measures for the same. RVS survey sheets can be customised based on the context [18].
For example, in India screening of masonrybuildings and reinforced concrete buildings are separately treated for five
different seismic zones [22-23]. In US, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes data collection
form for zones of low, moderate and high seismicity [22]. For Japan, the form is based on seismic index (strength,
ductility, and regularity)of buildings[25] and for Canada both structural parameters (stiffness and regularity) and non-
structural parameters (occupancy and falling hazard) of the building are taken into account[26]. RVS has also been
used extensively for research. In Vienna, 375 historic brick masonry buildings were screened based on the damage
relevance and an overall structural parameter for identification of critical objects vulnerable to seismic loading [27].
Aerial photograph approach in GIS platform, for buildings above five storeys in Chennai city has been used in RVS
[28]. Fuzzy logic has been embedded in RVS by Moseley and Dritsos[29].

3. Methodology

The aim of this research is to study the ward level earthquake hazard profile of Guwahati city; to identify the
earthquake prone wards and access the vulnerability in terms of population density and building typology[20]. In order
to achieve the above aim, the following tasks were performed.

3.1. Understanding the study area

To precisely understand the criticality of earthquakes in Guwahati, its geo-profile and climatic factors were
considered.

• Geographical location and soil profile:

Guwahati is situated on the southern bank of river Brahmaputra. It is located towards the south-eastern side of
Kamrup district. The city is situated on undulating plain with varying altitudes of 49.5 meter to 55.5 meter above mean
sea level (MSL). The southern and the eastern sides of the city are surrounded by hillocks. The city is also covered by
swamps, marshes and water bodies namely DiparBeel, DighaliPukhuri, SilsakooBeel,etc. The construction activities
on the hills in Guwahati have resulted in the removal of vegetation cover in the forest area thereby exposing the surface.
 Tanaya Sarmah et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 214–221 217
4 Tanaya Sarmah & Sutapa Das / Procedia Engineering00 (2017) 000–000

The problem of soil erosion is significant from the several environmental issues such as water logging, flash flood,
siltation, decrease in the ground water table, landslide, and the dusty environment on sunny days[30].

• Climate
The climate of the region is characterized by a warm and humid feeling. As the tropic of cancer runs through the
state, the climate is temperate but pleasant. The monsoon brings heavy rains to Guwahati. The average annual rainfall
of Guwahati is 1688 mm.

• The seismic history:

Historically the area has witnessed several major earthquakes and accordingly losses. Tiwari [3] has reported 17
major earthquakes with intensity ranging from 7.0 to 8.7 in Richter scale for a time span of 1869 to 1988.

3.2. Sample selection

The Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) was constituted with 34 yards in 1974. Since then, there has been a
manifold rise in its population. The wards were further delineated and their number was fixed at 60. At present GMC
constitutes of 31 wards. By overlaying the earthquake microzonation map on the new ward map, 13 earthquake prone
wards were selected from a total of 31. However, as a representative sample, of all these 13 wards, five wards were
selected as earthquake prone based on their high population density and high rise building typology (Figure 2). The
area was surveyed for earthquake vulnerability assessment supported with Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) survey
sheets. The sample survey consistedof 100 reinforced cement concrete (RCC)buildings where flat slab, only vertical
and horizontal confining members, roof of corrugated galvanized iron sheets on timber or steel truss were all included.
Thus random sampling was done from GMC tax records to select 100 samples. Load-bearing masonry, light-weight
timber houses and non-engineered structures are the other typologies seen in the area.

3.3. Development of RVS survey sheet

RVS is context specific [18], hence ideally the sheets developed for Indian context such as IS 13935, 2009[23]for
masonry building and procedure by Jain et al. [24] for RCC buildings should have been used. For RCC frame buildings
the vulnerability is based on nine major parameters, namely, soil condition (A); open storey (B); vertical irregularity
(C); plan irregularity (D); torsion irregularity (E); heavy overhangs (F); apparent quality (G); insufficient gap with
adjacent buildings (H) and falling hazards (I) [24].Most of these elements apply to masonry structure aptly. However,
IS 13935: 2009 [23] does not have such precise details and covers only screening instead of any seismic scoring. For
the second literature relevant for the Indian context [24], scoring is mentioned, but it is infeasible to develop a similar
scale for masonry building such that entire building stock can be compared and prioritized for further action.
On the contrary FEMA guideline [22] covers both types of buildings and also other lightweight timber framed
structures – commonly known as ‘Assam type house’ which are traditional building style of the region under study.
FEMA building categories were modified for Indian scenario (Table 1) and few vulnerability components were sub
divided. For example, vertical irregularity is divided into soft/ open storey and other vertical irregularities. Similarly
plan irregularity is considered as torsion irregularity and others. As a result, first five parameters (A-E) were scored
and rest were noted. Based on the ascending values, buildings were ranked i.e. lowest score indicates highest seismic
vulnerability. For any tie (same score), number of vulnerability parameters were counted. For further tie, both cases
are equally ranked.
As most of the RCC buildings comply with some or other earthquake resistant features due to their inherent
constitution, all of them were marked as ‘post-benchmark’ building [22]. Also for Level 1 (preliminary) survey only
soil type was considered instead of its susceptibility to collapse i.e. landslide prone. For Guwahati mainly soil type E
or soft soil was involved in calculation of seismic score S.
 Tanaya Sarmah & Sutapa Das / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 5

218 Tanaya Sarmah et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 214–221

Table 1. Building types, description and basic seismic score S in zone V of very high seismicity
Constru- Type / FEMA Description Basic
ction Indian code eq. type score
type {23.24] [22] [22]
RCC --- C1 Concrete moment-resisting frames 1.0
--- C2 Concrete shear wall buildings 1.2
Masonry C URM a. Masonry (rubble, unreinforced brick or concrete block) walls in weak (mud or lime) 0.9
mortar and with country type wooden roofs but with horizontal seismic band. Or
b. Unreinforced masonry walls in good lime or cement mortar with RC roof / floors or
horizontal seismic band
C+ RM2 Like C(a) type but having horizontal seismic bands at lintel level of doors and windows 1.1
D C3 Masonry construction as at C(a) but reinforced with bands and vertical reinforcement, etc. or 0.9
confined masonry using horizontal and vertical reinforcing of walls.
Others -- W1 Light wood frame single-or multiplefamily dwellings of one or more stories. 2.1

3.4. Data collection

After the sample size selection, the data was collected from both primary and secondary sources. Primary data was
collected throughRVS by visiting the earthquake prone areas and supported with photographs, while secondary data
collection was carried out from various departments and authorities such as Guwahati Metropolitan Development
Authority (GMDA), GMC, ASDMAand published reports. These helped us to know the hazard vulnerability profile
of the city and how the city and its people had dealt with the 1897 and 1950 earthquakes. These data gave us a holistic
perspective of the problem.

4. Result and Discussion

The visual inspection, data collection and decision-making process occurred at the building site and took couple of
hours for each building.The location of five study wards (No. 8, 12, 21, 23 and 25) and the detailed distribution of
100 RCC buildings are shown in Fig. 2 and Table 2 respectively.

Fig.2. Ward wise earthquake

hazard map based on
population density and building typology showing the study wards (No. 8, 12, 21, 23 & 25)
 Tanaya Sarmah et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 214–221 219
6 Tanaya Sarmah & Sutapa Das / Procedia Engineering00 (2017) 000–000

Table 2. Details of the case study buildings in selected wards

Ward No. Residential Commercial Institutional Mixed Religious Total
8 15 4 --- --- 1 20
12 16 2 --- 2 1 20
21 13 3 --- 4 --- 20
23 16 3 --- 1 --- 20
25 14 --- 2 4 --- 20
Total 72 13 2 11 2 100

4.1. Scoring and ranking for RCC framed buildings

RVS of RCC framed buildings were done as per the developed survey sheet. Accordingly, the sample size of 100
RCC buildings were categorized and prioritized based on nine vulnerability parameters namely, soil condition, open
storey, vertical irregularities, plan irregularities, torsion irregularities, heavy overhangs, apparent quality, insufficient
gap with adjacent buildings and falling hazards Other details such as probability of land slide occupancy, height, area
etc. were noted.
Of the 100 buildings surveyed, 36 buildings were on soft soil prone to landslides, 26 buildings were on hard soil
prone to landslides, 19 buildings were on soft soil not prone to landslides and rest 19 were on hard soil not prone to
landslides. For each category the buildings were been prioritized and ranked as per their vulnerability to earthquakes.
As an example the % distribution of the buildings under first category are shown in Table 3 where average score for
buildings with various vulnerability category have been scored.

Table 3. Prioritization of RCC buildings on soft soil prone to landslides

Rank No. (%) Avg. value of score modifiers for failure causes of Level Failure causes of Level 2 Avg.
1 scor
e S
Heavy Apparen Insuffi- Fallin
Soil Open Other vert. Other plan Torsion
overhang t quality cient g
type store irregularit irregularit irregularit
(F) (G) gap (H) hazard
(A) y (B) y (C) y (D) y (E)
(I)
1 4 (13.33) 0.1 0.4 0.45 0.35 0.5 ü ü ü ü 0.60
2 9 (30.00) 0.1 0.4 0.45 0.35 0.5 ü ü ü 0.60
3 2 (6.66) 0.1 0.4 0.45 0.35 0.5 ü ü 0.60
4 2 (6.66) 0.1 0.45 0.35 0.5 ü ü ü ü 1.00
5a 1 (3.33) 0.1 0.45 0.35 0.5 ü ü ü 1.00
12 ü ü ü
5b 0.1 0.45 0.35 0.5 1.00
(40.00)
6 1 (3.33) 0.1 0.4 0.35 0.5 ü ü ü 1.05
7 1 (3.33) 0.1 0.45 ü ü ü 1.85
8a 1 (3.33) 0.1 0.45 ü ü 1.85
8b 1 (3.33) 0.1 0.45 ü ü 1.85
9 1 (3.33) 0.1 ü ü ü ü 2.30
10 1 (3.33) 0.1 ü 2.30
Total 36

Thus 13.33% of the buildings has open storey, vertical irregularity, torsion irregularity, overhangs, no quality
maintenance, no gap with adjacent buildings and falling hazards (Rank 1). And 3.33% of the buildings on same type
of soil has falling hazard as its irregularity (Rank 10). For each of the failure cause categories, % distribution of
buildings was noted. For example, with respect to the soil condition, the case of heavy overhangs (F), 91 of the 100
220 Tanaya Sarmah et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 214–221
Tanaya Sarmah & Sutapa Das / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 7

sample size have moderate overhangs and nine have substantial overhangs (Fig. 3a) and the case of insufficient gap
between buildings (H) are shown in Fig. 3b where 29 of the 100 sample size has been analysed since the remaining
71 has no such irregularity. Of the 29, 76% has unaligned floors and 24% are in poor condition. As all of the buildings
falls under C1 (Concrete moment-resisting frames) category [22], no separate distinction was made while presenting
the result. Though all of the surveyed buildings passed the minimum requirement of S=0.3 in preliminary level (Level
1),further probing is needed to draw a precise conclusion. However, it gives an idea which buildings are at risk and
are to be selected for further investigation or/and remedial measures.

Fig. 3. (a) Distribution in % for heavy overhang types; (b) Distribution in % for insufficient gap between RCC building

5. Conclusion

Earthquake hazard analysis of the five representative wards of Guwahati city were carried out based on primary
surveys, available secondary data from statutory bodies and with the help of available literature. Hundred RVS were
carried out under the present study for RCC framed buildings. Based on nine failure causes, buildings were categorized
and ranked. The study yielded a fast and comprehensive report on number and typologies of existing building stocks
which is essential for local level policy making for the municipal authorities to prioritize the buildings for appropriate
remedial measures such as retrofitting or replacement. The research complements the earthquake resistant building
codes developed for the new building construction. A similar study for masonry buildings and Assam-type houses
should be carried out to obtain a complete pictureAlso afurther probing is required for modifying the values directly
taken from FEMA guidelines [22] to suit Indian scenario such as presence roof of corrugated galvanized iron sheets
on timber or steel truss on RCC frame etc. Presence of any other parameters should also be searched for.

References

[1] K. Rajendran&C.P. Rajendran, Revisiting the earthquake sources in the Himalaya: Perspectives on past seismicity, Tectonophysics 504
(2011), 75–88.
[2] M.S. Kanti, D. Manik&N.S. Kumar, Assessment of seismic hazard parameters for Guwahati region in northeast India, Disaster Advances,
6(3) (2013), 62-70.
[3] R.P. Tiwari, Status of Seismicity in the North-East India and earthquake disaster mitigation, ENVIS Bulletin, Himalayan Ecology, 10(1)
(2002).
[4] Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of IndiCensus of India 2011, Retrieved 7 July, 2017, from http://censusindia.gov.in
[5] H. S. Mandal, A. K. Shukla, MrigankaGhatak, RajnishRanjan&O. P. Mishra, Past and present seismic intensity scenario of Guwahati city,
Assam, North East India, Journal of South Asian Disaster Studies, 4(1) (2011), 77-94.
[6] S.K. Nath, K.K.S. Thingbaijam&A. Raj, Earthquake hazard in Northeast India: A seismic microzonation approach with typical case studies
from Sikkim Himalaya and Guwahati city, Journal of Earth System Science, 117(2) (2008), 809-831.
[7] The Disaster Management Act, 2005, Retrieved 7 July, 2017, fromhttp://www.ndma.gov.in/images/ndma-pdf/DM_act2005
 Tanaya Sarmah et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 214–221 221
8 Tanaya Sarmah & Sutapa Das / Procedia Engineering00 (2017) 000–000

[8] National Information Centre of Earthquake Engineering, Retrieved 3 May, 2017, from http://www.nicee.org/index.php
[9] NIDM: National Institute of Disaster Management, Retrieved 3 May, 2017, from http://nidm.gov.in/safety_earthquake.asp
[10] S. Kumar Guin, Evaluation of traditional housing practices in earthquake prone areas, Unpublished master's thesis, School of Planning and
Architecture, Department of Planning, New Delhi, 2005.
[11] A. Sood, Role of land use planning in disaster risk mitigation and management, a case study of Delhi, Unpublished master's thesis, School
of Planning and Architecture, Department of Planning, New Delhi, 2006.
[12] ASDMA: Assam State Disaster Management Authority, Retrieved 7 July, 2017, from http://sdmassam.nic.in
[13] J. Pandit, Earthquake risk assessment and mitigation plan, a case study of Jabalpur, unpublished master's thesis, School of Planning and
Architecture, Department of Planning, New Delhi, 2004.
[14] A. Gupta, Post disaster reconstruction strategy for earthquake affected area of Anjar, Kutch, Gujarat, unpublished master's thesis, School of
Planning and Architecture, Department of Planning, New Delhi, 2002.
[15] R. Virmani, Post disaster rehabilitation and resettlement, a case study of Bhachau town, unpublished master’s thesis, School of Planning and
Architecture, Department of Planning, New Delhi, 2008.
[16] S. Chaudhuri, Rehabilitation plan for earthquake affected rural settlements in Gujarat, Unpublished master’s thesis, School of Planning and
Architecture, Department of Planning, New Delhi, 2002.
[17] S. Samaddar, Participatory approach for post-earthquake reconstruction in the villages of Kachchh, Gujarat, unpublished master's thesis,
School of Planning and Architecture, Department of Planning, New Delhi, 2005.
[18] K. Lang, Seismic Vulnerability of Existing Buildings, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland, 2002.
[19] P. Singh, Population vulnerability for earthquake loss estimation using community-based approach with GIS, Unpublished masters' thesis,
International Institute of Geo-Information Science & Earth Observation, Department of Urban Infrastructure & Management, The
Netherlands, 2005.
[20] S.K. Agarwal &A. Chaurasia, Methodology for seismic vulnerability assessment of building stock in mega cities, A Workshop on
Microzonation, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.
[21] R. Sinha, A. Goyal, R. M. Shinde& M. Meena, An earthquake risk management master plan for Mumbai: Risk assessment and its mitigation,
Proceedings of 15WCEE: World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon. Portugal, 2012.
[22] FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FEMA P-154, Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards:
A handbook, Washington DC, 2015.
[23] BIS: Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 13935: 2009 Indian standard guidelines for repair and seismic strengthening of buildings, BIS, New
Delhi, 2009.
[24] S.K. Jain, K. Mitra, M. Kumar &M. Shah, A proposed rapid visual screening procedure for seismic evaluation of RC frame buildings in India,
Earthquake Spectra, 26 (2010).
[25] JDBPA: Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association, Seismic evaluation and retrofit., Tokyo, Japan, 2001.
[26] IRC-NRC: Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council of Canada (NRCC), Manual for screening of buildings for
seismic investigation, Ottawa, 1993.
[27] G. Achs&C. Adam, A rapid visual screening methodology for the seismic vulnerability assessment of historic brick masonry buildings in
Vienna, Proceedings of 15WCEE: World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 2012.
[28] S. Rajarathnam&A. R. Santhakumar, Assessment of seismic building vulnerability based on rapid visual screening technique aided by aerial
photographs on a GIS platform, Natural Hazards Journal, 78 (2015) 779-802.
[29] J. Moseley &S. Dritsos, Next generation rapid visual screening for RC buildings to access earthquake resilience, Proceedings of 17th
International Conference on Concrete Structures, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2016.
[30] T. Sarmah, Disaster mitigation planning in Guwahati city: Earthquake, floods and landslides, unpublished Master’s thesis, Indian Institute of
Engineering Science and Technology, Department of Architecture, Town & Regional Planning, Shibpur, West Bengal, 2015.

View publication stats