AMAS_48_ | Wall | Masonry

AMAS-2011, Feb 3-4, Pondicherry Engineering College, Puducherry, India

A Comparison of Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings in Guwahati, Kolkata and Mumbai
INDRANI GOGOI 1 AJIT KAMATH MANOHAR2 and KAUSTAV SENGUPTA 3
1

Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, Karnataka, India,
e-mail:gogoi.indrani@gmail.com

2

Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, Karnataka, India,
e-mail: k_ajit90@yahoo.co.in

3

Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, Karnataka, India,
e-mail: sengupta88@gmail.com

Abstract: Frequent seismic activity in various parts of India has jeopardized the existing building stock and hence
necessitated their vulnerability assessment. Such assessments are helpful for the administrators to adopt appropriate measures that can reduce the loss of human lives and properties. Guwahati is a growing city in the north-eastern part of India, which falls under Zone 5 of the earthquake zonation map of India (IS 1893: 2002). Cities like Mumbai and Kolkata, which were once considered to be safe against earthquakes, are considered more vulnerable to earthquakes and hence upgraded from Zone 2 to Zone 3. The present paper compares the vulnerability of buildings prevalent in the three different cities of India assessed using Rapid Visual Screening methodology.

Keywords: Rapid Visual Screening, vulnerability, seismic, building. whole structures as well as the strength of each member. Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) is a method that can be adopted for preliminary investigation. This method of inspection gives an idea of the adequacy of the building against an earthquake by observing the structural features of the buildings. Based on the expected performance of the structure, a score can be assigned to each building that would indicate adequacy of the buildings against earthquakes. This paper is a summarised comparison of vulnerability assessment of some buildings in residential areas of Guwahati, Mumbai and Kolkata using Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) (Arya 2000[1] & [2]). It was observed that most of the buildings in Guwahati and new constructions in Mumbai had earthquake resistant features. Buildings surveyed in Kolkata were mostly of masonry type and were built before the occurrence of the Bhuj earthquake in 2000. Therefore, earthquake resistant features had not been given much importance or neglected during the construction. II. Vulnerability Assessment Methodology A. Rapid Visual Screening The RVS method was originally developed by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) in the late 1980’s and published in 1988 in the FEMA 154 report. It is a very quick way of assessing the building vulnerability 1

I. Introduction Natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, tsunamis etc. are unpredictable and cause loss of human lives and properties. With an increasing population and rapid urbanization of major cities in India, vulnerability assessment of man made structures like buildings, water tanks, bridges and dams etc. has become necessary so that effective measures can be taken by the administrative bodies for disaster mitigation. It has been observed that seismic activity in various parts of India has increased in recent years. Guwahati is a growing city in the north-eastern part of India, which falls under Zone 5 of the earthquake zonation map of India (IS 1893: 2002). Cities, which were once considered to be safe against earthquakes, are considered more vulnerable to earthquakes. The Zonation map of India (IS 1893: 2002) upgraded Mumbai and Kolkata from Zone 2 to Zone 3. This emphasizes the need to incorporate earthquake resistant features in constructions practices. Earthquake vulnerability assessment can be carried out primarily in two steps – (i) a preliminary evaluation and (ii) a detailed evaluation. A preliminary evaluation necessitates assessment of its physical condition, robustness, structural integrity and strength of structure. A detailed evaluation consists of numerical checks on stability and integrity of the

The scores varied from a minimum of building.875. soil conditions and 6 (Jain. (b) and (c) The poor performance scores of the buildings in respectively. modifier to be applied to the BS or Basic Score. Discussions Guwahati are presnted in Figure 1 (a). Three sample formats of Rapid Visual Screening carried out in Mumbai. Puducherry. per Tables 3 and 4. Evaluation of Performance Scores performance scores of the buildings in Kolkata were comparatively more as most of the buildings surveyed A performance score is calculated for each building were low rise masonry structures. Vulnerability Scores visually examines a building to identify features that (VS) and Vulnerabilty Score Modifiers can be affect the seismic performance of the building. These scores are helpful in seismic resistant due to its features like light roof. experienced in seismic design. which resulted in high may be further compared to a “cut-off” score to performance score. apparent quality. The criteria proposed by Arya (2000). A 2 . Feb 3-4. performance paper using a RVS format which can be effectively score of the buildings has been calculated using the used by screeners for a rapid assessment of seismic expression (Jain. This performance score mainly depends were higher than those in Mumbai. Mumbai are mainly attributed to high rise RCC structures mostly having soft stories. 2010). Buildings are classified for 5 RCC buildings were 70.AMAS-2011. The buildings considered as determine whether a building has potential masonry type in Guwahati are actually of different vulnerabilities that should be evaluated further by an type known as ‘Assam Type’. III Conclusions short columns. apparent building quality. The visual survey of a building can be buildings in a residential area of Mumbai gave an completed in less than 30 minutes and can be average of 15. The for earthquake forces likely to occur at the site and the buildings considered in the present study are old and need for retrofitting. buildings into two categories: those acceptable as to “risk to life safety” or those that may be seismically hazardous and should be evaluated in more detail by a C. A comparative study was modifiers and VS represents the Vulnerability Score made with existing building typologies in Guwahati that is multiplied with VSM to obtain the actual (Zone V). heavy overhang. open not meet the demands in the years to come. asymmetric location of stringent with every revisions. Buildings storeys. seismicity. (with respect to plan).The average performance score in Guwahati gathered during the screening. In Guwahati both based on numerical values on the RVS form masonry and RCC type of structures were surveyed. building condition. Information buildings in Kolkata were of masonry type which regarding the occupancy of the building and the yielded a good average performance score of presence of non-structural falling hazards are also 62. The B. India based on visual screening. concluding whether the building strength is adequate seismic bands and at times flexible wall material.6 and that for masonry as per Tables 1 and 2. substantial overhangs and short columns. 2010) for RCC and irregularities. who Screeners for assessment at site. The The comparison of vulnerability assessment shows vulnerability scores that are dependent on various that the buildings in Mumbai are highly vulnerable to features such as presence of basement. soil conditions. Evaluation in this first level does not require any The average performance score calculated for six analysis. earthquake resistance features. Pondicherry Engineering College. Kolkata (Zone IV) and Mumbai (Zone IV). 2010) as given below vulnerability of a building. structural irregularity. architectural and that falls in one of the highest seismic zone in India. of the buildings surveyed.33. Guwahati is a city on soil type. The evaluation is based on in need of repair and restoration and hence low parameters as recorded during Rapid Visual Screening performance score. Damage grades are assigned as buildings was 59. reentrant corners. which are known to be experienced engineer. Further. corresponding to the features of the building (Srikanth The performance scores of the buildings in Guwahati et al. where a "sidewalk survey" RVS format as shown in Figure 1 can be used by is carried out by an experienced screener. these structures may staircase. This enables users to classify surveyed masonry buildings respectively. 2010 and Srikanth et al. diaphragm A Rapid Screening Methodology is described in the action etc. falling hazard. Using the surveyed data. number of earthquakes. such assigned as shown in the format given in Table 5 and as the building type. These buildings were of generally high accomplished from the street without entering into a rise RCC type. a format for PS= (BS) – Σ[(VSM) x (VS)] Performance score evaluation is presented for RCC where VSM represents the Vulnerability Score and masonry type buildings. with a base score of 100. Observations design professional. frame action. Kolkata and B. As the codal provisons become more storeys. The performance score The construction practices adopted are generally indicates the seismic vulnerability of a building and earthquake resistant. The parameters used for evaluation of performance score are building height. This survey is carried out based on the 5 to a maximum of 35. pounding effect.

Seismic Assessment & Retrofitting of RC Frame Buildings. 1. Handbook for structural generally seismic resistant. pp. in highly seismic zone and due to frequent occurrence Bureau of Indian Standards. http://www. P. Vol.S.nic.41 No. Pondicherry Engineering College. with through stones and long corner stones. India Standards. unreinforced brick walls with country type wooden roofs. New Delhi. S. Bureau of Indian of steel structures. RCF of ordinary design without ERD or WRD.ndmindia.ndmindia.htm [9] Jain. B. New Delhi. construction practices are not very Bureau of Indian Standards.eurojournals. brought to courses.. either having RC floor/roof or sloping roof having eave level horizontal bracing system or seismic band. Rapid Visual Screening of RCC Buildings. 2000) 3 . 2000) Building Type A A+ B B+ Description Rubble (Field stone) in mud mortar or earthen walls Rubble (Field As above but one storey only having light roof Semi-dressed. Disaster Risk Management – Document Series. Vol. engineers . Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures .. the construction practices are [6] SP 6 : Part 6 : 1972 (2001). New Delhi. [7] IS 13920 : 1993 (2008) Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces Code of practice.in [2] Arya.com/ejsr. rubble. in Kolkata.Part 1 : General Provisions and Buildings. and Kumar. of earthquakes. Guwahati being [5] IS 4326: 1993 (2008) Code of practice for earthquake resistant design and construction of buildings. New Delhi. Masonry construction as at C but reinforced with bands & vertical reinforcement.S. http://www.eld MR-RCF/MR-SF of ordinary design without ERD or WRD MR-RCF with ordinary ERD without special details as per IS: 13920. A. MR-RCF/MR-SF with well designed base Isolation Table 3 Grades of Damage to Masonry Buildings (Arya. (2000). ISSN 1450-216X. or confined masonry using horizontal & vertical reinforcing of walls.Application of plastic theory in design References [1] Arya. a) Unreinforced masonry walls built from fully dressed (Ashler) stone masonry or CC block or burnt brick using good cement mortar. C C+ D Table 2 Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings (RCF) and Steel Frames (SF) (Arya. unreinforced CC block walls a) Unreinforced brick masonry in mud mortar with vertical wood posts or horizontal wood elements or seismic band (IS: 13828) b) Unreinforced brick masonry in lime mortar. Table 1 Masonry load bearing wall building (Arya. Singh. Disaster Risk Management – Document Series http://www. Gujarat (India)”. b) As at B with horizontal seismic bands (IS: 13828) As at C but having horizontal RC bands (IS: 4326. stringent for masonry type buildings. It is [4] IS 13828: 1993 (2008). S. Bureau of Indian Standards. Rebuild. etc (IS: 4326). pp.K. 13828). Improving earthquake resistance apparent that since earthquakes are not very frequent of low strength masonry buildings – Guidelines.3. A. [8] Srikanth T. Rapid Visual Screening of masonry buildings (All Seismic Zones). MR-SF with ordinary ERD without special details as per plastic design handbook SP: 6(6)-1972. Puducherry. (2000). (2010) “Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment of Existing Buildings in Gandhidham and Adipur Cities Kachchh. 6-8. P. European Journal of Scientific Research . MR-RCF as at E with well designed Infill walls MR-SF as at E with well designed braces MR-RCF as at E with well designed & detailed RC Shear walls MR-SF as at E with well designed & detailed steel braces & cladding. MR-RCF with high level of ERD as per IS: 1893-2002 and special detail as per IS: 13920-1993 MR-SF with high level of ERD as per IS: 1893-2002 & special detail as per Plastic design handbook SP: 6(6)-1972.in [3] IS 1893: Part 1 : 2002 (2007). RCF with hollow plinth (open ground storey). Feb 3-4.AMAS-2011. (2010).. without ordinary infill walls (Such walls may be earlier similar to C in masonry buildings. 4. surveyed in Kolkata were of masonry type. 2000) Building Type C C+ D E E+ F . Kumar R. SF without bracings having hinge joints without ERD or WRD.nic. A. Rastogi.336-353. Description RCF without ERD or WRD built in non--engineered way.

4 . Cracks in partition & Infill walls. Grade 4: Very heavy Damage ( heavy structural damage. Fall of loose stones from upper parts of buildings in very few cases Grade 2: Moderate damage (Slight structural damage. very heavy non structural damage) Serious failure of walls. 2000) Grade 1: Negligible to slight damage (no structural damage. moderate non-structural damage) Cracks in many walls fall of fairly large pieces of plaster. Grade 3: Substantial to heavy damage (moderate structural damage. India Grade 1: Negligible to slight damage (no structural damage. tilting of columns.structural damages) Cracks in columns & beams of frames & structural walls. slight non structural damage) Hair-line cracks in very few walls. heavy nonstructural damage) Cracks in columns & beams column joints of frame at base & at joints of coupled walls. Very heavy nonstructural damage) Large cracks in structural elements with compression failure of concrete & fracture of rebar’s.g. fall of brittle cladding & plaster. Feb 3-4. Grade 5: Destruction (Very heavy structural damage) Collapse of ground floor parts (e. failure of individual non-structural elements Grade 4: Very heavy damage (heavy structural damage. Pondicherry Engineering College. inner walls collapse. Large cracks in partition & infill walls. Grade 2 : Moderate damage (Slight structural damage. Fall of small pieces of plaster only. Partial Collapse of smoke chimney on roof. partial structural failure of roofs & floors Grade 5: Destruction (very heavy structural damage) Total or near total collapse of the building Table 4 Grades of Damage to RCC Buildings(Arya. Collapse of few columns or a single upper floor. Chimneys fracture at the roof line. Spalling of concrete cover. Puducherry. Fine crack in partitions & Infills. Falling mortar from the joints of wall panels. slight non-structural damage) Fine cracks over plaster over frame members or in walls at the base. Wings) of the building. Grade 3: Substantial to heavy damage (moderate structural damage. Roof tiles detach. bond failure of beams reinforcing bars. Moderate non.structural damage) Large & extensive cracks in most walls.AMAS-2011. Failure of individual infill panels. heavy non. buckling of steel rods. Fall of small pieces of plaster only.

India Table 5 Proforma for Evaluation of Performance Score for RCC Buildings RAPID VISUAL SCREENING OF EARTHQUAKE SAFETY Falling hazards identifier 'F' Marquees/hordings/roof signs AC units/grillwork Elaborate parapets Heavy elevation features Heavy canopies Substantial balconies Heavy cladding Structural glazing Vulnerability Score (VS) NUMBER OF STOREYS Soft storey Vertical irregularities.∑ (VSMXVS) = 5 . Feb 3-4. building on slopes Plan irregularities Heavy overhangs Apparent quality -5 Short columns Poundings 0 Soil conditions 10 Frame action 10 Water tank at roof capacity 0 Location of water tank Basement-full or partial 0 0 -2 Stories 1 or 2 3 4 5 >5 CALCULATION SHEET RC FRAME Seismic Zone Base Score V 100 90 75 65 60 1or2 0 -10 -5 -5 3 -15 4 -20 5 -25 >5 -30 Vulnerability Score Modifier (VSM) VS×VSM Absent =0 Present=1 Absent =0 -10 -10 -10 -10 Present=1 None=0 -5 -5 -5 -5 Moderate=1 Extreme=2 Absent =0 -10 -10 -15 -15 Present=1 Good=0 -10 -10 -15 -15 Moderate=1 Poor=2 Absent = 0 -5 -5 -5 -5 Present=1 Absent = 0 Unaligned floors= 2 -2 -3 -3 -3 Poor apparent quality of adjacent building = 2 Medium = 0 10 10 10 10 Hard =1 Soft = -1 Absent = 0 10 10 10 10 Present =1 Not sure = 0 Absent = 0 Capacity < 5000l= -3 -4 -5 -5 0.AMAS-2011.5 Capacity > 5000l=1 symmetric=0 -3 -4 -5 -5 unsymmetrical=1 Absent = 0 3 4 5 5 Present =1 ∑ (VSMXVS) = Performance Score = Base Score . Pondicherry Engineering College. setbacks. Puducherry.

∑ (VSMXVS) = 6 . Pondicherry Engineering College.AMAS-2011. Puducherry. Feb 3-4.5 Capacity>5000L=1 Symmetric=0 Unsymmetrical=1 Absent = 0 Present =1 ∑ (VSMXVS) = VS×VSM Openings Wall openings -5 Orientation of openings Diaphragm action -10 Basement-full or partial 0 -15 3 -15 4 -15 5 -2 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 Other features Horizontal bands Arches Random rubble stone masonry walls Water tank at roof capacity 20 -10 20 -10 20 -10 20 -10 Location of water tank Basement-full or partial Performance Score = Base Score . India Table 6 Proforma for Evaluation of Performance Score for Masonry Buildings Falling hazards identifier 'F' Marquees/hordings/roof signs AC units/grillwork Elaborate parapets Heavy elevation features Heavy canopies Substantial balconies Heavy cladding Structural glazing Vulnerability Score (VS) Number of Storeys 1 or 2 Structural irregularity Apparent quality -10 Soil conditions 10 Poundings 0 -3 -5 -5 10 10 10 -10 -10 -10 -10 Stories 1 or 2 3 4 5 Seismic Zone IV 100 85 70 50 Base Score 3 -10 4 -10 5 -10 Vulnerability Score Modifier (VSM) Absent =0 present=1 Good=0 Moderate=1 Poor=2 Medium = 0 Hard =1 Soft = -1 Absent = 0 Normal apparent condition of adjacent building=1 Poor apparent condition of adjacent building=2 Small(< 1/3)=0 Moderate(1/3to2/3) =1 Large(> 2/3)=2 Regular = 0 Irregular=1 Present/unsure=0 Lack of diaphragm action=1 Absent = 0 Present =1 Absent =0 present=1 Doesn't exist/unsure=0 Remedial measures exist=0 Don’t exist=1 Absent = 0 Capacity<5000L= 0.

Figure 1 Rapid Visual Screening of Indian Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards in (a) Mumbai (b) Kolkata and (c) Guwahati (a) (b) ( c) .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful