Figure 1 - uploaded by Ravi Sinha
Content may be subject to copyright.
Seismic zoning map of India (IS 1893-2002 (Part 1)).
Context in source publication
Context 1
... the use of detailed evaluation methods is recommended. Even in urban areas, some very weak forms of non-engineered buildings are well-known for their low seismic vulnerability and do not require RVS to estimate their vulnerability. These building types are also not included in the RVS procedure. The results from rapid visual screening can be used for a variety of applications that are an integral part of the earthquake disaster risk management programme of a city or a region. The main uses of this procedure are: 1. To identify if a particular building requires further evaluation for assessment of its seismic vulnerability. 2. To rank a city’s or community’s (or organisation’s) seismic rehabilitation needs. 3. To design seismic risk management program for a city or a community. 4. To plan post-earthquake building safety evaluation efforts. 5. To develop building-specific seismic vulnerability information for purposes such as regional rating, prioritisation for redevelopment etc. 6. To identify simplified retrofitting requirements for a particular building (to collapse prevention level) where further evaluations are not feasible. 7. To increase awareness among city residents regarding seismic vulnerability of buildings. As per IS 1893:2002 (Part 1), India has been divided into 4 seismic zones (Figure 1). The details of different seismic zones are given below: Zone II Low seismic hazard (maximum damage during earthquake may be upto MSK intensity VI) Zone III Moderate seismic hazard (maximum damage during earthquake may be upto MSK intensity VII) Zone IV High seismic hazard (maximum damage during earthquake may be upto MSK intensity VIII) Zone V Very high seismic hazard (maximum damage during earthquake may be of MSK intensity IX or greater) When a particular damage intensity occurs, different building types experience different levels of damage depending on their inherent characteristics. For carrying out the rapid visual screening, only three hazard zones have been defined, corresponding to low seismic risk (Zone II), moderate seismic risk (Zone III) and high seismic risk (Zones IV and V). More precise categorisation of hazard zones between Zone IV and Zone V does not enable better assessment of structural vulnerability using RVS procedure due to the influence of a large number of other factors on the building performance when the ground shaking is very intense. A wide variety of construction types and building materials are used in urban areas of India. These include local materials such as mud and straw, semi-engineered materials such as burnt brick and stone masonry and engineered materials such as concrete and steel. The seismic vulnerability of the different building types depends on the choice ...
Similar publications
Seismic vulnerability and its evaluation are a critical issue involving various parameters of structural safety. Various types of vulnerability index method and assessment procedures have been identified by various researchers across the world. This paper summarizes the seismic vulnerability assessment methodology for various typology of buildings....
This is an updated and expanded version of my previous technical note on earthquake-induced settlements due to compaction. It now includes suggestions for a better methodology for screening evaluations and a much improved method for conducting more detailed analyses.
Citations
... This forces the Government authorities to identify the vulnerabilities of building typologies all over the country against seismic forces and to formulate the recommendations to improve the safety of existing buildings. Lots of improvement have been carried out in Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) for common types of structures in the recent past [1][2][3][4][5][6]. ...
Earthquake safety assessment of existing buildings is necessary to ascertain their seismic capacity to sustain medium to severe earthquakes because many of them are constructed by individuals without considering the standard design and construction guidelines. The increasing number of ground shakes in the country alarming us to safeguard the built environment from the adverse effects of earthquakes by evaluating and retrofitting the deficient buildings using suitable seismic control technologies. In this project seismic damage assessment of a multi-storey RC building is carried out using performance-based approach (non-linear time history analysis) and the seismic damage state of the buildings is determined based on the maximum inter-storey drift ratio. Four models of G+14 storey RC building are used in the analysis, namely, bare frame, frame with friction damper and frame with slit damper. In order to perform the non-linear time history analysis, El-Centro earthquake data of maximum PGA of 0.3172 g is scaled to have the ground motions from 0.1 g to 1.0 g. On the basis of the outcome the performance of the building with slit damper works well than the frame with friction damper. 1 Introduction India has the second-highest population in the world, and 82% of its citizens live there despite about 60% of its landmass being vulnerable to moderate-to-severe earthquakes. Future seismic occurrences in earthquake-prone locations will rise as a result of rapid urbanization and population growth. An earthquake's effects on buildings and other structures cause deaths, injuries, and financial harm for a nation. Most of the buildings in the seismic prone regions are constructed by individual landholders and do not satisfy the design and construction guidelines specified in the Indian standard codes. Therefore, majority of the population live in these regions are under seismic threat. This forces the Government authorities to identify the vulnerabilities of building typologies all over the country against seismic forces and to formulate the recommendations to improve the safety of existing buildings. Lots of improvement have been carried out in Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) for common types of structures in the recent past.
... Table 2 shows which attributes have been considered by each Seismic Code. It is a fact that each code considers its own vector of structural aspects [3][4][5][6][7][8]17]. ...
Seismic vulnerability assessment is one of the most impactful engineering challenges faced by modern societies. Thus, authorities require a reliable tool that has the potential to rank given structures according to their seismic vulnerability. Various countries and organizations over the past decades have developed Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) tools aiming to efficiently estimate vulnerability indices. In general, RVS tools employ a set of structural features and their associated weights to obtain a vulnerability index, which can be used for ranking. In this paper, Machine Learning (ML) models are implemented within this framework. The proposed formulation is used to train binary classifiers in conjunction with ad hoc rules, employing the features of various Codes (e.g., the Federal Emergency Management Agency, New Zealand, and Canada). The efficiency of this modeling effort is evaluated for each Code separately and it is clearly demonstrated that ML-based models are capable of outperforming currently established engineering practices. Furthermore, in the spirit of the aforementioned Codes, a linearization of the fully trained ML model is proposed. ML feature attribution techniques, namely SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) are employed to introduce weights similar to engineering practices. The promising results motivate the potential applicability of this methodology towards the recalibration of the RVS procedures for various types of cases.
... As a result, studies related to proposing the guidelines for performing a rapid visual screening (RVS)-based assessment of the buildings were also picked up in India. Sinha and Goyal (2004) proposed the guidelines for performing RVS, which was inspired by FEMA 154 (FEMA 2002). Later, Arya andAgarwal (2006, 2007) prepared concise guidelines for performing RVS and assigning a damageability grade to the masonry and reinforced concrete (RC) buildings. ...
Due to rapid growth in tourism and other economic activities, several small cities and towns in the Indian Himalayan region are facing problem of unplanned construction and extended use of deteriorating old structures. Despite being in the most active zone of seismic activity, significant non-engineered construction is practiced in this region. Hence, it becomes essential to examine the existing engineered and non-engineered building typologies and assess their vulnerabilities against earthquake shaking. This study presents typical engineered and non-engineered construction practices observed through a survey of 1009 buildings located within Mandi, a small town in the lap of the great Himalayas in the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh. An attempt is made to identify the typical building typologies, visible structural irregular features and their seismic vulnerability. A few building typologies are found typically predominantly prevail in northern zone of Indian Himalayan region. Rapid visual screening (RVS) of the surveyed buildings is performed using different existing guidelines. It is observed that a substantial number of buildings with hybrid typology (stone masonry mixed with brick masonry or reinforced concrete) are prevailing in the study area. It is also observed that the seismic vulnerability, as per the adopted RVS guidelines, of majority of the buildings is high, indicating urgent demand for safeguarding the vulnerable built environment and develop the framework for seismic resilient society. It is further concluded that use of region-specific vulnerability attributes can improve the segregate of buildings based on the expected damage.
... RVS was developed by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) in the late 1980s and published in FEMA-154 in 1988. There have been various updated versions over the years after that, including versions from FEMA (FEMA 1994(FEMA , 1998(FEMA , 2015FEMA-433 2004) and other experts (Arya 2006;Jain et al. 2010;NDMA 2020;Ruggieri et al. 2020;Sinha and Goyal 2001). In our publication , the RVS methodology developed by various authorities and experts is compared and described in detail and is also available as Annexure A1 of this thesis. ...
... after reviewing several existing survey forms (AjayArya 2006;BMTPC 2019;FEMA 2015;NDMA 2021;Sinha and Goyal 2001) used nationally for multi-hazard risk assessments. According to this comparative study, survey questionnaires themselves were not specifically designed for hill communities. ...
The Indian Himalayas are one of the world's most significant and extensive mountain ecosystems. However, due to their tectonic activity, structural instability and mature nature, they are prone to multiple hazards, with huge loss of life and damage to property every year. Unrecognised practices, poor-engineering, and irresponsible development initiatives increase disaster risk and severity in the region, which turned many natural hazards into human-induced disasters. Such disasters further strain an economy already under stress, with devastating socio-economic consequences.
Uttarakhand is an Indian Himalayan state located in the northern region of India. Being a Himalayan state, it experiences disasters every year with great losses. Among the most notable disasters in the state are the Uttarkashi earthquake (1991), Chamoli earthquake (1999), Malpa landslide (1998), the Himalayan tsunamis of Badrinath and Kedarnath (2013), and the recent sinking of Joshimath town (2023). Besides being in seismic zones V and IV, it is also susceptible to multiple hazards like floods, landslides, cloudbursts etc.
Tourism is a major attraction in the state, and it is a popular destination for pilgrimages and leisure activities. It is estimated that over 25 million tourists visited the state in 2011, which has a population of about 10 million, despite the fact that the state faces frequent natural hazards especially during the monsoon season. While the state has abundant natural resources and tourism activities, most of its population lives on a survival level, making it vulnerable to disaster impacts and recovery. In this region, unscientific exploitation of natural resources has resulted in increased hazards and environmental degradation (Singh, 2006). For the aforementioned reasons, Uttarakhand state was chosen for this study as it desperately needs a prioritisation development decision framework for sustainable risk-resilient planning.
The focus and overall aim of this study is to identify the parameters that are increasing the risk most significantly and slowing down the disaster recovery process in the Indian Himalayan Region. The Multi-hazard Risk Assessment (MHRA) component of the study will examine pre-disaster factors and the Disaster Recovery study will examine post-disaster factors. The significant parameters identified are connected with sustainable development goals and validated using a participatory approach.
This study has four specific objectives. The first is to identify risks in the region by identifying gaps in existing construction practices and development trends. The MHRA hill specific survey forms are one of the major outcomes of this objective, which are based on hill specific conditions and a review of existing relevant forms used in India. The proposed MHRA form was used to collect data from 561 buildings (residential and school buildings) in four districts of Uttarakhand, including Dehradun, Haridwar, Uttarkashi and Almora. To calculate the risk, the data is analysed into hazards, vulnerabilities, and exposures using the Safety Index equation. Through the analysis of every building component that poses a high risk to structure, the study identifies gaps in existing construction practices. For example, due to the absence of the required number of earthquake bands 72.4% of surveyed buildings are at high risk, 70.3% are at high risk due to improved slopes and roof condition, and 27.1% are at high risk due to structural cracks. In addition, the study identifies potential multi-hazards within and around the buildings. According to the results, 67.1% of surveyed buildings are at high risk due to non-structural risks within the building, 51.8% are at high risk due to a lack of preparedness and poorly maintained fire equipment, and 31.9% are at high risk due to landslides.
The second objective of this study focuses on post-disaster recovery, and aims to identify the key parameters that contribute to disaster recovery. An official and secondary source was used to select the site based on a recent major disaster. A door-to-door survey was conducted at 716 buildings spread throughout the states. During the field survey, it was found that people in off-touristic and/or remote locations responded differently than those on on-touristic and/or Char-Dham routes. Despite the fact that both locations are equally affected by disaster, disaster recovery on off-touristic routes appears to be slower than on tourist routes.
In order to prove this hypothesis, the Mann Whitney U test is used to identify variables that are significantly different between the two independent groups of villages (on and off the touristic route). Several interesting facts and parameters were identified in this study that could speed up disaster recovery. According to the study, there is a significant difference in socioeconomic conditions between the two groups, confirming the classification of the villages People on touristic routes are mostly employed in private jobs, earning an average of Rs 10,000 to 25,000 ($122 to $305), which makes them above the poverty line. However, people on the off-touristic route rely on agriculture and daily wage work for survival, earning less than Rs10,000 ($122) per month, which puts them below the poverty line.
Statistics show that both groups differ in various sectors such as concern for disasters, satisfaction with life and livelihood, understanding of Disaster Risk Reduction, external support, etc. Most respondents on the tourist route (28%) report very low levels of stress as they are mostly recovered, while those off the tourist route (60%) report high levels of stress, as they were still struggling to recover from past disasters. Decision makers must therefore pay special attention to off-touristic route villages due to their vulnerability to hazards, incapacity to cope, and insufficient assistance from outside sources. Post-disaster studies have shown that income from main or alternative livelihoods plays an important role in disaster recovery. There is, therefore, a need to promote and incorporate sectors into the policies that can enhance their sources of income and create livelihood opportunities.
The third objective of this study uses the results of pre and post disaster studies, and identifies significant contributing factors or parameters and integrates the results with sustainability at a micro level with 29 sectors of Gram Panchayat Development Plan (GPDP) and at a macro level with 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Lastly, it develops a tentative framework with GPDP sectors ranked from top to bottom quantifying their role, as per identified significant parameters. As per this result, rank 1 is vocational education/Skill development (GPDP-18) followed by Rural Housing (GPDP-10) as rank 2, Land improvement (GPDP-2) as rank 3, Maintenance of community assets (GPDP-29) as rank 4 and Agriculture (GPDP-1), Small scale industries (GPDP-8), and Khadi village and cottage industries (GPDP-9) as rank 5.
The 4th objective of the research focuses on validating the rank and result of various GPDP through a participatory approach to know the expectations of the people. It also finalises the framework process that prioritises site specific risk resilient sustainable development planning decisions. In the participatory approach, 19 village-level disaster awareness programs and interactive sessions were conducted with 96 participants. In this program, people were sensitised in their local languages about DRR, 29-GPDP, 17-SDGs, and listened to their disaster experiences and opinions on DRR. People say that instead of benefiting from the policies, they are becoming victims of them since they are unevenly distributed. They were given five votes to vote for the 5 GPDP that they felt were needed in their region for DRR. The total number of votes received was 480, with maximum votes to vocational education (51 Votes), rural housing (42 votes), and support in agriculture (36 votes).
An approach that follows a statistical, scientific, and participatory approach (for validation) was used to develop the final framework for decision prioritisation for hill communities based on the Sustainable Development Goals on a micro to macro level. In order to summarise the priority, top five priorities need to be worked and incorporated into the policies include, (1) Vocational skill development of the people towards economical and structural strengthening that leads to SDG-4 (Quality Education) and SDG-8 (Decent work and economic growth) (2) Improving the rural housing toward resilient development by retrofitting the existing structures and improving future construction practices towards resilient construction that leads to SDG-11 (Sustainable Community) (3) Land improvement in the disaster prone zone especially in landslide and flood prone zone by constructing the retaining wall in order to protect the settlement, that leads to SDG-11 (4) providing support to the community by providing alternative sources of income and livelihood opportunities in their region by developing ecotourism, promoting local industries etc. that may improve their socio-economic conditions, that leads to SDG-8 and SDG-9 (Industry and Innovation) and (5) promote formal-informal education and awareness of DRR among adults and children will fulfil the SDG-4.
This study is a comprehensive approach aimed at addressing the unique challenges faced by hill habitats and with a participatory approach, this framework could lead to a risk-resilient development and sustainable development as per the expectation of the local people who are real sufferers of the disaster. By taking decisions based on priorities, we will not only be able to reduce risk and assist disaster recovery, but also achieve sustainability through planned matters and the efficient utilisation of funds.
... RVS was developed by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) in the late 1980s and published in FEMA-154 in 1988. There have been various updated versions over the years after that, including versions from FEMA (FEMA 1994(FEMA , 1998(FEMA , 2015FEMA-433 2004) and other experts (Arya 2006;Jain et al. 2010;NDMA 2020;Ruggieri et al. 2020;Sinha and Goyal 2001). In our publication , the RVS methodology developed by various authorities and experts is compared and described in detail and is also available as Annexure A1 of this thesis. ...
... after reviewing several existing survey forms (AjayArya 2006;BMTPC 2019;FEMA 2015;NDMA 2021;Sinha and Goyal 2001) used nationally for multi-hazard risk assessments. According to this comparative study, survey questionnaires themselves were not specifically designed for hill communities. ...
The Indian Himalayas are one of the world's most significant and extensive mountain ecosystems. However, due to their tectonic activity, structural instability and mature nature, they are prone to multiple hazards, with huge loss of life and damage to property every year. Unrecognised practices, poor-engineering, and irresponsible development initiatives increase disaster risk and severity in the region, which turned many natural hazards into human-induced disasters. Such disasters further strain an economy already under stress, with devastating socio-economic consequences.
Uttarakhand is an Indian Himalayan state located in the northern region of India. Being a Himalayan state, it experiences disasters every year with great losses. Among the most notable disasters in the state are the Uttarkashi earthquake (1991), Chamoli earthquake (1999), Malpa landslide (1998), the Himalayan tsunamis of Badrinath and Kedarnath (2013), and the recent sinking of Joshimath town (2023). Besides being in seismic zones V and IV, it is also susceptible to multiple hazards like floods, landslides, cloudbursts etc.
Tourism is a major attraction in the state, and it is a popular destination for pilgrimages and leisure activities. It is estimated that over 25 million tourists visited the state in 2011, which has a population of about 10 million, despite the fact that the state faces frequent natural hazards especially during the monsoon season. While the state has abundant natural resources and tourism activities, most of its population lives on a survival level, making it vulnerable to disaster impacts and recovery. In this region, unscientific exploitation of natural resources has resulted in increased hazards and environmental degradation (Singh, 2006). For the aforementioned reasons, Uttarakhand state was chosen for this study as it desperately needs a prioritisation development decision framework for sustainable risk-resilient planning.
The focus and overall aim of this study is to identify the parameters that are increasing the risk most significantly and slowing down the disaster recovery process in the Indian Himalayan Region. The Multi-hazard Risk Assessment (MHRA) component of the study will examine pre-disaster factors and the Disaster Recovery study will examine post-disaster factors. The significant parameters identified are connected with sustainable development goals and validated using a participatory approach.
This study has four specific objectives. The first is to identify risks in the region by identifying gaps in existing construction practices and development trends. The MHRA hill specific survey forms are one of the major outcomes of this objective, which are based on hill specific conditions and a review of existing relevant forms used in India. The proposed MHRA form was used to collect data from 561 buildings (residential and school buildings) in four districts of Uttarakhand, including Dehradun, Haridwar, Uttarkashi and Almora. To calculate the risk, the data is analysed into hazards, vulnerabilities, and exposures using the Safety Index equation. Through the analysis of every building component that poses a high risk to structure, the study identifies gaps in existing construction practices. For example, due to the absence of the required number of earthquake bands 72.4% of surveyed buildings are at high risk, 70.3% are at high risk due to improved slopes and roof condition, and 27.1% are at high risk due to structural cracks. In addition, the study identifies potential multi-hazards within and around the buildings. According to the results, 67.1% of surveyed buildings are at high risk due to non-structural risks within the building, 51.8% are at high risk due to a lack of preparedness and poorly maintained fire equipment, and 31.9% are at high risk due to landslides.
The second objective of this study focuses on post-disaster recovery, and aims to identify the key parameters that contribute to disaster recovery. An official and secondary source was used to select the site based on a recent major disaster. A door-to-door survey was conducted at 716 buildings spread throughout the states. During the field survey, it was found that people in off-touristic and/or remote locations responded differently than those on on-touristic and/or Char-Dham routes. Despite the fact that both locations are equally affected by disaster, disaster recovery on off-touristic routes appears to be slower than on tourist routes.
In order to prove this hypothesis, the Mann Whitney U test is used to identify variables that are significantly different between the two independent groups of villages (on and off the touristic route). Several interesting facts and parameters were identified in this study that could speed up disaster recovery. According to the study, there is a significant difference in socioeconomic conditions between the two groups, confirming the classification of the villages People on touristic routes are mostly employed in private jobs, earning an average of Rs 10,000 to 25,000 ($122 to $305), which makes them above the poverty line. However, people on the off-touristic route rely on agriculture and daily wage work for survival, earning less than Rs10,000 ($122) per month, which puts them below the poverty line.
Statistics show that both groups differ in various sectors such as concern for disasters, satisfaction with life and livelihood, understanding of Disaster Risk Reduction, external support, etc. Most respondents on the tourist route (28%) report very low levels of stress as they are mostly recovered, while those off the tourist route (60%) report high levels of stress, as they were still struggling to recover from past disasters. Decision makers must therefore pay special attention to off-touristic route villages due to their vulnerability to hazards, incapacity to cope, and insufficient assistance from outside sources. Post-disaster studies have shown that income from main or alternative livelihoods plays an important role in disaster recovery. There is, therefore, a need to promote and incorporate sectors into the policies that can enhance their sources of income and create livelihood opportunities.
The third objective of this study uses the results of pre and post disaster studies, and identifies significant contributing factors or parameters and integrates the results with sustainability at a micro level with 29 sectors of Gram Panchayat Development Plan (GPDP) and at a macro level with 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Lastly, it develops a tentative framework with GPDP sectors ranked from top to bottom quantifying their role, as per identified significant parameters. As per this result, rank 1 is vocational education/Skill development (GPDP-18) followed by Rural Housing (GPDP-10) as rank 2, Land improvement (GPDP-2) as rank 3, Maintenance of community assets (GPDP-29) as rank 4 and Agriculture (GPDP-1), Small scale industries (GPDP-8), and Khadi village and cottage industries (GPDP-9) as rank 5.
The 4th objective of the research focuses on validating the rank and result of various GPDP through a participatory approach to know the expectations of the people. It also finalises the framework process that prioritises site specific risk resilient sustainable development planning decisions. In the participatory approach, 19 village-level disaster awareness programs and interactive sessions were conducted with 96 participants. In this program, people were sensitised in their local languages about DRR, 29-GPDP, 17-SDGs, and listened to their disaster experiences and opinions on DRR. People say that instead of benefiting from the policies, they are becoming victims of them since they are unevenly distributed. They were given five votes to vote for the 5 GPDP that they felt were needed in their region for DRR. The total number of votes received was 480, with maximum votes to vocational education (51 Votes), rural housing (42 votes), and support in agriculture (36 votes).
An approach that follows a statistical, scientific, and participatory approach (for validation) was used to develop the final framework for decision prioritisation for hill communities based on the Sustainable Development Goals on a micro to macro level. In order to summarise the priority, top five priorities need to be worked and incorporated into the policies include, (1) Vocational skill development of the people towards economical and structural strengthening that leads to SDG-4 (Quality Education) and SDG-8 (Decent work and economic growth) (2) Improving the rural housing toward resilient development by retrofitting the existing structures and improving future construction practices towards resilient construction that leads to SDG-11 (Sustainable Community) (3) Land improvement in the disaster prone zone especially in landslide and flood prone zone by constructing the retaining wall in order to protect the settlement, that leads to SDG-11 (4) providing support to the community by providing alternative sources of income and livelihood opportunities in their region by developing ecotourism, promoting local industries etc. that may improve their socio-economic conditions, that leads to SDG-8 and SDG-9 (Industry and Innovation) and (5) promote formal-informal education and awareness of DRR among adults and children will fulfil the SDG-4.
This study is a comprehensive approach aimed at addressing the unique challenges faced by hill habitats and with a participatory approach, this framework could lead to a risk-resilient development and sustainable development as per the expectation of the local people who are real sufferers of the disaster. By taking decisions based on priorities, we will not only be able to reduce risk and assist disaster recovery, but also achieve sustainability through planned matters and the efficient utilisation of funds.
... From the vulnerability assessment of 36% of healthcare facilities in Uttarakhand state, India using the RVS method of FEMA-154, Joshi et al. [67] observed that approximately 67% of healthcare facilities will be in disuse immediately after an earthquake, and healthcare facilities in Nainital, Champawat, Tehri Garhwal, Almora, Haridwar, and Pithoragarh districts are highly vulnerable. Bhalkikar and Kumar [30] compared different RVS methods [2,20,43,65,112] across building stock in three Indian towns, namely Gangtok, Pithoragarh, and Agartala. It was observed that the different RVS methods were not consistent in the outcomes on the vulnerabilities of the same building stock across these towns. ...
... It was observed that the different RVS methods were not consistent in the outcomes on the vulnerabilities of the same building stock across these towns. Ishack et al. [64] compared different RVS methods [4,43,65,112] across five two-storey buildings with different plan layouts `in Kharagpur city, India. RVS methods resulted in identical scores despite significantly different plan layouts if the details of irregularities are not identifiable from the field visual survey. ...
The primary constructions on hill slopes of India’s seismically active Himalayan regions are sloping ground buildings. Based on rapid visual screening, many of these towns have vulnerable built stock, inherently irregular in geometry, owing to both plan and vertical irregularities imposed by slopes. The current paper presents a comprehensive review of the classification of sloping ground buildings, their source of irregularity, parameters influencing seismic response, irregularity and storey damage descriptors, and vulnerability methods to quantify their seismic performance. Finally, different seismic retrofit strategies for their improved
seismic performance are also presented. Six principal typologies prevalent in practice are identified in sloping ground buildings. Irregular geometry, storey ratio, slope angle, and type of foundation soil are the most prominent influencing parameters of seismic performance. Among these typologies, step-back buildings are more vulnerable than split foundation and step-back setback buildings. These buildings’ upper street-level columns attract more shear forces during seismic shaking than the lower street-level columns, leading to brittle catastrophic failure. Different vertical irregularity descriptors, storey damage descriptors, and vulnerability assessment methods are available for generic RC buildings. However, the applicability of these descriptors and vulnerability methods needs to be verified in the case of sloping ground buildings. Nature of structural modeling (2D vs 3D frames) and consideration of soil–structure effects can be critical in seismic modeling and analysis of such typologies. Methods such as earthing tie beams, RC walls, RC-filled steel tubular columns, and strengthening ground-storey columns have been suggested to improve the performance of these buildings.
... Various RVS methods for seismic vulnerability assessment of building in the Indian context were proposed by Sinha and Goyal [6] , Arya and Agarwal [7][8] , Agrawal and Chourasia [9] , Jain et al. [10] , BMTPC [11] , Rautela et al. [12] , Sreerama et al. [13] , Ningthoujam and Nanda [14] , NDMA [5] , Aggarwal and Saha [15] , etc. Primitive attempts of developing RVS method in Indian context were more qualitative and based on the experience gained by the assessors from past earthquake damage data [5,[7][8]11] . However, another prevalent approach for performing RVS exists in literature in which some weightage to each considered vulnerability attribute is assigned based on the observed damage it had caused to the building during past earthquakes. ...
... However, another prevalent approach for performing RVS exists in literature in which some weightage to each considered vulnerability attribute is assigned based on the observed damage it had caused to the building during past earthquakes. The relation between vulnerability attribute and the observed damage is established either statistically [10,[13][14] or analytically [6,9,12] . Nevertheless, it is highlighted that the existing RVS methods either lack in considering the region-specific vulnerability attributes or are very conservative in nature thus do not meet the actual purpose of conducting RVS [15] . ...
Most parts of the Indian Himalayan region are susceptible to severe earthquake shaking. Non-engineered construction practices in this region, due to lack of awareness/negligence of the stakeholders, are prevalent which may lead to disastrous consequences during any seismic event. For ensuring uninterrupted public services post-earthquake, it is utmost important to perform seismic vulnerability assessment of important buildings in this region to understand their expected performance during an earthquake. To conduct seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings at large, rapid visual screening (RVS) can be opted as a tool to quickly segregate them based on their expected performance. In this study, RVS of 108 important buildings (hospitals, educational institutes, and government offices) is performed in Mandi district of Himachal Pradesh, India. The observed building typologies for the important buildings and various vulnerability attributes in those buildings are presented here. Further, the surveyed important buildings are assessed based on different structural irregularities using three different RVS methods and it is observed that most of the surveyed buildings require detailed vulnerability assessment.
... A key feature of this procedure is that it allows a trained evaluator to conduct a walk-through of the building to determine vulnerability. It is compatible with GIS-based (geographic information system) city databases and can also be used for a variety of other planning and mitigation tasks (Sinha and Goyal, 2001). ...
... RVS analysed 10 different types of buildings, based on the materials and construction types most commonly found in urban areas. There were both engineered and non-engineered constructions (built according to specifications) in this category (Sinha and Goyal, 2001). ...
The Indian Himalayan region (IHR) is prone to multiple hazards and suffers great loss of life and damage to infrastructure and property every year. Poor engineering construction, unplanned and unregulated development, and relatively low awareness and capacity in communities for supporting disaster risk mitigation are directly and indirectly contributing to the risk and severity of disasters. A comprehensive review of various existing survey forms for risk assessment has found that the survey questionnaires themselves have not been designed or optimised, specifically, for hill communities. Hill communities are distinctly different from low-land communities, with distinct characteristics and susceptibility to specific hazard and risk scenarios. Previous studies have, on the whole, underrepresented the specific characteristics of hill communities, and the increasing threat of natural disasters in the IHR creates an imperative to design hill-specific questionnaires for multi-hazard risk assessment. The main objective of this study is to design and apply a hill-specific risk assessment survey form that contains more accurate information for hill communities and hill-based infrastructure and allows for the surveys to be completed efficiently and in less time. The proposed survey form is described herein and is validated through a pilot survey at several locations in the hills of Uttarakhand, India. The survey form covers data related to vulnerability to earthquake (rapid visual screening), flood, high wind, landslide, industrial, non-structural falling hazards and fire hazards in the building, and climate change. SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis of this study states that the proposed form has the advantages of being self-explanatory and pictorial, includes easy terminology, and is divided into various sections for better understanding by surveyors. This survey form has the weakness of being limited to specific hazards. There are opportunities for the form to be applied to other Himalayan countries like Bhutan, Nepal and Pakistan. When it is applied internationally, the options available in the questions may differ. The application process confirmed that the survey questionnaire performed well and met expectations in its application. The form is readily transferrable to other locations in the IHR and could be internationalised and used throughout the Himalayas.
... The RVS methods-based examination of each building by trained screeners takes 15 to 30 minutes from the street without entering the building. Detailed seismic assessment methods should be applied for the limited number of seismically hazardous buildings, which are classified as a result of rapid visual examination [2]. Since detailed seismic risk assessment methods are computationally expensive and complicated, using simple models is of great importance for rapid visual examination. ...
... Three buildings (15% of buildings), which have both plan and vertical irregularities, in this research had a final score of less than 0.7. In this manner, findings indicate that DVA of these three structures is required as noted by Sinha and Goyal [2]. ...
Masonry buildings have been constructed since ancient times using materials such as stone and baked or unbaked bricks. The existing URM (unreinforced masonry) buildings which make up most of the European building stock was constructed before the current regulations. Since the resilience of these buildings to an impending earthquake is uncertain, they should be examined by implementing an appropriate seismic risk assessment technique in terms of time and accuracy to identify seismically hazardous buildings. In recent earthquakes, damage of URM buildings indicates that existing buildings should be examined using RVS (rapid visual screening) methods, which is one of the pre-earthquake seismic assessment methods. RVS methodologies are utilized to examine the large building stock in a relatively short time compared to detailed seismic assessment methods. In this study, 20 URM buildings from Győr as a representative sample of Hungarian residential URM building stock have been examined to identify the buildings in need of further detailed seismic examination based on FEMA P-154 rapid visual screening methodology.
... Nevertheless, there are still various other factors that can be used to gauge the performance of a project manager within the context of today's construction industry. Sinha (2004) explains that job performance is related to the willingness and openness to try and achieve new aspects of the job which in turn will bring about an increase in the individual's productivity. Howell (2004) on the other hand, states that job performance is actually related to the importance of social standing within the vocation and to a certain extent this opinion is similar to the earlier views put forth by Greenberg and Baron (2000) who point out a positive relationship between job performance and the status of the vocation itself. ...
An important consideration in all construction projects is cost and the risks associated with it. The degree to which project estimates overshoots budgeted expenditures is a function of the management and leadership style of the project manager. This study focusses on the pertinent dilemmas of balancing quality and cost while managing the risk of cost over runs. With a sample size of twenty-five (25) building engineers, contractors and quantity surveyors respondents for the study showed that changes in building material prices account for the chunk of construction cost and it remains the key risk element to good project management and risk mitigation. Changes in project specification and design, inadequate budget analysis and lack of project management skills account for the other half of cost drivers. The study opined that project managers must clearly explain the project goals to members, share their responsibility and expectations and get feedback. Advance cost estimation in the construction sector, and proper risk analysis should precede project initiation. Careful planning and competent management can minimize cost and the usual delays and overruns associated with local, regional and global construction. Contractors must have contingencies that are adequate to handle the variability in market prices. These market wide changes call for innovation in the alternative building materials industry as well as the introduction of new styles of construction.
