You are on page 1of 20

BuildingClassificationScheme

fortheCityofGuwahati,Assam

JayantaPathak
AssamEngineeringCollege
Guwahati,India

DominikH.Lang
NORSAR
Kjeller,Norway

Reportno.13012
Kjeller(Norway)Guwahati(India)
September2013

ACollaborationProjectfundedbytheRoyalNorwegianEmbassytoIndia,NewDelhi

ThisreportwaspreparedundertheEQRisk(EarthquakeRiskReductionontheIndianSubcontinent)project
undercollaborationofNORSARandAssamEngineeringCollege,Guwahati.Itcanbeopenlyaccessedonthe
EQRiskwebpageatwww.eqrisk.info.
Pleasecitethisreportas:
Pathak,J.,andLang,D.H.(2013).BuildingClassificationSchemeforthecityofGuwahati,Assam,EQRiskproject
report,Reportno.13012,KjellerGuwahati,September2013,20pp.
EQRiskisacollaborationprojectfundedbytheRoyalNorwegianEmbassytoIndia(NewDelhi)and
administeredbytheResearchCouncilofNorway(Oslo).

2013,StiftelsenNORSAR

TableofContents

Preamble.........................................................................................................................................5
Generalobservations......................................................................................................................6
Nonengineeredconstructiontypologies............................................................................................6
Urbanareabuildingtypescenario......................................................................................................9
Buildingclassificationprocedure...................................................................................................13
Wallmaterials....................................................................................................................................14
Rooftypes..........................................................................................................................................15
Buildingtypologies............................................................................................................................16
References....................................................................................................................................20

Preamble
ThecityofGuwahati(stateofAssam,NortheastIndia)isoneofthetestbedsconsideredfordetailed
earthquakedamageandlossassessmentstudieswithintheEQRiskproject.Thetotallyselectedstudy
arearepresentsthe2025GuwahatiMasterPlanArea(Figure1,areademarcatedbygreenline).This
developmentareaof262km
2
wasdemarcatedbytheGuwahatiMetropolitanDevelopmentAuthority
(GMDA).ItincludestheGuwahatiMunicipalCorporation(GMC)areaincludingNorthGuwahatiTown
Committeearea,AmingaonCensusTownand21revenuevillages,i.e.,Abhaypur,Rudreswar,Namati,
Jalah, Gouripur, Silamohekaiti, Tilingaon, Shila, Ghorajan, Mikirpara, Kahikuchi, Kahikuchi, Mirjapur,
Jugipara, Borjhar, GaralGaon, Dharapur, Janisimalu & Jansimalu (NC), Kalitakuchi (NC), Kharghuli,
Bonda,BondagaonandBondaGrant(I&II),andBirkuchi.InadditiontotheseareascometheNarengi
Cantonment areas, Guwahati Refinery (IOCL) area, and the NF railway Colony which show planned
clustersofbuildings.
TheGuwahatiMunicipalCorporation(GMC)areaissubdividedinto60municipalwardsasdelineated
by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (Figure 1, redshaded subareas demarcated by red lines).
None of these wards shows any typical formation of building clusters which makes it imperative to
collectdataofalargenumberofsamplebuildingsbythoroughbuildingstockinventorysurveys.
Someofthedemarcatedareas,i.e.Narengeicantonment(ageounitsthatisborderingwardno.46)
showplannedandclustereddevelopment.ThisalsoappliestotheGuwahatirefineryarea(included
inwardno.46)andtherailwaycolonyarea(partlyincludedinwardsno.8and9),whichhavewell
definedclusterformationswithahomogeneouslyarrangedbuildingtypologies.
ThefootprintsofindividualbuildingswerestudiedfromsatelliteimagerysuchasGoogle
TM
Earth.The
survey of representative samples from these areas had been conducted during numerous field
studies and the building data are generated based on sample cluster survey and assigning a
correspondingtypologytothebuildingclusters.

Figure1.Overviewmapindicatingtheconsideredstudyarea,i.e.the2025GuwahatiMasterPlanArea(green
line)aswellasthe60municipalwardsofGuwahati(redshadedandoutlinedareas).

Generalobservations
The revenue villages around Guwahati are mostly dominated by houses for which bamboo
reinforcedbiomasswastraditionallyusedascladdingmaterialwhilethatchorcorrugatedironsheets
wereusedasroofingmaterials.ThemajorityofhousesinthesevillagesaroundthecityofGuwahati
areofthetraditionalAssamhousingtypology(WHEreport#154:KaushikandBabu,2009)wherethe
roofingsystemconsistsoftimber/bambootrussessupportingthatchorCGIsheets. Thewallsystem
is made of Ikra
1
and/or bambooreinforced biomass cladding. However, a gradual shift towards
confined masonry houses (i.e. burnt brick masonry walls, 6 6 RC posts, RC bands at lintel level,
roof construction made of timber or tubular steel trusses supporting CGI sheet roofing) can be
observed.
The various traditional construction practices and housing types that are prevailing today in the
different regions have evolved based on technology transfer from one generation to the next by
wordofmouthorbysomekindofdocumentationdonebypracticingmasonsandendusers.Whatis
importanttonoteisthatthesevariousconstructionschemesoftenhavecharacteristicsthataddress
the prevalent local conditions of weather and other environmental and natural hazards, i.e.
earthquakes,floodsorcyclones.
Nonengineeredconstructiontypologies
ThevarietyofnonengineeredconstructiontypologiesisquitelimitedinthecityofGuwahatiaswell
assurroundingsuburbanandruralareas.Ingeneral,thesebuildingtypologiesareconstrictedtothe
traditionalAssamtypehouseaswellasbothunreinforcedandconfinedclaybrickmasonryhouses.
The Assamtype (Ikra) house is a vernacular construction typology made of timber. Traditionally, it
was the most common building type throughout Northeast India which is located in the countrys
most severe seismic zone, i.e. Zone V corresponding to a MSKintensity IX (9.0). The majority of
these houseswereandstillareusedforresidential purposeswhilethe constructiontechnologyhas
beentransferredtraditionallyfromonegenerationoflocalmasonstothenext.However,duringthe
colonial era, the British made this type of construction popular by preparing specifications and
improving the construction technology. The advantage of this both lightweight and ecofriendly
construction was well understood by the successive governments before and after Indias
independence. During this period of time, the practice was largely adopted for construction of
government offices and residences across the Northeast Indian states. The Assam Public Works
Department(APWD)includedspecificationsofthistypeofhousingintheirbuildingschedule.Inrural
areas, these houses are typically built with lightweight locally available material like bamboo,
wooden planks, thatch etc. and are generally termed as thatch house. These housing types have
traditionalsystemsofbamboopostsinruralareasandwoodenpostsinmoreurbanareas.Bamboo
posts are inserted into the ground to act as compression members and are tied with horizontal
bamboo/wooden girders with the help of coconut fiber ropes or bamboo ropes to give a proper
shapeandframingaction.Bambooorseasonedwoodhasnaturalresistancetodecay,whichmakes
thesehousessustainableandlowonmaintenance.Itwasnotedthatthemajorityofhousessurvived
therecentbigearthquakesin1897(Assamearthquake)and1950(AssamTibetearthquake).

1
inlocalAssameselanguage,IkraispronouncedasIkara

Ikra houses are generally singlestoried structures consisting of brick or stone masonry walls up to
about 1 m above the plinth. This masonry supports the walls consisting of bamboo woven together
withawoodenframe,andplasteredwithcementormudplaster.Eventhoughthisbuildingtypology
ismoreprevalentinruralareas,asignificantpercentageofthistypeofhousingcanbealsofoundin
thecitiesoftheregion,alsointhecityofGuwahati.However,inthelasttwodecadesadecreaseof
thesetraditionalhousesespeciallyinurbanareashasbeenobserved.
Figure 2 illustrates a traditional Assamtype building in an urban residential area. This traditional
practice has been replaced by confined or unreinforced masonry buildings in the last two decades.
There has been a legal ban on felling of trees, which has reduced the supply of timber as building
material. This situation has forced or encouraged masonry constructions for smaller houses and RC
framedconstructionsforlargerormultistoriedhouses.
Figure4showsthetimbertrussusedintheroofingoftypicalAssamtypebuildingbuiltinthe1950
60byAssamPWDontheAssamEngineeringCollegecampus.Figure5illustratesthetwowayslope
of the roofing system, which provides efficient bracing action at the post plate level against outof
plane failure. Figure 6 shows the typical halfwall in bricks above plinth level, which interface with
the timber frame panels to contain the upper part of the wall made of reed with cement mortar
plasterwork.Thetimberpostsareboltedtotheplinth.Thesekindoflighterandwellintegratedwall
systems are now replaced with heavier brick work, which are sometimes not well integrated and
therebyincreasingthefallinghazardsofwallsduringearthquake.
Nowadays,traditionalAssamesehousescoexistalongwithRCconstructionsthathavebecomemore
popular (Figure 7). The new urban and semiurban landscape is gradually dispensing with this time
tested, earthquakesafe and potentially sustainable traditional housing. The main strength of these
Assamtype houses, which sustained several major earthquakes in northeastern India, lies in their
structural configuration. They are further characterized by a number of advantageous design
features such as regular plan shapes, the sensible use of locally available building materials, the
integrationofwoodenbeamsoverthetotalheightofthebuildingaswellassmallopenings.
Over the years, this particular traditional construction form has gone through various
transformations. The current Assam PWD specification for Assamtype houses includes RC
foundations according to design with a depth of foundation of 1.0 m from the original ground level
with plinth beam as per design, connecting the foundations. The plinth beams are laid over 75 mm
thick cement concrete of proportion 1:3:6. The outer plinth wall shall be 225 mm thick and of first
class brick work in proportion 1:5 with 15 mm thick plaster (proportion 1:6) on exposed faces with
neat cement slurry finish. Inner plinth walls shall be 112 mm thick. The posts/columns are shall be
made of RC and 130 mm 130 mm in size with reinforcement. The floor shall be of 65 mm thick
cement concrete flooring in panels with 50 mm under layer of cement concrete in proportion 1:3:6
and 15 mm topping in proportion 1:1:2 over one flat brick soling or 150 mm thick stone soling. The
wall system of these type of building are now specified as 112 mm thick first class brick interlocked
wallincementmortarinproportion1:5,fromplinthuptopostplatewith15mmcementplasteron
theoutsidefaceand10 mmcement plasterontheinside. The plinthheight iskeptat600750mm
and the height of the building is between 30503600 mm. The roofing is generally of 0.63 mm CI
sheetingoverundressedwoodenortimbertrusses.

Figure2.Assamtypehousearoundthecityof
Guwahatiwithtypicalwoodenbeamsandcolumns.
Figure3.TraditionalAssamtypehouse(left)and
masonryhouse(right).
Figure4.Assamtypebuildingwithtimberroof
trusses.
Figure5.Assamtypehousewithtwowaysloped
roof.
Figure6.Thetimberpostsareboltedtotheplinthand
confinehalfofthebrickwall.
Figure7.TraditionalAssamtypehousesreplacedby
masonryhousesinthecity.

Figure8.AnAssamtypeofficebuilding. Figure9.Unconfinedmasonryhousewithlightweight
roofing.

Figure10.Confinedmasonrybuildingwithlightweight
roofing.Gableendisnotbracedagainstoutofplane
failure.
Figure11.Mixedconstructionwithtimberandbrick
masonryinbusinessarea.

Figure12.Mixedconstructionwithtimberandbrick
masonryinbusinessarea.

Urbanareabuildingtypescenario
Figures 13 to 18 illustrate some randomly chosen buildings that are located in various wards of the
Guwahati Municipal Area. The municipal area of Guwahati city is largely characterized by
multistoried RC frame structures. The dwelling units are mainly 2 to 3 stories high with an average
storyheight of3.0to3.3 m. Mostoftheresidentialdwelling unitsaredesignedandconstructedby
laymen without engineering consultancy or quality control, but in principle have some earthquake
resistant features such as the presence of tie beams or minimum column sizes of 250250mm. In
mostofthesebuildingsthecolumnreinforcementsare416TOR
2
.Onlyfewofthesebuildingsexist
thatwerebuiltaround196570,whereoldductilesteelwasusedasreinforcement.
Most of the residential buildings in Guwahati are constructed following socioeconomic rather than
engineeringconsiderations.ThegeneralconstructionofRCframedbuildingsareofnominalconcrete
of M15 grade (mix proportion 1:2:4) ranging from 3 to 4 story (story height: 3.03.3 m, RC slabs:
120140mmthickness,infillwallsofbrickmasonryincementmortar(1:6):200250mmthickness).
Figures 13 and 14 represent examples of residential buildings in Guwahati city which are largely
ductile or nonductile RC frame structures with lightweight roofing systems. The roofs are generally
pitchedduetohighrainfallintherainyseason.

2
TOR,alsocalledColdTwistedDeformed(CTD)steelreinforcementbars,HYSDhighyieldstrength
deformedbars

Sincetheyear1995/96therehasbeenaphenomenalincreaseinconstructionofmultistoried(mostly
G+5
3
to G+8) apartment and commercial buildings. These nearly exclusively RC frame constructions
areengineeredinasensethattheyaredesignedbyengineersasperIndianearthquakecodeIS1893
(2002), which has been made mandatory by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) and
GuwahatiMetropolitanDevelopmentAuthority(GMDA)some20yearsago.
The promotion for housing finance under the national housing policy fuelled the growth of
apartmenthousinginGuwahatisincetheyear1990.BothGMDAandGMCintroducedregistrationof
practicing technical personnel (architects and engineers) in Guwahati during 199495 in order to
bring in accountability to the construction business. Since 1998, the Urban Local Bodies (ULB) in
Guwahati (i.e. GMDA and GMC) introduced mandatory certifications of buildings by structural
engineers while applying for building permits. However, the Urban Local Bodies (ULB) that were
engaged in order to take care of construction development control were notyet ready for handling
the phenomenalrisein multistoried constructionduringthedecade19902000.Asaresult,several
hundreds of such multistoried buildings were added to Guwahatis building stock without reliable
lateralloadresistingsystemssuchastheprovisionofshearwalls,appropriatebracingssystemsetc.
Most of these multistoried buildings were constructed with an open ground story for parking
purpose. The area covered by the open parking story was not included in the FAR
4
calculation in
ordertoencouragetheprovisionofmoreparkingspacesinapartmentbuildings.Theintroductionof
anywallsintheotherwiseopengroundstorywouldhavecausedthattheparkingspaceareahadto
beincludedintheFARcalculations,hencereducingthealienablebuildingfloorarea.Understandably,
buildersandrealestatedeveloperswerethereforereluctanttoprovideanytypeofwalltotheopen
groundstory(stories)asitwouldentailtheinclusionofsomeareaintotheFARcalculation.However,
all of these multistoried buildings generally dispose of RC cores (shafts) for elevators, though not
placed from structural design viewpoints but rather due to functional requirements given by the
architects.Thoughnotplacedstrategically,theseRCcoresprovideatleastsomelateralresistanceto
thebuildingdependingupontheirarrangementinplan.
In 2006, this situation was partly corrected when GMDA and GMC adopted the revised building
byelaws (GMDA 2006) in line with the Model Building Byelaws proposed by the Committee
constituted in 2004 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. Of India, on the recommendation of the
NationalCoreGrouponEarthquakeMitigationsetupbytheMinistry.Therevisedbuildingbyelawsof
2006, introduced the detailed proofchecking of multistoried buildings in Guwahati by senior
structural engineers considering earthquake safety. The revised building byelaws of 2006 also
introducedmandatoryfeatureslikeshearwallsandbracings,especiallyincasewherethebuildingis
designedwithopengroundfloorforparking.

3
G+5,i.e.groundfloorplusfiveupperstories
4
FARFloorAreaRatio(inIndia:alsoFSIFloorSpaceIndexisused);FAR=(totalcoveredareaonallfloors
ofallbuildingsonacertainplotunenclosedparkingarea)/(areaoftheplot)

Figure13.RCframebuildingfor(left)commercialandresidentialuse,(right)residentialuse.

Figure14.RCframebuildingofresidentialuse(withlightweightroofconstruction).
Figure15.Older(nonductile)RCframebuildingfor(left)residentialuse,(right)commercialuse.
Figure16.Newer(ductile)RCframebuilding. Figure17.(Ductile)RCframebuildingunder
construction(residentialuse).



Figure18.(Ductile)RCframebuildings(residentialuse)withopengroundfloorforparking.

Buildingclassificationprocedure
Thebuildingclassificationschemethatisdescribedhereinresultedfromvariousinventorysurveysin
Guwahati conducted by Assam Engineering College (AEC) in recent years as well as more recent
investigations on the prevalent building stock. It reflects the building typologies and materials
identifiedintheGuwahatiurbanareaaswellasinseveralrevenuevillagesaroundGuwahaticity.The
building classification may thus be only representative to the municipal and suburban area around
thecityofGuwahatiandmayrequireadjustmentoramendmentifappliedtosurroundingregionsor
other Indian cities. However, the identified typologies can be considered as representative for the
entirebuildingstockintheurbanandruralareasofAssam.
Theclassificationisprovidedondifferentsteps:
1. Availablewallmaterials(i.e.,claybrick,stone,concreteetc.)
2. Availableroofandfloortypes(i.e.rigid,flexible,heavyetc.)
3. Available(structural)buildingtypologies(certainbuildingtypologiesmaysummarize
differentvariationsofamainbuildingtypology)

Wallmaterials
Avarietyofwallmaterialscanbefoundintheinvestigatedregion(Table1).Manyofthesemaybe
usedforboththemainloadbearingsystemandasinfillmaterial(e.g.ofRCortimberframes).
Table1.Generalcharacteristicsofdifferentwallmaterials.
Wallmaterial(units) Illustration
Burntclaybricks(rectangular)
Dimensions1053(23117,6cm)
LocallyproducedinGuwahati
UnitpriceRs.7.5p.p.
UsedforURMbuildingsaswellasforinfillwallsofRCframeandsteel
framestructures(bricksoffirstclassareusedforloadbearing
buildings)
AutoclavedAeratedConcrete(AAC)blocks
Dimensions10030062,512,520cm
ProducedinKolkata
Mixtureofflyash,lime,gypsumandcementasbindingagent,water
andaluminumpowderactingasfoamingagent
Advantage:1/3ofbrickweight
PriceRs.9.0(w.r.t.brickunitprice)
CellularLightConcrete(CLC)blocks
Dimensions10030062,512,520cm
Locallyproduced
Mixtureofflyash,lime,gypsumandcementasbindingagent,water
andaluminumpowderactingasfoamingagent
Advantage:1/3ofbrickweight
PriceRs.8.0(w.r.t.brickunitprice)
Ikra
CompositewallmaterialofIkracanesandcementplaster(inolder
days:mudplaster)
MostlyusedforonestoryAssamtype(Ikra)houses
Constructiontechnologyofwalls:(1)Timberframeiserected,(2)
Framesarefilledinwithikrapanels(ikarasarecutinsizeofthepanel
andlaidvertically),(3)Horizontalmembersareusuallybamboo
canes;aftermountingtheikaraitislefttodryforfewdays,(4)Walls
areplasteredonbothsideswithcementormudmortar;3layersof
plasteraredonealternativelyafterdryingofeachlayer,(5)Finished
coatingisdonewithaliquidmixofcement/mudandcowdung.

Rooftypes
Asmallvarietyofrooftypesandmaterialsareappliedintheinvestigatedregion(Table2).
Table2.Rooftypesandroofingmaterials.
Rooftypeandmaterial Illustration
Lightslopingroofsmadeoftimberframeconstruction
withcorrugatedmetalsheet

withcorrugatedasbestossheets
(discontinuednow)
RCsolidslabRigiddiaphragm
(left):withRCCsolidslabs
supportedonRCframesatall
levelsworkingasrigiddiaphragm
(right):withRCCsolidslabs
supportedonRCframesatlower
storiesandalightslopingroof
overthetopstory

Buildingtypologies
Asalreadyindicated,Guwahatisbuildingstockisdominatedbythreegroupsofbuildingtypologies:
traditionalAssamtypehouses,
confinedclaybrickmasonryhouses,aswellas
ductileandnonductileRCframestructures.
In the semiurban and rural areas around the city, the traditional Assamtype houses had been and
arestillbeingreplacedbyconfinedmasonryhouseswhileawiderangeofvariations(especiallywith
respect to used building materials) can be observed. However, these houses can also be found in
large numbers in urban areas. The urban and suburban housing stock is dominated by reinforced
concrete frame buildings (with clay brick masonry infill walls) up to 8 stories high. There are a few
commercial buildings with greater story numbers, i.e. ranging from ground floor plus 8 (G+8) to 10
stories (G+10). The observed construction technology and workmanship are considered to be fairly
good.
Table3.Buildingtypologies.
Buildingtypologies Illustration
IKIkra
i.e.W5Wattleanddaub
(bamboomeshwithmud)
slopingroofswithlightCIsheets
supportedbytimbertrusses
mainlysinglestory
UFB4LUnreinforcedburntclay
brickmasonryincementmortar
slopingroofswithlightCIsheets
supportedbytimbertrusses
bandsattieandlintellevels
temporaryconstructionforretail
shopsetc.
mainlysinglestory
RM3LConfinedbrickmasonryin
cementmortarusingburntclay
bricks
slopingroofswithlightCIsheets
supportedbytimbertrusses
confinedburntclaybrick
masonrywithbandsattielevels,
lintellevelsandpostplatelevels

Buildingtypologies Illustration
C1Ductilereinforcedconcreteframeswithinfillwalls
C1Llowrise
13stories

C1Mmidrise
46stories

C1Hhighrise
7+stories

C1sDuctilereinforcedconcreteframeswithinfillwallsandsoftgroundstory
C1sMmidrise
46stories

C1sHhighrise
7+stories

Buildingtypologies Illustration
C3Noductilereinforcedconcreteframeswithinfillwalls
C3Llowrise
13stories

C3Mmidrise
46stories


C3Hhighrise
7+stories


S3LSteellightframes
lowrise
Buildingsofthistypearelocatedinthe
PanduPortnearGuwahati.Theyare
longspanstructureswithCGIsheet
claddingsidewalls,whichareusedas
handlingfacilitiesintheriverport.
S5LSteelframewith
unreinforcedmasonryinfillwalls
lowrise

Table4.Buildingclassificationscheme.
No. Index Buildingtypology Wallmaterial(brick/mortar) Roofing/flooringtype
Story
range,N
PAGER
1)
HAZUS
2)
RiskUE
3)
PSI
4)
EMS
5)

1 W5,IK Ikra (Assamtype,wattle


anddaub)
Largetimberframeswithwattle
anddaubinfills,cementplaster
Timberorsteeltruss,CI
sheet
1(2) W5 AE2 E
2 UFB4L Unreinforcedfiredclay
brickmasonrywith
cementmortar
Rectangularfiredclaybricks,
cementmortar
Timberorsteeltruss,CI
sheet
1 UFB4 M3.3 BB1 C
3 RM3L Confinedmasonry Rectangularfiredclaybricksin
cementmortarwithreinforced
concreteconfinements
Timberorsteeltruss,CI
sheet,
12(3) RM3 M4 BB2 D
4 C1L DuctileRCmomentframe
withmasonryinfills
DuctileRCframes,rectangular
firedbrickmasonryinfills
RCslabs,(forlowrise:
timber/steeltrusses,CI
sheets)
13 C1L C1L RC31L DC1 DE
5 C1M 46 C1M C1M RC31M DC1 DE
6 C1H 7+ C1H C1H RC31H DC1 DE
7 C1sM DuctileRCmomentframe
withmasonryinfills,soft
groundstory
DuctileRCframes,rectangular
firedbrickmasonryinfills
RCslabs 46 C1M C1M RC32M DC1 D
8 C1sH 7+ C1H C1H RC32H DC1 D
9 C3L NonductileRCmoment
framewithmasonryinfills
DuctileRCframes,rectangular
firedbrickmasonryinfills
RCslabs,(forlowrise:
timber/steeltrusses,CI
sheets)
13 C3L C3L DC2 C
10 C3M 46 C3M C3M DC2 C
11 C3H 7+ C3H C3H DC2 C
12 C6L RCdualsystem RCmomentframeswithRCshear
walls,masonryinfillwalls
RCslabs,(forlowrise:
timber/steeltrusses,CI
sheets)
13 C6L RC4L DC3 CE
13 C6M 46 C6M RC4M DC3 CE
14 C6H 7+ C6H RC4H DC3 CE
15 S3L Steellightframes (Industrialuse) SteeltrusseswithCI
sheets
1(2) S3 S3 S1L DS1 E
16 S5L SteelframewithURM
infillwalls
(Industrialuse) SteeltrusseswithCI
sheets
1(2) S5L S5L S3L DS3 E
1)
JaiswalandWald(2008)
2)
FEMA(2003)
3)
Lunguetal.(2001),MilutinovicandTrendafiloski(2003)
4)
Spenceetal.(1991)
5)
Grnthal,ed.(1998)

References
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2003). HAZUSMH MR4 Technical Manual.
Washington,D.C.
Grnthal, G., ed. (1998). European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS98), Cahiers du Centre
EuropendeGodynamiqueetdeSismologie,Vol.15,Luxembourg.
GMDA (2006). New Revised Building Byelaws for Guwahati Metropolitan Area 2006,
GuwahatiMetropolitanDevelopmentAuthority,80pp.
Haldar,P.,Singh,Y.,Lang,D.H.,andPaul,D.K.(2013).Comparisonofseismicriskassessment
basedonmacroseismicintensityandspectrumapproachesusingSeisVARA,SoilDynamics
andEarthquakeEngineering(2013),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.01.016.
Jaiswal, K.S., and Wald, D.J. (2008). Creating a global building inventory for earthquake loss
assessmentandriskmanagement,U.S.GeologicalSurveyOpenfilereport20081160,106
pp.
Kaushik, H., and Babu, K.S.R. (2009). Assamtype house, WHE report #154, World Housing
Encyclopedia.
Lungu, D., Aldea, A.,Arion, A., Vacareanu,R., Petrescu, F.,and Cornea, T. (2001). RISKUE
AnadvancedapproachtoearthquakeriskscenarioswithapplicationstodifferentEuropean
towns, WP1 Report: European distinctive features, inventory database and typology,
December2001.
Milutinovic, Z.V., and Trendafiloski, G.S. (2003). RISKUE, an advanced approach to
earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European towns, Report to WP4:
Vulnerabilityofcurrentbuildings,September2003,109pp.
Spence, R.J.S., Coburn, A.W., Sakai, S., and Pomonis, A. (1991). A parameterless scale of
seismic intensity for use in seismic risk analysis and vulnerability assessment, in:
Earthquake Blast and Impact: Measurement and effects of vibration, (The Society for
Earthquake & Civil Engineering Dynamics, eds.), Elsevier Applied Science, Amsterdam,
Netherlands,1928.

You might also like