Chapter-1: Dept. of CE, NIT Patna

CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
India has experienced number of earthquakes around the country, mostly in North
India and North East side of the country due to tectonic movements and faults. In last
couple of decades, India has witnessed a huge number of damaging earthquakes.
During last two decades, there are nine high intensity earthquakes which has affected
the structure and account to large number of lost life. Before 2001 Bhuj earthquake,
construction quality was poor in rural and sub urban areas and urban areas were
supposed to have safe construction because of modern engineering techniques being
used and good quality of materials being used. But after that 2001 Bhuj earthquake,
there is a huge damage to the structures was observed and shattered the myth of urban
seismic safety. There are many strong earthquake which has occurred in recent history
which includes Bihar-Nepal earthquake in1988, Uttarkashi in1991, Killari in 1993,
Chamoli 1999, Bhuj 2001, Off west coast Indian Ocean Earthquake 2004, Kashmir
2005, Sikkim 2011, North India and Northeast India earthquake 2015(April), North
India & Northeast India 2015(May), North India in 2015(October), Northeast India
2016(January). The frequency of these earthquakes suggests that India is highly
vulnerable to seismicity and hence there is a need for good pre disaster planning &
management for risk reduction. Earthquake directly doesnt affect the life but the
falling structure do take so many lives, hence if we will be able to identify the
seismically vulnerable structure we can reduce the risk of life by proper planning and
management. Detail assessment of seismic vulnerability is costly and technically
complex that is why it is performed for very limited and most critical structures.
Therefore it is necessary to develop a simple procedure that can help to evaluate the
Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 1

vulnerability of building of different types & restrict the detailed evaluation to limited
buildings.
Almost all building codes worldwide accept some amount of structural failure and
damage during high intensity earthquakes but they dont allow structure to collapse. In
1993, first seismic code provisions was published in India and there was no provision
for earthquake resistant design of structure before that. According to collected data,
more than 80% houses are masonry structure and built before the codal provisions was
made hence vulnerability assessment of such building is very necessary. There are
many new designs for earthquake resistant structure but for old structures some safety
measures need to be taken and first of all that need to be assessed. So for that purpose
we need to do the seismic vulnerability assessment of a building. There are various
methods developed for the seismic vulnerability assessment but there is always a
scope for improvement. Therefore methodology has to be develop to protect such a
structure & gives remedial measures to improve their performance. Most of the lives
are lost because of the collapse of the buildings and other structures.
In recent past, India has experienced several numbers of earthquakes. The movement
in the tectonic plates and fault zones are the main reason behind these earthquakes.
58.60% (Zone V = 10.9%, Zone IV = 17.3%, Zone III = 30.4%) geographical area of
India is considered as seismically vulnerable. The earthquake occurring very
frequently shows very high seismic vulnerability in higher seismic zones (as per IS
1893:2002). That is the reason why it is very important to react to the situation before
any catastrophic damage occurred.
In this project I have mainly studied about the seismic vulnerability assessment of
buildings. It is one of the important issue for many countries these days because
earthquakes are very frequent in many countries which are damaging many important
structures. Every country has developed their codal provision and regulation for RVS
according to their conditions. In India, many work has been done but still there is not
any standard procedure for RVS in India because of different materials used, different
topography, various soil types etc.
In this project I have developed an android (mobile) based application for seismic
vulnerability assessment of buildings where a survey form is to be filled by respective
person by online mode. It consists of many data like seismic zone, use of building,

image of building, type of soil etc. In this application Sudhir K Jain et al. RVS scoring
pattern for Indian conditions, is used where a building is going to get a score on the
basis of their structural condition and performance.
The evaluation of seismic hazard includes the estimation of results of an seismic

tremor in the picked territory as far as the normal harm and misfortune from a given
risk to given elements at hazard. For The hazard appraisal includes assessment of
seismic risk, weakness of structures, presentation lastly misfortune estimation. Hence,
the total risk can be calculated essentially using the formulae given
Risk = Hazard X Vulnerability X Exposure
1.1 Vulnerability Assessment
Seismic Vulnerability evaluations are carried out in three levels.
Rapid Visual Screening

Simplified Vulnerability Assessment
Detailed Vulnerability Assessment
1.1.1 Rapid Visual Screening (RVS)
Rapid Visual Screening is a process of visual inspection and no technical calculations

are required. A walk down is survey to any building will provide us the required
information of the building for its vulnerability assessment. The survey must be done
by an expert or trained screener. This process is recommended for all type of
buildings. This process usually takes 20-30minutes.
1.1.2 Simplified Vulnerability Assessment (SVA)
Simplified Vulnerability Assessment is the next step to Rapid Visual Screening. Some
engineering analysis of data and calculations are done based on the information
collected from the surveyor during his inspection time and structural drawing or onsite
measurement. For this method, a trained engineer is required. This type of assessment
is recommended for all type of buildings with high concentration of people.

1.1.3 Detailed Vulnerability Assessment (DVA)
In Detailed Vulnerability Assessment, proper modelling is done and the model of the
building is then analysed on computer by software, similar to design of new building,
here component level analysis is also carried out. This is very expensive and complex
process and hence it is done only for very high importance structure. Therefore Rapid
Visual Screening must be done effectively so as to minimize the complex and
expensive process to limited number of buildings.
1.2 Objective Derived from the Work
By reviewing the existing literature and current issues of seismic assessment the
present condition of pre disaster management in India is not quick & still follows
substandard process & it takes more time & resource to allocate the data. At the time
we collect data and respond to the situation some catastrophe will act make situation
more critical. Therefore it is important to develop a procedure to make data collecting
more reliable and quick to save time. And provide this procedure to the ground level.
Hence in this project, we have developed an android based mobile application which
integrates Structural Engineering with Information Technology.
Objective of the Work:
Develop a simplified methodology for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment for Indian

conditions which make the data collection more rapid, safe and reliable by developing
an android based mobile application.
1.3 Need for SVA Application
Rapid Assessment: It will save the time in Seismic Vulnerability Assessment

of a building and simultaneously we can survey more than one building at a
time. Data is stored online during surveying itself. And reliability and safety of
data will also increase.
Print-ready forms that emulate original paper worksheets: This is
designed to improve rather the data-entry forms and printed reports are
arranged with same data and same layout as the original paper forms.
Geo-tagged image: Buildings will be geo-located directly after uploading its
image. We can get the latitude and longitude in our database with the help of

which we can easily find the location of buildings during disaster rescue
programme and data of buildings of same location can also be categorised.
Integral database: The paper based RVS forms do not include any electronic
database; such a data base must be built by user. With the help of SVA
application, we can minimize the use of paper data storage system.
Database Synchronization: The data obtained from the clients can be directly
stored in our database while online connection is required.
Merged Pre and Post Seismic Vulnerability Data: Many of the data
collected pre earthquake can be used same for the post earthquake, such as
name of building, use of building, structure type etc.
1.4 Organisation of The Dissertation
In this chapter we studied about the basics of earthquake and seismic

assessment and its requirement, past earthquakes in different places.
Objectives of our project and basic need for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment.
Chapter 2 relates to literature review of existing seismic vulnerability
methods used by many countries according to their conditions like soil type,
topography, other geographical features etc. IS codes and contribution of
Indian authors. Past research on seismic vulnerability assessment of the
structures.
Chapter 3 discuss about methodology of my project work and study,
parameters considered for SVA android mobile application in detail for both
type of structure RCC as well as Masonry structures separately. It consists of
General Information, Typology, Soil Characteristics, Seismic safety features,
Building distress elements and Non-structural elements and Falling hazards.
List down different parameters with reference.
Chapter 4 is about analysis and development of mobile based android
application, and analysis is carried out by using various methods of seismic
vulnerability assessment calculation of performance score of the building.
Algorithm and flow chart and programming code for application.

Chapter 5 gives the final result and performance score of few buildings
which were surveyed by using SVA android application, decision making for
building, vulnerability index of the parameter.
Chapter 6 provides conclusion & recommendations for the study, future
scope for the android application of SVA and References.

CHAPTER-2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Existing Vulnerability Assessment Methods
2.1.1 FEMA 154

Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) process is developed by FEMA (Federal Emergency
Management Agency) it is an agency of United States homeland security and it is
documented in FEMA 154 (2002) to find, inventory, and rank potentially seismically
vulnerable buildings. It is very quick procedure where seismically vulnerable
buildings are screened out without going for any detailed complex analysis. In this
process building is reviewed by sidewalk around the building without entering inside
of building and there is no need for refer structural drawings and structural
calculations. If possible screener can enter inside the building so that reliability and
confidence of the data will increase. Hence it is a scoring system that requires screener
to (1) identify the primary structural lateral load resisting system (2) identify building
attributes that modify seismic performance expected of this lateral load system.
Inspection, collection of data and decision making process will be done at the site and
this all process will take an average time of 15 to 30 min per building (30 min to 1
hour if accessible to inside). Screener has to classify the building into a either class,
i.e. building within the range of acceptable risk to life safety or building which is
seismically hazardous and it requires a detailed evaluation. Hence this RVS procedure
is acceptable for all over the world and this procedure can be used to any type of
building except bridges, large towers and other non-building structure types. Finally a
score will be calculated for each type of building, if the score is more than cut-off
score it indicates building is adequate seismic resistant, where as if building got lower
score than cut-off score it indicates building is inadequate seismic resistant and detail

evaluation is required. Based on this final detail evaluation rehabilitation can be
determined.
2.1.2 FEMA 310

FEMA 310 was developed in 1998 and it is a most advanced seismic evaluation
process and evaluation is based on the rigorous approach to determine the structural
performance or condition. It is based on the two levels of performances of structure
defined as Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy during design earthquake.
Life Safety: building can receive significant damage to both non-structural and
structural components with some limit against either partial or total structural collapse
such that level of risk for life-threatening injury and getting trapped is low.
Immediate Occupancy: Marginal damage to both non-structural and structural

components during design basis earthquake. The primary elements of lateral force
resisting system retains nearly all of their original strength and stiffness, however
there could be a minor injuries and damages which can be easily repairable while the
building is occupied.
FEMA 310 is carries on three phases:
Tier 1 Screening Phase: in screening phase it mainly considered structural, non-

structural and foundation aspects in the form of checklists and find the performance
for a given seismicity. Deficiencies are found after completion of checklists and these
deficiencies are considered for further evaluation.
Tier 2 Evaluation Phase: Design professionals are analysis in two ways: (a) a detail
analysis of all deficiencies which are which identified in Tier 1 or (b) a deficiency
only analysis. The selection of method is based on the results found in Tier 1. In Tier 2
analysis, performance of the lateral-force-resisting is found. This all analysis is limited
to simplified linear analysis methods and it could be done using the common linear
static or dynamic analysis methods.
Tier 3 Detailed Evaluation Phase: This evaluation is done only when Tier 1 and/or
Tier 2 evaluations are too conservative. A detailed analysis includes linear or non-
linear methods for static or dynamic analysis of buildings. The tentative performances

of existing components are evaluated by comparing calculated requirement on the
component with their capacities.
2.1.3 EURO CODE 8

The Euro Code 8 has approved by CEN in 2004. The main aim of this document is
seismic evaluation of already existing structures. This document considers both
seismic and non-seismic actions for an existing structure for the life time of structure.
Modelling is carried out for each structure and modelling uncertainty factor is found.
Evaluation process is mainly depends on analysis method, hence it is more complex to
use. The main deficient of this process there are many parameters not having proper
guidelines and it is left to the design professionals.
2.1.4 NEW ZEALAND GUIDELINE

It was formulated by NZSEE (2000, 2003), and it describes important steps and
procedures involved in assessment of existing buildings of various configuration and
material types. It was based on the procedure of ATC 21 (1988). Building score is
calculated on the basis of fourteen structural parameters which are indicators of
building damage. Detailed analysis is performed at the member level. To account
uncertainty in reliability of the available information a knowledge factor K is
introduced.
2.1.5 MODIFIED TURKISH METHOD

In this method seismic assessment is carried out in a multiple levels, for existing
reinforced concrete (RC) buildings. This method is divided into three stages depend
upon the complexity. In first level walk down evaluation, where no calculation and
analysis of structure is required, this is carried out for determines the priority of
building for immediate intervention. In second level preliminary assessment
methodologies (PAM) are used for more depth information. Data includes dimensions
of structural members and presence of non-structural elements and the most critical
storey are selected for this level of assessment. However in third level of assessment
linear and non-linear analysis is carried out for selected structures, which requires data
about in-built structural elements dimensions, sectional details and the reinforcement
details of all structural members.

2.1.6 NRC GUIDELINES
National Research Council of Canada (NRCC) developed a building vulnerability
assessment procedure called as NRC guidelines and it is based on ATC-21(1988).
Here the importance of the building is determined from use and occupancy of the
peoples here Canadian construction practices are given more emphasis (NRCC 1993).
In this guideline both Non-structural and Structural hazards are considered.
2.1.7 SWISS STANDARD (SIA)

It consists of three stages of seismic evaluation:
Stage 1: Visual Inspection and building plan, primary elements of the structure and
seismic vulnerability is screened roughly.
Stage 2: Seismic vulnerability of selected elements is studied in more detail.
Stage 3: Remedial or strengthening measures are developed for limited number of

vulnerable buildings.
2.1.8 JAPANESE TECHNIQUE (JBDPA 2001)

This method is based on the Seismic Index (SI), earthquake resisting capacity of a
story in a building is determined from the strength, ductility, regularity and certain
index of the building.
2.1.9 RVS METHOLDOLOGY PROPOSED BY Dr. ANAND S ARYA

(2011).
In this method RVS procedure was designed for Indian context, it follows a grading
system where screener has to i) determine primary structural lateral load resisting
system and ii) determine parameters which may be modify seismic performance of
structure including non-structural components. Zones are considered as per Indian
conditions and importance factor is considered for important buildings. Also special
hazards (liquefiable area, land slide prone area, plan irregularities and vertical
irregularities) and falling hazards are taken into account. Finally a grading system was
performed in the buildings.

2.1.10 RVS PROCEDURE DEVELOPED BY SUDHIR K JAIN.
This method is also based on Indian conditions whereas checklist is prepared for
screened building. It is the first method in India which is based on the scoring pattern,
here performance score is calculated based on the zone, architectural considerations,
structural parameters, geotechnical characteristics and etc. this method was practically
used many parts of India first it was used in Gujarat after Bhuj earthquake.
2.1.11 IS 13935 (2009): SEISMIC EVALUATION, REPAIR AND

STRENGHTENING OF MASONRY BUILDINGS- GUIDELINES
Bureau of Indian Standard developed a code for seismic evaluation for masonry
buildings on the year 2009, this document is mainly focuses on masonry buildings
only. Here the screening process is based on seismic intensity (i.e. seismic zone),
typology of building, building configuration and damageability grades observed on the
past earthquakes. Importance of the building is determined as per the number of users
and purpose of the building. Special and falling hazards are included. Here buildings
are divide into grades from G1 to G5, where G1 shows slight damage and building is
in good condition and there is no need of strengthening, whereas in G5 heavy
structural damage total or near total collapse of the structure. These grades are given at
the site and it is given by the surveyor as per the building data and his experience.
2.1.12 IS 15988 (2013): SEISMIC EVALUATION AND STRENGHTENINH

OF EXISTING REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS
GUIDELINES .
Bureau of Indian Standard formulated a code of Seismic evaluation for reinforced
concrete (RC) buildings on the year 2013, and this code is mainly deals with the
seismic evaluation RC buildings. This methodology is carried out in three stages first
stage is site visit, in which potentially seismic vulnerable buildings are identified from
the available number of buildings, if building is deficient in stage one then go for
second stage i.e. preliminary evaluation stage where configuration related checks and
strength related checks are performed. If acceptability criteria of building not satisfied
then go for third and final stage, detailed Evaluation it is performed on primary lateral
load resisting system where component level strengths are found, elastic
static/dynamic analysis are performed, if this stage is not satisfied go for retrofitting.

2.2 Previous Work
N. Alam, Et. All (2012), given a critical review and comparison of existing seismic
vulnerability assessment methods and found their suitability for use in seismic risk
assessment in different conditions. The methods considered are as follow: FEMA 154,
Euro Code 8, New Zealand guidelines, Modifies Turkish Mehtod, NRC guidelines and
Hybrid method. Three different case studies are conducted in different cities of
having different seismicity and geological i.e. Dhaka and Rangamati cities in
Bangladesh nd Kelowna city in Canada, a scoring system is proposed for these cities.
Finally it was observed that from the different method hybrid method was best suited
for all conditions which are necessary for seismic risk assessment and final data is
integrated with GIS (Geographical Information System).
Hanan Al-Nimry, Et. All (2015), proposed an indexing method for seismic
vulnerability assessment of RC frame buildings in Jordan city. In this paper building
is assigned with a basic capacity index (BCI) and from this BCI Capacity Index
Capacity (IC) is derived from five performance modifiers. If a capacity index lower
than the limit CI value shows moderate earthquake damage where as higher value of
CI indicates minor damage. To find the evaluation parameters, forty RC frame
buildings were selected, analysed using static nonlinear analysis and designed with the
effect of infill walls. Effects of local site conditions, infill walls, vertical irregularities,
seismicity and overhangs seismic performance of the local conditions were examined.
112 building samples are evaluated and about 40% of surveyed buildings are found to
be need for detailed evaluation.
Th. Kiranbala Devi, Et. All (2015), in this paper three levels of seismic vulnerability
assessment methods are discussed starting from simple to complex procedure, (a)
Rapid Visuals Screening, (b) Simplified Vulnerability Assessment, and (c) Detailed
Vulnerability Assessment these procedures are carried out according to deficiencies
found in building.
H. Kaplan, Et. All (2008), in this paper they used Bigol earthquake data for
reference, rapid assessment of buildings are done and the building census data is taken
from the HAZUS. Finally it is found that this proposed method can be used for mid to
large cities. Some modifications are required in the case of Masonry structures.

G. Achs, Et. All (2012), this paper deals seismic assessment of historic brick-masonry
buildings which are located in city of Vienna based on RVS. In this paper two
parameters of the inspected elements are evaluated, i.e. overall structural parameter
and damage relevance. Based on the above parameters screened building is classified
into four vulnerability classes. In-situ investigation is carried out for 375 buildings in
20th district of Vienna are seismically assessed. Finally vulnerability map is prepared
which include useful information regarding emergency, evacuation planning and
location of critical objects which are vulnerable to seismic loading.
G.M. Calvi, Et. All (2006), In this paper discussed about the most significant
contribution in the field of vulnerability assessment and discuss the main advantages
and disadvantages of this procedure in order to differentiate the important
characteristics of an ideal methodology.
Z. Aguilar, Et. All (2005), in this paper RVS procedure of ATC-21 is conducted all
school buildings located at Chorrillos and Barranco Districts in Lima at the capital city
of Peru. 28 school buildings from Barranco and 80 School buildings from Chorrillos
comprising all kindergarten, primary and secondary school buildings in these two
districts. From these 100 buildings some buildings are new even though new their
structural score shows medium to high seismic vulnerability. These data is correlated
with soil conditions and past seismic intensities of these two districts.
Ajith Kamanth Manohar, Et. All (2012) in this paper seismic assessment is
conducted in Guwahati city north eastern part of India and it is falls under seismic
zone V as per IS 1893-2002. This paper gives the vulnerability assessment of the
different buildings in Guwahati and indicates degree of the vulnerability of the
buildings, and the remedial measures are recommended for various vulnerable
buildings.
Yumei Wang, Et. All (2007), this paper deals with enhance RVS process called as E-
RVS, hence it is used to improve the accuracy and usefulness of RVS results. By
using E-RVS process, Complete Damage (CODA) and Life Safety Risk Index (LSRI)
are found. Following are the changes and improvements considered in this process. (1)
MCEs instead of median MCEs for a large seismic region, (2) the final score must
correspond to the probability of the complete damage state 1.0, (3) Adjust the RVS

soil-rock score modifiers, (4) In final results, instead of logarithmic scale using normal
scale so that non-technical users can also understand.
Shailesh Kr. Agrawal, Et. All (2007), this paper proposed an approach for seismic
vulnerability assessment for Indian conditions. This process estimates the seismic
vulnerability quantitatively and qualitatively for existing buildings. Demandcapacity
computation covers quantitative approach, whereas national and international
procedures for calculation of score indicate qualitative approach.
ShashankMishra (2004), it is an guidebook for integrated rapid visual screening of

buildings, this guide book is developed on the basis of the experience of conducting
vulnerability assessment of buildings across different parts of the country. This book
can be used as a guide for RVS process. This book also provides details of seismic
safety features for both Masonry and RC frame buildings, non-structural hazards are
also considered in this book. This book also provides different RVS formats
developed for Indian contexts.
Sudhir K. Jain, Et. All (2010), in this paper discussed about some presently available
seismic assessment methods, mainly about Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) process of
RC frame buildings. Based on the past record and study of 2001 Bhuj earthquake, a
RVS method is proposed for RC frame buildings in India.
Pradeep Kumar Ramacharla, Et. All (2014), in this paper conducted RVS for 9099
buildings in state of Himachal Pradesh in India. For this survey five different typology
of buildings are considered i.e. reinforced concrete, brick masonry, Stone masonry,
Hybrid and Rammed earth buildings. A Numerical performance score is calculated for
each type of building based on their RVS procedure. Here a cut-off score is calculated
based on the Gaussian distribution and if performance score of the building is
compared with cut-off score to determine whether building requires further evaluation
or not.
Terala Srikanth, Et. All (2010), In this paper a pilot study was carried out in
Gandhidham and Adipur cities in Gujarat were RVS was conducted on 16000
buildings in these cities. The whole process is conducted on three stages, in first stage
total surveyed area is divided into 56 blocks by using GIS and municipality maps, in
second stage training was conducted on polytechnic college students and they are

divided into 56 teams and data collected in final stage data was uploaded. They
observed varieties of buildings are available where 26% RCC and 74% masonry
structures are present. Structures shows with low score show seismically vulnerable to
the future earthquakes. Finally a suggestion was given that preliminary and detailed
analysis was required for 300 buildings.
C. V. R. Murthy, Et. All (2012), this document is prepared for Gujarat State Disaster
Management Authority (GSDMA), this book explains about behaviour of structure
during earthquake. It deals with concepts of earthquake resistant design with
numerical solutions, here authors are mainly focuses on Reinforced Concrete (RC)
and Steel buildings. Hence here they didnt discuss about special cases like base
isolation and other dissipating devices. This book also includes embellished
deformation shapes to highlighting deformations and behaviour of buildings during
earthquake and its consequences on seismic resistant design. This book includes
animation related to behaviour of buildings in earthquake.

CHAPTER-3
METHODOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT OF

DATA
3.1 Parameters considered for SVA process

There are various parameters which we are going to consider for the performance
score calculation. Some have greater impact and some data are having less impact.
3.1.1 General information of building

First step in rapid visual screening of a building includes filling the general
information about the surveyed building. The information consists of name and
address of building, year of built, geographical location, type of building, covered area
of building, building use, type of mortar, wall and roof construction and type of
material used in the floor.
3.1.1.1 Seismic Zone

It is very important to know about the seismic zone of the area where survey of the
building is done as the performance score is mainly dependent on zone. Higher the
seismic zone more vulnerable is that area and poor will be the performance score.
3.1.1.2 Building Name and Address

Name of the building shall be filled online. Address of the building includes city,
district, with pin-code. Their contact number and email address is taken in the
beginning itself for further contact. This information is useful for identify the building,
if it is required for further assessment preliminary or detailed and also during the post-
earthquake assessment.

3.1.1.3 Use of building
Building use is very helpful for prioritize the buildings for risk mitigation plans.
Building use is classified in following classes i.e. Residential, Commercial, Offices,
Hospital, Public buildings and Mixed. Building occupancy changed over a period of
time shows a danger, that building is originally designed to carry certain loads but the
change of occupancy may exceeds the limit of design load.
3.1.1.4 Building Types

Building type is the most important information to be collected during RVS, because
it tells which type of material is going to take the lateral load induced by earthquakes.
These are classified into mud/adobe, stone masonry, brick masonry, Reinforced
Concrete frame, wood/bamboo, steel and Hybrid type.
In masonry buildings walls are the load bearing elements earthquake load will be
taken by the walls in masonry structure. In RC frame structure earthquake load will be
taken care by RC frame consist of column and beam. Hybrid structures are the most
critical structures during earthquake.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)

(e) (f)
(g)
Figure 3.1: Type of buildings, (a) Rammed earth/adobe building, (b) Stone masonry
building, (c) Brick masonry building, (d) RC frame building, (e) Bamboo structure, (f)
Wooden structure, (g) Hybrid structure (source : TARU 2013)
3.1.1.5 Number of Stories

Total number of stories indicates the total height of the structure and ground floor is
considered as first floor. If the building is tall and situated in zone IV and V, it attracts
large earthquake forces. National building code of India specifies four stories
buildings are not recommended in zone V.
3.1.1.6 Built-up Area

It is the amount of area covered by the building plan, if building has multiple floors,
the total areas of all floors are considered. Area is measured in square meters or square
feet. Only interior usable space is considered, outdoor balconies, elevators/staircase
area are not included.

3.1.1.7 Year of built
Building age is an important factor to find because year of construction will give the
typology and presence of seismic safety features in the building. if masonry building
is constructed before 1993 can be assumed as no seismic bands are present because IS
code described the horizontal bands provisions in 1993. Building age can be found
from building owner or building drawings if available. Sometimes timeline of building
construction also gave a rough idea of building age. Hence older building will be
assessed more carefully.
3.1.1.8 Type of Wall, Roof and Floor Material

In India wide variety of building materials are used in rural and urban areas because of
the different consequences i.e. economic status, availability of materials and etc.,
wall can be made of brick(burnt/un-burnt), stone(dressed/un-dressed),
mud(adobe/rammed earth), bamboo, wood, grass/thatch, GI sheet and etc. Floor can
be made up of mud, tiles, cement concrete, wood, bamboo and etc. Roof is generally
constructed with GI/Asbestos sheet, cement slates, stone plates, Reinforces brick
concrete, reinforced cement concrete, grass/thatch and etc. Heavy roofs are always
more vulnerable to human safety.
3.1.1.9 Type of Roof

In India Roofs are divided into two classes i.e. flat and sloping roof. For masonry
buildings flat roof acts like a roof band and it intact the four walls whereas for sloping
roof, roof band is necessary. Sloping roofs may be of different types hip roof, gable
roof, shed roof (single sloped roof) and etc.
(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 3.2: Types of roof: (a) Hip roof, (b) Gable roof, (c) Shed roof and (d) Flat
roof(Source: TARU 2013)
3.1.1.10Type of mortar
Type of mortar used in the building gives a rough idea about the crushing strength; it
is mostly concerned on masonry buildings. There are different types of mortar
available mud, cement, lime and etc. structures which are constructed without mortar
is very vulnerable during earthquake such as stone masonry made of stones. Therefore
mortar strength also plays a very important role in seismic behaviour of structure.
3.1.2 Geotechnical Characteristics

In this section it deals with site morphology, depth of water table, liquefaction
potential and soil characteristics.
3.1.2.1 Site morphology

Topography of the site effects the amplification of seismic waves during earthquake.
To determine the correct position of the site is important to know i.e. flat, trough, crest
and downward slope. If building is present on the sloping site is more vulnerable to
landslides as compared to flat site.
Flat: site where ground slope varies from 0 to 50 is considered as flat.

Crest: Peak point of the hill
Downward Slope: site located on the slope of the mountain or hill
Trough: Narrow depression between two hills

3.1.2.2 Depth of Water Table
Depth of water table is recorded in meters/feets, this information is useful to know
the susceptibility of damage to the foundation and determine liquefaction potential.
Higher water table may create a problem of settlement if foundation.
3.1.2.3 Type of Soil

As per IS 1893:2002 (Part 1) classifies soil types into three classes i.e. hard, medium
and soft. Classifications are made on the basis of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) of
soil. These data should be collected before going for RVS during the planning stage
from the government bodies. Buildings which are present on the soft soil experience
more damage than building in the hard soil. If surveyor not able to find the soil type
may be considered as medium. Generally soft soils are present near the river bed.
3.1.2.4 Expansive and Non-Expansive Soil

It is important to classification the soils on the basis of their expansive nature.
Expansive soils are have property to expand whenever moisture/water content
increased and shrinks (reduced volume) when moisture/water content reduced. If a
building foundation rests on the expensive soil there are more chances to heave and
settlement or lifting the building. The best example of expensive soil is black cotton
soil, and it can be identified by crack pattern developed in summer and sticks on shoes
and tyres during wet season. And the soil which does not having above type of
characteristics termed as non-expensive soil.
(a) (b)
Figure 3.3: Expensive Soil: (a) crack pattern of expensive soil in dry condition, (b)
expensive soil in wet condition (Source: www.oregonfoundationrepair.com)

3.1.2.5 Liquefaction Potential
It is a state of a soil where effective stress of the soil reduces to zero and soil behaves
like a liquid. This phenomenon is more common in sandy soils and fine silts, with
high water table almost less than 3m from the ground surface. Liquefaction occurs at
the time of earthquake because of the ground vibration soil behaves like fluid.
(a) (b)
Figure 3.4: Liquefaction: (a) buildings damage because of liquefaction of soil (Japan,
Niigata Earthquake 1964) & (b) Liquefaction (India, Bhuj Earthquake 2001)
3.1.3 Seismic Safety Features

This part describes the seismic safety features of buildings.
3.1.3.1 Horizontal Plan Irregularity

Buildings which have simple and regular plan behave well in earthquake, square,
rectangle and circular configurations. Shape of the building is determined by its plan.
A building shape like rectangular and square behaved well than L- shaped, U- shaped
or buildings which have wings. Those buildings which having shapes L, H, U, T, E
and + in plan are not recommended because they are more vulnerable to seismic
action because of their re-entrant corners. In these shapes each wing of building is
vibrate separately during earthquake shaking which can cause severe damage to the
building.
Plan irregularities include:
1. Torsion Irregularity
2. Re-entrant Corners
3. Diaphragm Discontinuity

4. Out of plane offsets
5. Non Parallel systems.
Figure 3.5: Shapes of building Plans (Source: TARU 2013)
3.1.3.2 Vertical Irregularities

It is the most critical vulnerability parameter of a building in which building
deficiency in vertical direction is detected it includes un-even floor levels, mass
discontinuity, load path configuration, set-backs and step-backs. Buildings in hilly
areas having problem of se-backs and step-backs, sometimes different column heights
in same level cause severe stiffness irregularity in the building and poses more
vulnerability.
Vertical Irregularities includes
1) Mass Irregularity
2) Stiffness Irregularity
3) Vertical geometric irregularity
4) In-Plane Discontinuity in vertical elements
5) Discontinuity in Capacity
Any of the irregularities are noticed building is assessed to next level of assessment.

Figure 3.6: Building with Step back and building with both Set back and Step back
(Source: WCEE, 2012)
Figure 3.7: Vertical irregularity of buildings (Source: IS 1893 (1984))
3.1.4 Seismic Safety features for Masonry Buildings
3.1.4.1 Horizontal Bands

In masonry buildings horizontal bands are given to bind the building in single unit by
fixing all walls together. Generally there are following types of horizontal bands
which include plinth, sill, lintel and roof band, absence of these bands and poor
connection at the corner of walls cause collapse of masonry building in earthquake.
Plinth band: It is provided to resist the uneven settlement of foundation soil.
Lintel band: This band ties up walls together also provides support to walls which
loaded in the weak direction.

Sill band: This band intact window and door with the wall
Roof band: It is provided in the sloping roofs only to make an integral action between
roof and wall. In case reinforced concrete roofs roof slab itself acts like a
roof band.
Figure 3.8: Building with all horizontal bands (Source: CPWD, Handbook 2007)
3.1.4.2 Vertical Reinforcement in Jamb Openings

Door and windows in the wall reduces stiffness of the wall, these opening areas are
more vulnerable to diagonal or shear cracks in the walls during earthquake. Hence
reinforcement at jamb openings arrest these diagonal cracks.

Figure 3.9: Details of steel provided in jamb opening (Source: NDMA)
3.1.4.3 Vertical Reinforcement at Corner of the Wall

This vertical reinforcement bars starts from the foundation and passes all bands and
tied in roof band. Vertical bars at the corner of wall provide bending to wall and
delayed diagonal cracks to develop, these also provides lateral load carrying capacity
of building. Vertical reinforcement if properly embedded it resist sliding of wall and
protected from weak direction. Diameter of corner reinforcement depends upon the
number of storeys of building.
Figure 3.10: Vertical reinforcement at corner of wall with different materials (Source:
NDMA)

3.1.4.4 Diaphragm Opening
Diaphragm or discontinuity in diaphragm can be determined is access inside the
building is possible. Horizontal force developed on each floor must transfer to the
vertical members such as columns and walls. Hence floor must have to develop
diaphragm action to complete required action. Large cut outs in the floor reduces the
diaphragm action and produces discontinuity in the diaphragm action. These cut outs
are provided in the floor for the purpose of staircase or any architectural
considerations. Opening at can be present at the corner or centre, openings at the
corner is more dangerous. Diaphragm discontinuity will be considered when opening
of the floor is more than 50% of gross area of floor (IS 1893 (2002)).
3.1.4.5 Distance Between two Openings

IS 4326: 1993 gives provisions for distance between two separate openings and
distance from corner of the wall and opening. Minimum distance from the opening to
corner of the wall 450 mm for brick masonry and 560 mm for stone masonry.
Minimum distance between two openings is approximately 560 mm.
Figure 3.11: Opening configurations in wall (Source: TARU 2013)
3.1.4.6 Percentage of Openings in wall

In any type of wall opening more than 50% is highly not recommended and
seismically vulnerable, hence large openings in walls reduces lateral load carrying
capacity of the wall. Opening should be small and centrally located in the wall.
As per IS 4326: 1993 given a provision, percentage of openings decreases with
increases number of floors. For second floor 42% and for third floor 33% are
desirable.

3.1.4.7 Length of Wall Between two cross walls
As per IS 13935: 2009 given provisions for length and height of wall for a given
thickness. If length of wall is long it is having a tendency to overturning due to out of
plane failure. Hence if wall between two cross walls is exceeded prescribed limit it is
structurally vulnerable in seismic zone IV and V. if wall length is high buttress is used
to reduce the length between two walls.
Maximum length between two cross walls = 35 X thickness of wall (or) 8m whichever
is less Maximum height of the wall = 15 X thickness of the wall (or) 4m whichever is
less
Figure 3.12: Cross walls in masonry building (Source: CPWD & IBC Handbook;
Seismic Retrofit of Buildings 2007)

3.1.5 Seismic Safety Features for RC Frame Building
In this section it describes about seismic safety features of RC Frame building.
3.1.5.1 Frame Action

It is the prime requirement in RC frame buildings; it provides lateral load carrying
capacity to structure. Hence having only RC frame doesnt mean proper frame action
during earthquake, for proper frame action columns and beams should be orthogonal
to each other. Load will be transferred from slab to beam then beam to column and
from column to foundation. Secondary beams are provided to transfer load of the main
slab to primary beam then primary beams transfer load to columns.
Figure 3.13: Configuration of frame system secondary beam, primary beam and column
(Source: www.petervaldivia.com)

Figure 3.14: Frame system: (a) Moment resisting RC frame building, (b) Moment
resisting RC frame building with structural walls (Source: GSDMA 2012)
3.1.5.2 Soft storey

Buildings which have open parking space on ground storey, different heights of storey
levels, building with large windows and doors will comes under soft storey. As per IS
1893:2002 soft storey is defined as the building which has lateral stiffness is less than
70% of that in the storey above or less than 80% of the average lateral stiffness of the
three storey above.
Figure 3.15:Soft and ubrupt change of column height and damged building due to soft
storey (Source: CPWD & IBC Handbook; Seismic Retrofit of Buildings 2007)

3.1.5.3 Short Columns
The buildings which are on the hill slope having a unequal columns on the ground
storey or unequal columns on the same floor. Hence short column attracts more
horizontal forces than other columns in the building and are more susceptible to fail in
shear, if they are not designed to take care of such effect. Sometimes a column length
is not utilised fully in earthquake sway because of some restrictions in movement this
type of columns also called as short column. The most commonly observed columns
where free column length is reduced by attaching brick infill walls to some extent.
Figure 3.16: Short column effects (a) Sloping ground, (b) Mezzanine slab, (c) Staircase
beam/slab or K-braces on building columns and (d) Plinth beams in ground storey
(Source: GSDMA 2012)

Figure 3.17: Short column effect due to masonry infill walls (Source: GSDMA 2012)
3.1.5.4 Concept of Weak Beam Strong Column

Lateral forces generated by earthquake at each floor level are transferred through
beam, columns and to foundation. Hence failure of beam develops a localize failure
whereas failure of column can collapse whole structure. Hence RC frame buildings are
designed as weak beam and strong column. Large cross section of beam and slender
column section shows seismically vulnerable to whole structure.
Figure 3.18: Concept of Strong column and weak beam (Source: GSDMA 2012)
3.1.5.5 Pounding of Buildings

If two buildings are constructed too close, then there may be a chance of collision
during earthquake vibration and this effect is called Pounding. This effect is most
common in tall buildings constructed very adjacent to each other.

Figure 3.19: Various cases of pounding (Source: GSDMA 2012)
3.1.6 Building Distress and other important features

In this section it deals with building distress and other parameters of which reduces
building safety.
3.1.6.1 Cracks in the buildings

Condition of the building should be screened properly. Cracks in wall, beam and
columns of the building elements will cause more vulnerable to natural disaster. Crack
pattern describes its formation and cause of these cracks. Primary elements include
walls, beams and columns will be examined carefully to identify structural cracks.
3.1.6.2 Building Distresses

The main cause of building distress include lack of maintenance, poor quality of
construction, faulty design, settlement of foundation and settlement of foundation or
extreme loadings. There are various types of distresses present in the buildings which
are as follows.
1. Bulging of wall
2. Cracks in the corner of walls

3. Wall overturning and column sway
4. Corrosion of reinforcement
5. Water seepage and
6. Quality of construction
Figure 3.20: Modes of failures (a) Monotonic action and (b) Cyclic action (Source:
GSDMA 2012)
3.1.7 Non Structural Falling Hazards

As the height of structure increases its seismic vulnerability is also increase. Non
anchored or poorly anchored things example parapets, chimney, water tank, cladding,
heavy machines, communication tower heavy furniture, big hoardings etc. falling of
these objects may cause damage to peoples and buildings. It can cause loss of life and
damage to the property.

Figure 3.21: Non-Structural Falling Hazard (source: FEMA)
3.2 List of Parameters Considered for SVA of Masonry Buildings
Table 3.1: General Information of Building
1. General Information
Sl.No Parameters
1.1 Seismic Zone
1.2 Building Name
1.3 Address and Pin
1.4 Year of Built
1.5 No of Stories
1.6 Total area covered all floors (Sq.m)
1.7 Ground coverage (Sq.m)
1.8 Geo-Location
1.8.1 Latitude
1.8.2 Longitude

Table 3.2: Typology of Various Masonry Buildings
2. Masonry Building Typology

Sl.No Parameters Sl.No Parameters
2.1 Foundation Type 2.4 Roof Material
2.1.1 Strip footing 2.4.1 Reinforced Brick Concrete
2.1.2 Isolated pier footing 2.4.2 Reinforced Concrete
2.1.3 Any other (describe) 2.4.3 CGI (corrugated galvanised
iron sheets)
2.2 Wall type /Material 2.4.4 AC (asbestos cement sheets)
2.2.1 Earth/Adobe 2.4.5 Fibre sheets
2.2.2 Mud/rammed 2.4.6 Stone slates
2.2.3 Grass/thatch 2.4.7 Any other (describe)
2.2.4 GI sheet 2.5 Roof Under structure
2.2.5 Bamboo 2.5.1 Bamboo truss/Rafter/purlin
2.2.6 Wooden 2.5.2 Wooden truss/Rafter/purlin
2.2.7 Burnt/Unburnt Brick 2.5.3 Steel truss/Purlin
2.2.8 Dressed/Undressed Stone 2.5.4 Any other (describe)
2.2.9 Cement Concrete Blocks 2.6 Floor Material
2.2.10 Thickness of Wall 2.6.1 Mud
2.2.11 Any other (describe) 2.6.2 Cement Concrete
2.3 Roof Type 2.6.3 Wooden
2.3.1 Flat 2.6.4 Bamboo
2.3.2 Slope 2.7 Type of Mortar
2.3.2.1 Gable roof 2.7.1 Mud
2.3.2.2 Hip roof 2.7.2 Lime
2.3.2.3 Shed roof 2.7.3 Cement
Table 3.3: Geotechnical Characteristics of Buildings
3. Geotechnical Characteristics
3.1 Site Morphology Description
3.1.1 Flat topography 0 to 5 degrees

3.1.2 Crest Peak point of hill
3.1.3 Downward slope slope of hill/mountain
3.1.4 Trough depression between two downward
sloping hills
3.2 Depth of water table
3.3 Liquefaction Potential water table >3m for sandy soils
3.4 Type of Soil
3.4.1 Hard
ref IS 1893: 2002
3.4.2 Medium
3.4.3 Soft
3.5 Expansive or Non Expansive soil Black cotton soil
3.6 Land slide prone area
Table 3.4: Seismic Safety Features for Masonry Buildings
4. Seismic Safety Features

Sl.No Parameters Reference
4.1 Horizontal Plan Irregularity Geometry shape (L,H,U,T,+
and etc.,) IS:1893
4.2 Vertical Irregularity
4.2.1 Set-back ref IS:1893
4.2.2 Step-back
4.3 Horizontal Bands
4.3.1 Plinth Band
4.3.2 Lintel Band
4.3.3 Sill Band
ref IS:1893
4.3.4 Ceiling Band
4.3.5 Gable Band
4.3.6 Eaves level of pitched roof
4.3.7 Top of ridge wall
4.4 Vertical reinforcement at corner of the walls
4.4.1 At corner of rooms ref IS:1893
4.4.2 At T junction of walls

4.4.3 At Jambs of doors & windows
4.5 Diaphragm Opening ref IS:1893
4.6 Distance between openings
4.6.1 Distance between two successive openings ref IS:4326(1993)
4.6.2 Distance of opening from the corner of wall
4.7 Percentage of openings
4.7.1 First floor
ref IS:4326(1993)
4.7.2 second floor
4.7.3 third floor
4.8 Length between two cross walls ref IS:13935 (2009)
4.9 Height to width ratio ref IS:13935 (2009)
Table 3.5: Building Distress and Non Structural Falling Hazards
5. Building Distress and other 6. Non-Structural Falling

important features Hazards
5.1 Cracks in Building 6.1 Divisions/Partition
5.1.1 Wall 6.2 Faade elements
5.1.2 Beam 6.3 False ceiling
5.1.3 Column 6.4 Brick Parapets/pillars/planters
5.1.4 Window 6.5 Roof Chimneys
5.1.5 Door 6.6 RC/Masonry water tank on Roof
5.2 Bulging in column or wall 6.7 Signs/Display boards
5.3 Water seepage
5.4 Quality of construction
5.4.1 Good
5.4.2 Moderate
5.4.3 Bad

3.3 SVA Parameters for RC Frame Buildings
Table 3.6: General Information of Building
1. General Information
Sl.No Parameters
1.1 Seismic Zone
1.2 Building Name
1.3 Address and Pin
1.4 Year of Build
1.5 No of Stories
1.6 Total area covered all floors (Sq.m)
1.7 Ground coverage (Sq.m)
1.8 Geo-Location
1.8.1 Latitude
1.8.2 Longitude
Table 3.7: Typology of Various RC/Steel Frame Buildings
2. RC/Steel Frame Building Typology

Sl.No Parameters Sl.N Parameters
o
2.1 Foundation Type 2.5 Pitched roof under structure
2.1.1 Individual Footing 2.5.1 RCC elements
2.1.2 Individual Footing with 2.5.2 Steel truss/rafter/purlin
connecting beams
2.1.3 Beam Raft Foundation 2.5.3 Wood truss/rafter/purlin
2.1.4 Pile Foundation 2.5.4 Any other (describe)
2.1.5 Any other (describe) 2.6 Pitched roof covering
2.2 Wall Material 2.6.1 CGI Sheets
2.2.1 Burnt Brick 2.6.2 A.C. Sheets
2.2.2 Concrete Blocks 2.6.3 Fiber Sheets
2.2.3 Hollow Blocks 2.6.4 Any other
2.2.4 Any other (describe) 2.7 Type of Mortar
2.3 Flat Roof or Floor 2.7.2 Lime

2.3.1 RC slab or T beam 2.7.3 Cement
2.3.2 Steel beam and plate deck
2.3.3 Flat slab or flat plate
2.3.4 Overall depth of floor/roof
2.3.5 Any other
Table 3.8: Geotechnical Characteristics of Buildings
3. Geotechnical Characteristics
Sl.No Parameters Description
3.1 Site Morphology
3.1.1 Flat topography 0 to 5 degrees
3.1.2 Crest Peak point of hill
3.1.3 Downward slope slope of hill/mountain
3.1.4 Trough depression between two downward
sloping hills
3.2 Depth of water table
3.3 Liquefaction Potential water table <3m for sandy soils
3.4 Type of Soil
3.4.1 Hard
Ref IS 1893:(2002)
3.4.2 Medium
3.4.3 Soft
3.5 Expansive or Non Expansive soil
3.6 Land slide prone area
Table 3.9: Seismic Safety Features for RC/Steel Frame Buildings
4. Seismic Safety Features

Sl.No Parameters Reference
4.1 Horizontal Plan Irregularity
4.1.1 Torsion
4.1.2 Re-entrant corners
ref IS:1893
4.1.3 Diaphragm Discontinuity
4.1.4 Out plane offset
4.1.5 Non-Parallel system

4.2 Vertical Irregularity
4.2.1 Vertical geometric Irregularity
4.2.2 Soft Storey
ref IS:1893
4.2.3 Short Column
4.2.4 Set-back
4.2.5 Step-back
4.3 Mass Irregularity
ref IS:1893
4.3.1 Weak Storey
4.4 Load Path
4.5 Heavy Overhangs
4.6 Percentage of openings ref IS: 15988
4.7 Pounding ref IS: 15988
4.8 Diaphragm Opening ref IS:1893
Table 3.10: Building Distress and Non Structural Falling Hazards
5 Building Distress and other 6 Non-Structural Falling Hazards

important features
5.1 Cracks in Building 6.1 Divisions/Partition
5.1.1 Wall 6.2 Faade elements
5.1.2 Beam 6.3 False ceiling
5.1.3 Column 6.4 Brick Parapets/pillars/planters
5.1.4 Window 6.5 Roof Chimneys
5.1.5 Door 6.6 RC/Masonry water tank on Roof
5.2 Bulging in column or wall 6.7 Signs/Display boards
5.3 Water seepage
5.4 Quality of construction
5.4.1 Good
5.4.2 Moderate
5.4.3 Bad
5.5 Damage from the past
earthquake

CHAPTER-4
ANALYSIS AND DEVELOPMENT OF
ANDROID APPLICATION
4.1 Comparison of Vulnerability Factors
In analysis various seismic vulnerability assessments was studied and compared. In

Table 4.1 nine vulnerability methods are considered where each method is having
different approach to seismic assessment. All these different approaches are because
of their own codal provisions and site conditions (construction practices, materials,
environmental conditions and etc.,).
Table 4.1: Major Vulnerability Factors Considered for Different Seismic Vulnerability
Assessment Methods
Y = Considered, N = Not Considered, -= Not Clearly Mentioned

4.2 Performance Score of Building
India is divided into four seismic zones (IS 1893: 2002) i.e. Zone II, III, IV and V and
these zones are divided on the basis of expected intensity of earthquake ground motion
in various places of the country and past experiences. Hence it does not accounts
seismic vulnerability in terms of peak ground accelerations. Scoring pattern in USA
developed by FEMA has its own advantages and disadvantages, and this scoring
pattern is very much suitable for their regions. A strict pre-code penalty is given to the
structures which are constructed before enforcement of earthquake codes and similarly
a positive factor is considered in case of structures constructed after enforcement of
earthquake codes. Hence the effective enforcement of earthquake codal provisions
during construction of building assumes that building follows seismic safety
requirements at the time of construction.
It is not true in case of India because of non-availability of seismic code

enforcement during construction therefore FEMA scoring pattern are not very much
suitable to our conditions. Sudhir K. Jain and KeyaMitra (2008) has developed a
scoring methodology for Indian context. Scoring is based on the following parameters
of the building such as number of floors, structural irregularity, frame action, short
columns soil conditions, building quality, heavy overhangings, horizontal bands,
falling elements, diaphragm action, basement and etc.. On the basis of above
mentioned parameters a performance score of the structure is calculated. The
relationship of performance score is given as
PS = (BS) + [(VSM) X (VS)]
Here, PS = Performance Score
BS = Base Score
VSM = Vulnerability Score Modifiers
VS = Vulnerability Score
A building with more number of floors and highest seismic zone will get low score;
hence the building is more vulnerable. For Masonry and RC frame buildings base
score, vulnerability score modifiers and vulnerability scores are defined in Table 4.2

and 4.3 for masonry building typology Table 4.4 and 4.5 for RC frame building
typology.
Table 4.2: Base Score and Vulnerability Scores for Masonry Buildings in India
Table 4.3: Vulnerability Score Modifiers for Masonry Buildings in India

Table 4.4: Base Score and Vulnerability Scores for RC Frame Buildings in India
Table 4.5: Vulnerability Score Modifiers for RC Frame Buildings in India

4.3 Flow Chart of Android Application
START APP
LOGGED IN?
Home View Submitted Login Page

Buildings
New building
Completed? Have an account?
General info Resume Survey View Signup Login
RCC or Masonry
HOME
Masonry Structural and RCC Structural and
Non-structural Details Non-structural Details
Geotechnical
Characteristics
Of buildings
Masonry Seismic RCC Seismic
Safety Feature Safety Feature
Building Distress
& Non-Structural SVA Score
Falling Hazards

4.4 Development of Android Application
This section describes the development of android application for Seismic

Vulnerability Assessment (SVA) for Indian context, the main aim of this application,
is to improve RVS process and make it more rapid and effective. Presently this
application is developed for pre earthquake evaluation of buildings only hence post-
earthquake features are not included. This application is designed such a way that
screener (surveyors) or normal users can enter their building data and check their
seismic vulnerability condition of building. Only two type of structures are considered
Masonry and RC/Frame buildings it does not includes bridges, dams, water tanks and
etc.,.
The whole SVA process is divided into five stages:
Stage 1
User interface, Registration and

login
Stage 2
Pre-earthquake Evaluation
Stage 3
Building Parameters and checklists
Stage 4
Calculation of Building Performance

Score
Stage 5
Final Report Generation
Figure 4.1: Stages of RVS application

4.4.1 Android Application Screens
Figure 4.2: SVA Login Screen
It is a login screen where user has to login if he/she already registers or new user can
register themselves by click on sign up for new user text. Username and password will
be provided as user choice.

Figure 4.3: User Registration Screen
New user has to register themselves, registration process required some fields of
personnel data about the user it includes, full name, mobile number, e-mail id etc.,
here mobile number provided will be used as username and password has to be chosen
by user preference and shall be kept with user for future login.
Figure 4.4: Home page for server SVA
It is a home page for SVA users, where user can go for SVA of new building, View
submitted buildings, About the application, Logout and can submit Feedback
regarding their personal experience and improvement to application.
4.4.2 General Information

Figure 4.5: General Information Screen
This is first screen of General Information in which user have to fill details like Zone,
Building Name, Use of the building, Type of construction i.e. RCC or Masonry
building, photograph of building etc.
4.4.3 Structural and Non-Structural details
Figure 4.6: (a) RCC (b) Masonry building

In Structural and Non-Structural details user have to fill details like foundation type,
roof material, type of roof, wall type, type of mortar used for the construction of
building. These details are important from the structural stability point of view though
in our performance score they are of least importance for the time being but they are
important from structural point of view. It also depends upon the type of construction.
4.4.4 Geotechnical Characteristic
Topography of the area, depth of water table, type of soil, and other characteristics of
soil is to be filled by user on the basis of their knowledge of that particular area.

Figure 4.7: Geotechnical Characteristics
4.4.5 Seismic Safety Features
In this page user have to fill up mostly the data which will be going to affect the
performance score like structural irregularities (horizontal plan irregularity, vertical
irregularity) soft storey, short column etc for RCC buildings and many other things
like horizontal bands, vertical reinforcement etc. for Masonry buildings.
Figure 4.7: Seismic Safety Features

4.4.6 Building Distress and Non-Structural Falling Hazards
Users have to fill details like cracks, water seepage, symmetry of overhead water tank
if present, roof chimney, facade elements etc. These details will be same for both RCC
as well as Masonry structure and there are some parameters which are going to affect
the performance score of the buildings.
Figure 4.8: Building Distress and Non-Structural falling hazards

4.5 Features of Application
There are many features provided for the convenience of user like map of India to find
the seismic zone of their locality, help for some technical terms are also provided.
Feedback and suggestion can also be submitted.
Figure 4.9: Map of India based on seismic zone and hint for Ground Coverage

4.6 Masonry Building Report and Performance Score
Performance score of masonry building is depends on the above mentioned
parameters. Every structure has some minimum base score and it is calculated on the
basis of seismic zone in which the building is situated and number of floors of the
building. Performance score of each vulnerability parameter is calculated based on the
data filled by the screener at site.
Mark Sheet for Masonry Structure
Mark sheet is divided into three segments; first segment calculation of base score,
second stage vulnerability score calculation and in final stage performance score
calculation based on the above base score and vulnerability score.
Table 4.6: Performance Score of Masonry Building
Rapid Visual Screening of Masonry Buildings Mark sheet for Masonry Structure
for Earthquake Safety Seismic Zone
No of Base Score
Surveyor name V IV III and II
Stories
Qualification 1 or 2 100 130 150
Date 3 85 110 125
Purpose 4 70 90 110 150
5 50 60 70
Vulnerability Score (VS) Vulnerability Score

(VS X VSM)
No of Stories 1 or 2 3 4 5 Modifiers (VSM)
Doesn't exist/unsure =
Structural Irregularity -10 -10 -10 -10 0 -10
Exist= +1
Good= 0
Apparent quality -10 -10 -10 -10 Moderate= 1 -10
Poor= 2
Medium = 0
Soil Conditions 10 10 10 10 Hard = 1 10
Soft = -1
Doesn't Exist = 0
Normal apparent
condition of adjacent
Pounding 0 -3 -5 -5 building = 1 0
Poor apparent
condition of adjacent
building = 2

Openings
Small (less than 1/3)=
0
Wall Openings -5 -5 -5 -5 Moderate (Between 1/3 -5
and 1/2) = 1
Large (above 1/2) = 2
Reguar= 0
Opening Orientation -5 -5 -5 -5 0
Irregular= +1
Present/Unsure= 0
Diaphragm Action -10 -15 -15 -15 Lack of diaphragm 0
action = 1
other features
Exist = +1
Horizontal Bands 20 20 20 20 20
Does't Exist = -1
Exist = 1
Arches -10 -10 -10 -10 Doesn't exist/unsure = 0
0
Stone Masonry
Remedial Measures
Random Rubble exist = 0
-15 -15 -15 -15 0
Stone Masonry Walls Remedial Measures
Don't exist = 1
Does't Exist = 0
Water tank at roof Capacity < 5000 lit =
0 -3 -4 -5 0
(capacity) 0.5
Capacity < 5000 lit = 1
Location of Water Symmetrical = 0
0 -3 -4 -5 0
tank Unsymmetrical = 1
Basement full or Don't exist = 0
0 3 4 5 0
partial Exist = -1
[(VSM) X (VS)] 5
Performance Score = (BS) + [(VSM) X (VS)] Performance Score 155

4.6.1.1 Programming code for Base Score Calculation of masonry building

Above programming code is only for base score calculation whole performance score
calculation code is not shown here because of large programming, it is given in the
CD drive along with the book.

4.7 Performance Score and Report of RCC Structure

Figure 4.10: Performance Score and Report of a RCC Building
Every RC frame building has minimum some base score depends on the seismic zone
and number of storeys of the building. Further the performance score is calculated
after completing the survey of the building and filling the data required.
Mark Sheet for RC Frame Structure
Mark sheet is divided into three segments; first segment calculation of base score,
second stage vulnerability score calculation and in final stage performance score
calculation based on the above base score and vulnerability score.
Table 4.7: Performance Score of RC Frame Building
Score sheet for RC Frame

Rapid Visual Screening of RC Frame Buildings for Structure
Earthquake Safety
Seismic Zone
No of III and Base Score
Surveyor name V IV
Stories II
Qualification 1 or 2 100 130 150
Purpose 3 90 120 140
Date 4 75 100 120 130
5 65 85 100
>5 60 80 90
Vulnerability Score
(VS) Vulnerability Score (VS X
Modifiers (VSM) VSM)
No of Stories 1 or 2 3 4 5 >5
Doesn't exist = 0
Soft Storey 0 -15 -20 -25 -30 0
Exist= +1

Structural None = 0
-5 -10 -10 -10 -15 -5
Irregularities
Extreme = 2
Doesn't exist = 0
Heavy overhangings -5 -10 -10 -15 -15 0
Exists = +1
Good=0
Apparent quality -5 -10 -10 -15 -15 Moderate=1 0
Poor=2
Doesn't exist = 0
Short columns -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 0
Exists = +1
Doesn't exist = 0
Unaligned floors =
1
Poor apparent 0
Pounding 0 -2 -3 -3 -3
quality of adjacent
building = 2
Medium = 0
Soil Condition 10 10 10 10 10 Hard = 1 10
Soft = -1
Doesn't exist = -1
Frame action 10 10 10 10 10 Exists =+1 0
Not sure=0
Doesnt exists=0
Water tank at roof capacity <5000 lit =
0 -3 -4 -5 -5 0.5 0
(capacity)
capacity >5000 lit =
1
Symmetrical =0
Location of water
0 -3 -4 -5 -5 0
tank Unsymmetrical = 1
Basement-Full or Doesnt exists=0

0 3 4 5 5 0
Partial Exists =-1
[(VSM) X (VS)] 5
Performance 135
Performance Score = (BS) + [(VSM) X (VS)]
Score

4.7.1.1 Programming code for Base Score Calculation of RC Frame building

Above code is only for base score calculation whereas whole performance score
calculation code is given on the CD back side of the report.

CHAPTER-5
RESULTS AND FINAL REPORT OF

BUILDING
5.1 Results
With the help of android application, data is being collected and compared
with various aspects for the wide acceptance of this application
Table 5.1 Comparison of data provided by SVA users
Building Name(Year of Build) ASHUTOSH SADAN

Address and PIN Rajendranagar Patna
Use of Building Residential
Construction Type RCC
No. of stories 2
ZONE IV
Engineering Attributes User 1 User 2 User 3

2
Total area covered all floors (m ) 510 500 600
Ground coverage area (m2) 255 250 300
Foundation Type Individual Footing Individual Footing Not Sure
Wall Material Burnt Bricks Burnt Bricks Burnt Bricks
Roof Type RC Slab or T-
RC Slab or T-Beam RC Slab or T-Beam
Beam
Overall depth of floor 125 150 150
Type of mortar Cement Cement Cement
Type of soil Medium Medium Hard
Horizontal Plan Irregularities Yes No No
Vertical Irregularities No No No
Soft Story No No No
Percentage Opening 11.6 10 0
Pounding Doesnt exist Doesnt exist Doesnt exist
Frame Action Yes Yes Not Sure
Cracks in buildings No No Yes (Walls)
Water Seepage No No No
Damage from past earthquake No No No

Apparent quality Moderate Good Good
Basement No No No
Facade element No No No
Bricks parapet Yes Yes No
Performance Score 130 130 140
User 1: PRANAV KUMAR, Structural engineer with good technical knowledge

and trained with RVS process.
User 2: VIKALP PATEL (Civil Engineer), Person with technical knowledge.
User 3: VIKASH SINGH (Teacher), Resident of the building with no technical

knowledge.

CHAPTER-6
CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusion
For the development of any effective disaster mitigation programme, it is necessary to

identify the seismically deficient structures. Hence, many countries have their own
methodologies to handle seismic assessment of buildings, but they are according to
their local conditions like there soil condition, depth of water table, material of
construction used, type of construction, topography of area and various other factors
and hence not suitable for Indian conditions. There are no any mobile applications
developed for seismic assessment in India. Therefore there is a urgent need of such
type of technology to catch up with this lightening fast moving world for Indian
conditions. Hence this android based application for vulnerability assessment is very
effective in data collection, synchronization, analysis and disaster mitigation plans.
With the help of mobile based android application, we can fill the data and
simultaneously a score is generated considering the present health of structure. Where
buildings having more number of stories or which are located in higher seismic zones
will get less performance score as compared to the buildings having less number of
stories and are in low seismic zone.
In this android application, data can be stored safely and can be updated in future if
any change is need to be done.
The data uploaded includes photograph of building which increases reliability of data
given by the surveyor and confirms building details with its latitude and longitude.

6.2 Future Scope
In this android application we have only considered about pre-earthquake

evaluation process, but post-earthquake evaluation process can also be added
in future, also can be compared and merged with pre-earthquake evaluation
process and can be used for effective disaster management system for a
community.
This android application may be further used for Simplified Vulnerability
Assessment (Level II) and Detailed Vulnerability Assessment (Level III) in
future.
We can also export the data collected in Excel sheet or in any other format in
future.
This application can be updated in future to support various languages in India

which will help us to break linguistic barrier and all set and communities of
people can use this application.
Image uploaded can be improved to Geo-tagged image with the help of which
latitude and longitude can be directly uploaded and which will increase the
reliability of data.
Filters can be applied on various basis like year of construction, earthquake

zone, performance score (increasing or decreasing) and then results can be
generalised.
There is a lot of research work need to be done because in our result when we
compared score of two different person they were same though they have filled
various different data.
Collected building data can be used for other disasters like flood, cyclone etc.
Online advice with the help of chatting can also be implemented.

6.3 Limitations
Offline operation is not possible for android application, this procedure

requires data connectivity to perform this Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of
a building without which data synchronization is not possible.
Requirement of android mobile for the installation and data collection.
Basic knowledge of civil engineering is required to fill up certain data of the

form like foundation type, Structural irregularities, Pounding etc.
Android Mobile application only gives information about vulnerability of the

building i.e., where structure is deficient in seismic action but not give exact
information about what extent the damage in the structure, to know this next
level of seismic performance is required.

Chapter-1: Dept. of CE, NIT Patna

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Chapter-1: Dept. of CE, NIT Patna

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CHAPTER-1

Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 1

Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 2

The evaluation of seismic hazard includes the estimation of results of an seismic

Risk = Hazard X Vulnerability X Exposure

1.1 Vulnerability Assessment

Seismic Vulnerability evaluations are carried out in three levels.

Rapid Visual Screening

1.1.1 Rapid Visual Screening (RVS)

Rapid Visual Screening is a process of visual inspection and no technical calculations

1.1.2 Simplified Vulnerability Assessment (SVA)

Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 3

1.2 Objective Derived from the Work

Objective of the Work:

Develop a simplified methodology for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment for Indian

1.3 Need for SVA Application

Rapid Assessment: It will save the time in Seismic Vulnerability Assessment

Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 4

1.4 Organisation of The Dissertation

In this chapter we studied about the basics of earthquake and seismic

Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 5

Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 6

2.1 Existing Vulnerability Assessment Methods

2.1.1 FEMA 154

Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 7

2.1.2 FEMA 310

Immediate Occupancy: Marginal damage to both non-structural and structural

FEMA 310 is carries on three phases:

Tier 1 Screening Phase: in screening phase it mainly considered structural, non-

Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 8

2.1.3 EURO CODE 8

2.1.4 NEW ZEALAND GUIDELINE

2.1.5 MODIFIED TURKISH METHOD

Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 9

2.1.7 SWISS STANDARD (SIA)

Stage 2: Seismic vulnerability of selected elements is studied in more detail.

Stage 3: Remedial or strengthening measures are developed for limited number of

2.1.8 JAPANESE TECHNIQUE (JBDPA 2001)

2.1.9 RVS METHOLDOLOGY PROPOSED BY Dr. ANAND S ARYA

Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 10

2.1.11 IS 13935 (2009): SEISMIC EVALUATION, REPAIR AND

2.1.12 IS 15988 (2013): SEISMIC EVALUATION AND STRENGHTENINH

Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 11

Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 12

Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 13

ShashankMishra (2004), it is an guidebook for integrated rapid visual screening of

Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 14

Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 15

METHODOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT OF

3.1 Parameters considered for SVA process

3.1.1 General information of building

3.1.1.1 Seismic Zone

3.1.1.2 Building Name and Address

Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 16

3.1.1.4 Building Types

Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 17

3.1.1.5 Number of Stories

3.1.1.6 Built-up Area

Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 18

3.1.1.8 Type of Wall, Roof and Floor Material

3.1.1.9 Type of Roof

Dept. Of CE, NIT Patna Page 19