Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by
Submitted to
National Disaster Management Authority
Government of India
September 15, 2013
IIT Bombay
IIT Madras
Mahendra Meena
Arun Menon
Rohan Shinde
A Meher Prasad
Ashish Sapre
Devdas Menon
Ravi Sinha
CVR Murty
Alok Goyal
Deepti R Krrishnan
N Uma
IIT Roorkee
IIT Guwahati
Yogendra Singh
SK Deb
DK Paul
Kaustubh Dasgupta
Putul Haldar
Hemant B Kaushik
Aditya Rahul
Ankita Sood
IIT Kharagpur
Nirjhar Dhang
Sushanta Chakrabarty
Arghya Deb
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................... ii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... v
Abstract .................................................................................................................... vi
Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
GENERAL ............................................................................................................................... 1
DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT FOR EARTHQUAKE ............................................................................ 2
SEISMIC RISK .......................................................................................................................... 2
SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BUILDINGS ........................................................................ 3
SCOPE OF THE TECHNICAL DOCUMENT .......................................................................................... 5
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 44
BUILDING TYPOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 44
DAMAGE SCALE ..................................................................................................................... 44
EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY SCALE.................................................................................................. 45
DAMAGE PROBABILITY MATRIX ................................................................................................. 45
FRAGILITY CURVE ................................................................................................................... 48
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 50
DAMAGE SCALE ..................................................................................................................... 52
SEISMIC INTENSITY SCALE......................................................................................................... 53
ii
4.4
COMMON STRUCTURAL MATERIAL ............................................................................................. 54
4.4.1 Masonry ...................................................................................................................... 54
4.4.2 Wood ........................................................................................................................... 54
4.4.3 Concrete...................................................................................................................... 54
4.4.4 Steel ............................................................................................................................ 55
4.4.5 Mixed Construction ..................................................................................................... 55
4.5
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE ........................................................................................................ 55
4.5.1 Expert-Opinion Method ............................................................................................... 55
4.5.2 Empirical Method ........................................................................................................ 57
4.5.3 Analytical Method ....................................................................................................... 58
4.5.4 Hybrid Method ............................................................................................................ 60
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The components of seismic risk assessment and choices for the vulnerability
assessment procedure; the bold path shows a traditional assessment method (Calvi
et al., 2006).................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Idealised Pushover Curve (Yakut, 2004) .......................................................... 19
Figure 3: Relationship between Vy/Vc and number of stories (n) (Yakut, 2004) ............ 19
Figure 4: Influence of filler wall on the yield base shear capacity (Yakut, 2004) ........... 20
Figure 5: Influence Application of Capacity Index procedure (Yakut, 2004) ................ 23
Figure 6: Conversion of the RC building damage statistics observed in Plateas after the
Korinthos earthquake (Greece, 1981) to the HRC-scale (Rossetto and Elnashai,
2003) ........................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 7: Empirical Vulnerability curves for different ground motion parameters
(Rossetto and Elnashai, 2003) .................................................................................... 28
Figure 8: Illustrations of the 2475YRP response surface (top) and its fit to the regression
data (bottom; the dashed lines indicate the 5th and 95th percentile
observed/predicted ISDmax% bounds) (Rossetto and Elnashai, 2005). .................. 32
Figure 9: Comparison of the infilled frame population fragility curves with eight
observed post-earthquake damage distributions for like populations of structures.
(Rossetto and Elnashai, 2005) .................................................................................... 33
Figure 10: Steps for development of fragility curved and DPM (Singhal and
Kiremedjian, 1996)..................................................................................................... 34
Figure 11: Building plan of generic structure (Singhal and Kiremedjian, 1996) ........... 35
Figure 12: Building elevation of generic structure for three classes (a) Low-rise frame,
(b) mid-rise frame and (c) high-rise frame (Singhal and Kiremedjian, 1996) ......... 36
Figure 13: Analytical models for structures analysed: (a) four-story building; (b) ninestory building. (Kappos et al., 1998) .......................................................................... 41
Figure 14: Vulnerability curves produced by Spence et al. (1992) for bare momentresisting frames using the parameterless scale of intensity (PSI); D1 to D5 relate to
damage states in the MSK scale................................................................................. 49
Figure 15: Flowchart for vulnerability assessment based on expert opinion for masonry
buildings. .................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 16: Flowchart for empirical vulnerability assessment for masonry buildings. ... 57
Figure 17: Flowchart for analytical vulnerability assessment for capacity spectrum
based method.............................................................................................................. 59
Figure 18: Flowchart for analytical vulnerability assessment for time-history analysis
based method.............................................................................................................. 60
Figure 19: Flowchart for hybrid method. ........................................................................ 61
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Abstract
The past few decades have witnessed an increase in the number of damaging
earthquakes in India, with nine damaging earthquakes occurring during the last two decades
itself. The vast extent of damage and the consequent loss of life associated with these events
reflect the poor construction practice in India. Before the 2001 Bhuj earthquake,
constructions with poor seismic resistance were assumed to be a feature of non-urban areas,
with urban structures considered safer due to the use of engineering knowledge and modern
construction materials. However, this earthquake shattered the myth of urban seismic safety
through widespread damage to modern buildings. The low awareness among the general
public towards structural safety and the inability of regulatory bodies and technical
professionals in maintaining quality standards in constructions has created an urgent need to
educate the leaders, public, city planners, architects and the engineering professional about
the consequences of earthquakes.
As a step in understanding the seismic risk in our country, there is a need to determine
the vulnerability of prevalent construction types in India, against earthquakes. When classes
of buildings are considered for risk assessment, the vulnerability can be established in terms
of the structural characteristics, and suitable modifiers to the vulnerability function can be
established in terms of the geometrical characteristics. Since the construction practices vary
in different parts of the country even when using the same construction material, the
vulnerability function of different buildings in the typology catalogue will need to be
developed for each region separately.
This report presents a summary of the building typologies used or proposed in
different parts of the world. The report presents an analysis of these typologies to assess their
suitability for India. Based on this assessment, the building typology for use in India has been
presented in the report. The proposed building typology is hierarchical, and considers
material of construction, structural system, structural irregularities, building height, code
compliance and level of maintenance. The building typology catalogue is also developed in a
format that is amenable to database management and use of portable computing devices for
field data collection.
vi
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 General
India faces threats from a large number of natural hazards such as earthquakes, floods,
droughts, landslides, cyclones and tsunamis. During the period 1990 to 2010, India
experienced 9 damaging earthquakes that have resulted in over 30,000 deaths and caused
enormous damage to property, assets and infrastructure. In many cases buildings and
structures have proven inadequate to resist earthquake forces and the failure of these can be
held responsible for most of the resulting human fatalities. It is also evident from past fatal
earthquakes around the world that the existence of vulnerable buildings in high intensity
areas has in most cases contributed the total human losses (Jaiswal and Wald, 2008).
Understanding the causes of such damage and means to reduce risk demands effective
participation of the scientific and engineering community. The detailed assessment of damage
after past earthquakes in our country shows that both non-engineered and engineered
buildings suffer extensive structural damage (for example, Sinha et al., 2001). It is also found
that even the non-engineered constructions sometimes possess the required resistance to
earthquake ground motions (for example, the Assam-type traditional housing in NorthEastern states and the Dhajji-Diwari buildings in Kashmir have good earthquake resistance).
Recent earthquakes, such as the 2001 Bhuj earthquake that had followed the damaging Anjar
earthquake in 1957 in the same area, have shown that the vulnerability of the constructions
were not reduced due to the experiences from the 1957 earthquake. As a result, the same
tragic lessons had to be re-learnt in 2001 as during 1957 (Sinha et al., 2001).
In order to predict the likely impact of an earthquake on the built environment in any
part of the country, it is essential to know the seismic vulnerability of the built environment
on the affected areas. This information depends on the structural systems of the buildings to
resist vertical and lateral loads, performance of similar buildings in past earthquakes, and
engineering standards adopted during construction. The assessment of likely impact also
depends on the location and distribution of vulnerable building stock in the affected areas.
Very limited data currently exists in our country to quantify the building stock and
their seismic vulnerability in different parts of the country. The Housing Census data
collected every decade compiles information on the construction materials used for walls,
floor and ceiling of dwellings. However, this information is technically very difficult to relate
to the construction materials used for buildings as a whole due to the nature of data collection
that separates out information regarding walls, floor and ceiling so that their combination for
buildings is not reported. Even where such information is available based on detailed field
surveys, the use of construction materials has not been related to the seismic vulnerability of
the buildings. As a result, the technical information on building constructions cannot be fully
used for earthquake risk management strategies and programs.
(1)
Seismic hazard quantifies the ground motions generated due to an earthquake. Any
local effect such as due to soil properties is incorporated in hazard assessment. The seismic
vulnerability quantifies the propensity of types of buildings to be damaged due to specified
ground motions. Exposure of an area struck by earthquake depends upon the human
population and economic activity affected by it. A metro city has more exposure compared to
rural region. When carrying out risk assessment of large areas, where the built environment
information may be available only at low resolution, vulnerability of the buildings implied in
macro-seismic intensity scales is most commonly used. The method utilizes damage
probability matrices that estimate the level of damage corresponding to ground motion
intensity as a conditional probability factor. Different buildings vary in their degree of
vulnerability to earthquake ground motions as a function of geometrical or qualitative
characteristics (such as height, plan dimensions and elevation configurations, age etc.), and
Hybrid
Damage
Probability Matrix
Typology
Field
Survey
Vulnerability
Functions
Analytical
Capacity
Spectrum based
Collapse
Mechanism based
Fully
Displacement
based
Expert
Judgement
Figure 1: The components of seismic risk assessment and choices for the vulnerability
assessment procedure; the bold path shows a traditional assessment method (Calvi et al.,
2006)
2.2.2 Procedure
The main procedural steps of this method can be summarized as follows:
1. Decide the objective of seeking expert opinion. There can be several objectives for
seeking experts opinion about building seismic vulnerability. The objective may include
damage intensity assessment, loss estimation, etc.
2. Classify the building inventory of the area/region based on engineering properties as well
as occupancy and usage. The two classes are necessary because while engineering
classification provides structural performance of the building during an earthquake, usage
Height
Structural framing system
Configuration
Structural continuity
Design and detailing
Construction quality
Age and maintenance
Proximity to other structures
Residential buildings
Commercial buildings
Industrial buildings
Critical facilities (i.e. fire brigade, police station, communication towers etc)
Lifeline buildings (i.e. hospitals, water supply system etc)
o High Rise
9. Moment Resisting Steel Frame (Perimeter Frame)
o Low Rise
o Medium Rise
o High Rise
10. Moment Resisting Steel Frame (Distributed Frame)
o Low Rise
o Medium Rise
o High Rise
11. Moment Resisting Ductile Concrete Frame (Distributed Frame)
o Low Rise
o Medium Rise
o High Rise
12. Moment Resisting Non-ductile Concrete Frame (Distributed Frame)
o Low Rise
o Medium Rise
o High Rise
13. Precast Concrete (Other than Tilt-up)
o Low Rise
o Medium Rise
o High Rise
14. Long-Span (Low Rise)
15. Tilt-up (Low Rise)
16. Mobile Homes
B. STORAGE TANKS
1. Underground
o Liquid
o Solid
2. On ground
o Liquid
o Solid
3. elevated
o Liquid
o Solid
Permanent Dwelling
Temporary Lodging
Group Institutional Housing
B. COMMERCIAL
Retail Trade
Wholesale Trade
Personal and Repair Services
10
C. INDUSTRIAL
D. AGRICULTURE
E. RELIGION AND NON-PROFIT
F. GOVERNMENT
General Services
Emergency Response Services
G. EDUCATION
H. UTILITIES
Electrical
Water
Sanitary Sewer
Natural Gas
Telephone and Telegraph
Apart from classifying the buildings into various structural and functional categories,
it is equally important to have a reliable building database of area of interest. There are
various sources which could provide data for vast number of buildings. It has been observed
that while it is easier to get data about the functional utility of a building, its structural details
are often very difficult to obtain.
In India functional utility can be obtained from census data, municipal records and
other sources. However, it is very difficult to get engineering data of buildings as good record
keeping of these details does not exist. In the USA and European countries structural details
11
have been obtained through insurance data also. It has been possible because of deeper
penetration of insurance industry and better record maintenance.
The ATC-13 methodology used a three level approach to build facility inventory.
Level-1:
Level-2:
Level-3:
These levels are applied progressively, i.e. higher level sought only if facility
inventory was not available at lower level. Level-1 was considered as most reliable and most
of the inventory data was obtained from this level itself.
2.2.2.3 Earthquake Intensity Indicator
Many earthquake scales have been developed in the past to measure the after effect of
earthquake. Earlier scales were based on peoples observation during earthquake and
observed damage. These are known as seismological intensity scales. All personal experience
and observed damage during and after the earthquake are graded in a scale having arbitrary
divisions and so these scales are essentially qualitative. The first intensity scale introduced by
Rossi and Forell in 1878 had 10 divisions from I to X. Italian seismologist Mercalli modified
it in 1902. Later in 1931 this was further improved by American seismologist Wood and
Newman. This final scale is known as Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale and has 12
grades from I to XII (Papathanassiou and Pavlides, 2007). Other commonly used scales are
Medvedev-Sponheuer-Karnik (MSK scale, introduced in 1964), Japan Meteorological
Agency (first introduced in 1884 and last modified in 1995), European Macroseismic scale
(introduced in 1998). An important positive feature of these scales is that categorization is
based on observable phenomenon and applicable to various parts of world. On the other hand,
serious limitation of these scales that those are not directly applicable to engineering analysis.
During last half century, after the instrumentation facility for measuring various
ground motion parameters became common, several engineering characterizations of
earthquake ground motion have been proposed and used for design purpose. The most
commonly used parameter among these is peak ground acceleration.
Earthquake ground motion parameters which affect the performance of the structure
are: amplitude, frequency content, periodicity and duration. Any intensity scale that
incorporates all or maximum of these parameters is likely to represent earthquake damage in
most widely manner.
The ATC-13 used MMI scale to relate probable damage for different building
typologies. It was chosen over other scales because it was most commonly used scale in
USA. This scale is largely based on performance of unreinforced masonry buildings,
chimneys and limited number of old types of construction.
2.2.2.4 Building Damage Scale
Building damage scale helps to quantify the extent of damage. The damage scale
usually link repair cost to replacement cost of the building.
12
The ATC-13 methodology defined damage scale based on damage factor. Damage
Factor (DF) is the ratio of monetary loss of building divided by its replacement value. The
following table lists the damage scale used in ATC-13:
Table 3: Damage State Classification (ATC-13, 1985)
1 None
2 Slight
Damage
Factor Range
(%)
0
01
Central
Damage
Factor
0
0.5
3 Light
1 10
4 Moderate
10 30
20
5 Heavy
30 60
45
6 Major
60 100
80
7 Destroyed
100
100
Damage State
Description
No Damage.
Limited localized minor damage not requiring repair.
Significant localized damage of some components
generally not requiring repair.
Significant localized damage of many components
warranting repair.
Expensive damage, require major repairs.
Major widespread damage that may result in the
facility being razed, demolished or repaired.
Total destruction of the majority of the facility.
13
14
Empirical methods are thus based on the observed damage due to earthquake. These
types of methods were developed before advance computers were available to perform
complex analysis. With the advancement of computer-based analysis techniques these
methods play an important role in verifying or benchmarking analytical results with the
observed damage. The results obtained from these methods are used to cross-check the
analytical results and improve analytical techniques.
Many attempts have been made in different parts of world to use empirical data to
identify the earthquake damage pattern, synthesise the damage information, extract lessons
for future design and policy decisions. In the following sections various studies have been
described in detail.
15
Year of
construction
Number of
stories
Concrete
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Steel
Steel
5-7
Pre-1933
8-13
5-7
Post-1947
Material
8-13
14-18
19+
Damage
State
Structural
Damage
Nonstructural
Damage
Damage
Ratio
(%)
VI
VII
VIII
IX
None
None
0-0.05
10.4
None
Minor
0.05-0.3
16.4
0.5
None
Localised
0.3-1.25
40.0
22.5
20.0
30.3
2.7
3
4
Minor
Substantial
3.5-4.5
13.2
47.1
92.3
58.8
14.7
Substantial
Extensive
7.5-20
0.2
5.0
41.2
83.0
Major
Nearly total
20-65
2.3
Building Condemned
100
Collapse
100
3. Represent earthquake intensity using Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. Like many earlier
empirical methods this study also used Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) to represent
ground shaking. The area under the purview of this study had experienced MMI VI, VII
and VIII.
4. Collect information regarding observed damage. A lot of information was already
available through damage data studies of San Fernando earthquake about moderately and
highly damaged buildings. Researchers prepared a questionnaire to obtain statistics about
less damaged buildings. A one-page questionnaire was developed for building owners,
asking for data on building characteristic, total repair cost and breakdown of type of
damages. Damage data of about 370 buildings was available for further analysis through
questionnaire. Overall about 1600 damaged buildings data was with the researchers.
16
5. Process the data. After gathering all the damage data and defining damage scale, the data
was processed in different ways to simulate various situations. DPMs and MDRs were
generated for different building types, different building ages, different assumptions
concerning boundaries between intensity zones, different methods for relating replacement
cost to building characteristics, etc. The buildings were classified into various damage
states based on damage ratio, using the best estimate for damage cost and the best estimate
of replacement cost. Where possible, replacement cost was evaluated. MDRs were
computed by averaging the actual, individual damage ratios. The following table shows an
example DPM for all buildings:
Table 6: DPMs and MDRs for all buildings in various intensity zones (Whitman et al.,
1973)
Date of
Construction
Intensity
Pre-1933
Post-1947
VI
VII
VI
VII
VIII
90
14
79
33
10
12
18
34
17
35
20
39
18
10
11
11
11
MDR - %
0.03
2.8
0.05
0.5
7.5
Number of
Buildings
19
114
57
156
18
Damage
State
6. Compare and validate results. Various results and interpretations can be drawn once the
DPMs are constructed. Comparing the mean damage ratios of table given above, a clear
observation comes out that the buildings constructed prior to 1933 were more susceptible
to damage as compared to post-1947 construction. Since above table shows that more data
was available for buildings located in intensity VII compared to VI or VIII, the confidence
in the result of MMI VII is obviously more than those in the other two intensities.
This study was one of the first attempts to create DPM from the empirical data
collected through post earthquake damage survey and questionnaires.
shear capacity of building using ground floor dimension, size, orientation and concrete
strength of the components part of lateral load resisting system.
Main procedural steps of this method can be summarized as follows:
1. Shear capacity of each structural member is computed based on its concrete contribution
using equation 2. Total shear capacity of entire building is obtained by adding individual
capacity of all members in each principal direction.
(2)
where:
Vci = shear capacity of a rectangular concrete member (without web reinforcement)
bw, h = dimensions of rectangular concrete member
fctk = direct concrete tensile strength, which is related to compressive strength and is
determined using NDTs. In absence of any test concrete compressive strength (fck)
was assumed below 10MPa for poor quality construction, between 10MPa and 16MPa
for average quality construction and above 16MPa for good quality construction.
Construction quality of poor, average or good was based on visual assessment.
Vc
0.95e0.125 n
(3)
With the help of equation 3 any base shear in concrete can be converted to actual base shear
capacity if the number of stories is known. While using these equations due considerations
are to be given to failure modes of joints and detailing of members along with joints as per
new and old design code rules.
18
Figure 3: Relationship between Vy/Vc and number of stories (n) (Yakut, 2004)
Another analysis was performed to simulate the effect of infill walls. These masonry
walls were modeled using diagonal strut members. Only walls without openings were
considered as effective resistance to lateral load. Modified yield base shear capacity with
infill walls (Vyw) was related to capacity without infill walls (Vy) in terms of total area of filler
walls (Aw) and total floor area of the building (Atf) with the help of equation 4 & Figure 4.
Vyw Vy 46 w 1
Atf
(4)
19
Figure 4: Influence of filler wall on the yield base shear capacity (Yakut, 2004)
3. After establishing the base shear of building with infill wall (Vyw) an index named Basic
Capacity Index (BCPI) was evaluated as the ratio of base shear capacity (Vyw) and code
specified base shear (Vcode).
BCPI
Vyw
Vcode
(5)
This index can be used to evaluate seismic performance of building assuming that it is
built according to seismic codes of region and does not have any architectural feature with
negative effects on its seismic performance. However, usually buildings have poor
construction quality and architectural features affecting seismic performance. To incorporate
these effects an improved Capacity Index (CPI) was suggested.
(6)
where CA and CM are coefficients, which represent architectural features and construction
quality, respectively.
C A 1.0 (C AS CASC C AP C AF )
(7)
Where:
CAS = Coefficient to incorporate soft story feature
CASC = Coefficient to incorporate short column feature
CAP = Coefficient to incorporate plan irregularity feature
CAF = Coefficient to incorporate vertical and in-plane discontinuity of frames
The above coefficients have been extensively dealt with in various analytical,
empirical and experimental studies. Table 7 compares these coefficients from various studies.
The coefficients listed in Table 7 are representative only and need to be calculated based on
the target building stock. However, quantification of these factors need not be precise
because the procedure is aimed to determine relative vulnerability of a group of building.
Hence approximate values can be assigned by examining and comparing the analytical
results, expert opinion and field observations.
20
FEMA 154
(1988)
Gulkan and
Yakut (1994)
Sucuoglu and
Yazgan (2003)
0.36
0.50
0.32
0.18
0.25
0.11
0.19
0.125
0.19
0.27
0.125
0.38
CM
1.0 Qr (1 CA)
Poor
1.0 Qr (1 CA) / 3
Average
1.0
Good
4. The value of CPI should be calibrated/checked with various earthquake damage data to
obtain reliable seismic vulnerability classification of buildings. In the present study the author
cross-verified Capacity Index procedure with the three Turkish earthquake database, listed in
Table 9.
Table 9: Earthquake Database used to check Capacity Index procedure (Yakut, 2004)
Earthquake
Magnitude
6.8
43
6.5
18
6.4
28
The Capacity Index of the buildings in the above database was calculated and cross
checked with the observed condition of building. In addition to above mentioned buildings,
131 existing reinforced buildings scattered all over Turkeys high hazard zones were also
analysed and categorised as adequate, to be strengthen and to be demolished. Later
21
CPI of the each building was calculated and checked compared to analytical results. The
comparison shows that while the CPI results were in good agreement with analytical results
for adequate and to be demolished category building, it is not very satisfactory for to be
strengthened buildings. The cut-off limit of CPI was set as 1.2 to compare with analytical
results, as mentioned in Figure 5.
The most challenging task in this procedure was the assessment of CA and CM, and
deciding the limit of CPI for classifying building as safe or unsafe. The most appropriate
value for CA and Qr, as suggested by Yakut (2004), is 0.85 and 0.55 respectively, which are
based on FEMA 154. These values represent more realistic conditions by incorporating
analytical results, expert opinion and field data. Limit for CPI depends upon the area,
construction practices and code specified earthquake. For Turkey the author suggested limit
value of 1.2 as a good starting point.
22
1. Number of buildings considered in this study was huge and varied because earthquakes
from all parts of world are considered. Authors developed a new set of damage scale to
incorporate the features of RC buildings in different parts of world. This scale is called
homogenised reinforced concrete damage scale (HRC scale) and used seven damage states to
define typical structural and non-structural damage in four main types of reinforced concrete
structures found in Europe (Table 10).
Table 10: Homogenised Reinforced Concrete Damage Scale (Rossetto and Elnashai,
2003)
DIHRC
DAMAGE
STATE
DUCTILE
MRF
NONDUCTILE
MRF
INFILLED
MRF
SHEARWALL
None
No damage
No damage
No damage
No damage
Slight
Fine cracks in
plaster
partitions/infills
Fine cracks in
plaster
partitions/infills
Fine cracks in
plaster
partitions/infills
Fine cracks in
plaster
partitions/infills
10
20
30
Light
40
50
60
Moderate
70
80
24
Extensive
Most shear walls
cracking of
have exceeded
infills, falling yield, some reach
bricks, out-of- ultimate capacity,
boundary
DIHRC
DAMAGE
STATE
DUCTILE
MRF
NONDUCTILE
MRF
100
INFILLED
MRF
SHEARWALL
plane bulging
element distress
seen.
Partial
collapse
Collapse
The limit states are defined in terms of damage index, the HRC-damage index
(DIHRC), which is based on experimental calibration with structural response parameter of
maximum inter story drift ratio (ISDmax%). This damage index was calibrated with 25
published experimental reports on dynamic tests for RC structural models with bare wall,
infilled wall and shear wall. In these experiments the progression of structural damage and
inter-story drift response was recorded. Relationships (Eq. 8-11) were developed between
DIHRC & ISDmax% for different types of RC structures based on pseudo-dynamic tests. (In
these equations Ln represents natural logarithms and R2 is coefficient of correlation of data to
fitted curve.)
DI HRC 34.89 Ln( ISDmax % ) 39.39 , R2=0.991 for non ductile MRF
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
25
structure (Table 11) to understand damage of a building if it is not classified in the dataset in
any of the four building types, e.g. ductile MRF, non-ductile MRF, infilled MRF and shear
wall. Equations 7-10 were used to convert the assigned damage indices into equivalent
ISDmax% and, based on it, all the 99 datasets were plotted with ISDmax% (normalized to 6%) as
horizontal axis. The cumulative beta distributions were found to be the best fit for each of 99
datasets.
Table 11: Equivalence between HRC and other damage scales (Rossetto and Elnashai,
2003)
DIHRC
HRC
None
10
Slight
HAZUS
1999
Light
FEMA273
EMS98
MSK
AIJ
Fully
operational
Slight
damage
Immediate
occupancy
D1
EPPO
Green
tag
Green
tag
Yellow
tag
Yellow
tag
Red tag
Red
tag
Light
Light
operational
D2
Minor
Damage
control
50
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
damage
Grade 3
Life safe
D3
Life safe
Moderate
70
80
Extensive
Extensive
damage
90
100
ATC-21
Slight
Grade 1
Grade 2
40
60
ATC-13
20
30
VISION
2000
Partial
collapse
Collapse
Near
collapse
Heavy
Limited
safety
Grade 4
Collapse
prevention
D4
Major
Major
Partial
collapse
Collapse
3. Damage scale of each of the 99 datasets was converted to maximum inter-story drift. This
inter-story drift was normalized to 6% drift, i.e. ISDmax% was divided by 6%. Now the
cumulative probability of exceeding of inter-story drift was calculated and plotted against
normalized ISDmax%. This normalized inter-story drift was converted to HRC-scale and
exceeding probability for each damage state was found with the help of cumulative
probability vs. normalised ISDmax% graph. These steps are figuratively represented in Figure 6
for Korinthos earthquake (Greece, 1981).
26
Figure 6: Conversion of the RC building damage statistics observed in Plateas after the
Korinthos earthquake (Greece, 1981) to the HRC-scale (Rossetto and Elnashai, 2003)
In this way, all the 99 datasets were converted to give exceedence probability for each
of damage state of HRC scale. In other words, each damage state of HRC scale has 99 values
or data points, using which full vulnerability curve can be plotted.
4. Considering the amount of raw data used in this analysis and large associated scatter, it
was decided to assign weighting factor to each dataset. This was done by combining the
damage state exceedence probabilities of similar ground motion severities according to
27
number of surveyed buildings. This procedure helped in identification of trends in data and
reducing the influence on curve shape of single earthquake and non-European earthquake.
5. With the help of weighting procedure, the revised exceeding probabilities are found for
each damage state of HRC scale. Now various cumulative distribution functions were again
assessed to model vulnerability curve shapes. A comparison of the models was carried out
considering both acceleration and displacement based peak and spectral ground motion
parameters. It was found that relationship of the form of equation 12 gave best fit for various
ground motion parameters (GM), where and are estimated from non-linear regression on
the plotted observational data.
(12)
Using this relationship vulnerability functions for different ground motion parameters
were developed. These functions are homogenous, i.e. it can be used to predict behavior of
any type of RC structure.
region or other cities etc (Singhal and Kiremidjian, 1996; DAyala, 2005; Rossetto and
Elnashai, 2005 and Borzi et al., 2008). Recently fuzzy logic-based methods have been
suggested to develop vulnerability function of buildings (Fischer et al., 2002; Demartinos
and Dritsos, 2006 and Tesfamariam and Saatcioglu, 2010). These types of methods are
usually referred as Analytical Methods because they are based on sound mathematical
formulation.
29
Table 12: Material parameter probability distribution functions used in the population
generation (Rossetto and Elnashai, 2005)
Material
Concrete
Steel
Masonry infill
Random variable
Mean fc
COV fy1
Mean fcw
Distribution
Normal
Log-normal
Log-normal
Mean
Nominal fc
0.06
Nominal fcw
0.12
0.25
0.20
Design variable
Mean fc
Mean fy2
Mean fcw
1 Use of COV of fy as the random variable allows a constant characteristic yield strength to be
maintained and a realistic variation in mean yield strength to be obtained.
2 Calculated for fyk = nominal fy.
2. Definition of ground motion input: Suitable earthquake records are selected for
analysis. Earthquake records are selected based on target performance level, return period and
soil type. Random variation in earthquake ground motion parameter is not considered. Three
performance states of Serviceability, Damage control and Collapse prevention, which
are defined in FEMA 273, are used for selection of accelerograms. These three performance
objectives are related to earthquakes of return period 95, 475 and 2475 years, respectively.
Ten earthquakes corresponding to each performance state were chosen from European
Strong-Motion Database. Records were chosen for different site soil conditions, considering
earthquakes with values of Ms and r within 0.5Ms and 10 km of those defining the target
curves, such that the average spectral shape of the selected suite of records closely
approximates the target spectrum. Table 13 lists the earthquake parameters for defining target
spectra.
Table 13: Characteristics of the earthquake events defining the target spectra (Rossetto
and Elnashai, 2005)
Soil category
Return period (years)
Target pga (cm/s2)
Rock
95
475
Firm
2475
95
475
Soft
2475
95
475
2475
4.10
7.60
13.80 3.50
7.30
12.80 3.50
7.20
14.40
5.75
6.05
6.25
5.55
5.85
6.15
4.95
5.35
5.45
22
14
30
18
12
16
10
3. Model evaluation: Analysis of structural model is carried out using adaptive pushover
analysis technique within a capacity spectrum framework of assessment. Adaptive pushover
(APO) analysis follows the same procedure as conventional pushover analysis, but at each
load increment updates lateral applied load distribution to take into account the instantaneous
structural stiffness, modal properties and consequent ground motion demand. Thus it can
30
account for the effect of ground motion characteristics on structural response and
computationally less cumbersome compared to time-history analyses.
Using the APO analysis total 750 base-shear versus top-displacement curves were
generated for 25 buildings and 30 earthquakes.
The maximum inter-storey drift response of each structure within the population is
assessed, for increasing intensities of ground motion, using a modified capacity spectrum
method. This assessment method avoids the repetition of analyses for increasing ground
motions, and further reduces the analysis number from several thousands to a few hundred.
In the study by Rossetto and Elnashai (2005), each of the 25 APO curves defining the
population was assessed approximately twenty times for the increasingly scaled accelerogram
used in their analysis, until an inter-storey drift value is obtained which exceeded that of the
most severe damage state of interest. The program was then run for a new earthquake and a
corresponding set of APO analysis results.
4. Statistical processing of analytical results: This step relates observed inter-story drift
with structural property and ground motion parameter value.
The capacity spectrum assessment for each frame of defined properties (fc, fcw, fy, fyb)
yields values of the maximum inter-storey drift response (ISDmax) for increasing values of
ground motion intensity. The results of the population assessment are used to construct
second-order response surfaces of the form of the following equation:
ISDmax
a1 f c2 a2 f cw2 a3 f yc2 a4 f yb2 a5 f c a6 f cw a7 f yc a8 f yb
S D 5% (T )
a9 f c fcw a10 f c f yc a11 f c f yb a12 f cw f yc a13 fcw f yb a14 f yc f yb C
(13)
A different response surface is generated for each damage state scenario, using the
results of the population assessment for the corresponding performance-compatible record
suite. An example response surface and its fit to regression data is shown in Figure 8.
31
Figure 8: Illustrations of the 2475YRP response surface (top) and its fit to the
regression data (bottom; the dashed lines indicate the 5th and 95th percentile
observed/predicted ISDmax% bounds) (Rossetto and Elnashai, 2005).
The vulnerability relationships for the Slight and Light, Moderate and
Extensive, and Partial Collapse and Collapse damage states are selected from the curve
sets derived from the 95YRP, 475YRP and 2475YRP response surfaces, respectively. These
relationships are combined to form a performance-consistent set of vulnerability curves.
The curves are illustrated in Figure 9 and their equations are summarised in Table 14. In
Figure 9, the analytical vulnerability curve is also compared with the observed damage of
1154 infilled RC buildings from eight earthquakes. This observation shows good comparison
with average correlation coefficient (R2) of 0.62.
32
Figure 9: Comparison of the infilled frame population fragility curves with eight
observed post-earthquake damage distributions for like populations of structures.
(Rossetto and Elnashai, 2005)
Table 14: Summery of the infilled frame population vulnerability curve equation
(Rossetto and Elnashai, 2005)
HRC damage state
Mean
95% upper bound 5% lower bound
Slight damage
-7.80
0.60
-8.25
0.60
-6.30
0.42
Light damage
-7.15
0.40
-7.82
0.60
-5.76
0.34
Moderate damage
-5.78
0.21
-6.32
0.20
-4.51
0.22
Extensive damage
-4.44
0.21
-4.92
0.21
-3.12
0.22
Partial collapse
-3.49
0.22
-3.98
0.22
-2.12
0.27
Collapse
-2.99
0.22
-3.50
0.22
-1.67
0.24
33
Structural system
modeling
Ground motion
modeling
Autoregressive moving
average models
Artificial ground
motion simulation
Simulation of
structural system
Monte Carlo simulation
(Latin Hypercube)
Damage Probability
Matrices
Figure 10: Steps for development of fragility curved and DPM (Singhal and
Kiremedjian, 1996)
The main procedural steps of this method can be summarized as follows:
1. Earthquake ground motions are selected or generated based on amplitude, frequency
content and duration of ground motion. All such ground motion should be able to
simulated all possible variations due to distance to the fault, site soil parameters and
spectral characteristics. Artificial earthquake time histories were generated using nonstationary autoregressive moving average (ARMA) models for this study. Total 100
artificial time histories were generated and scaled to match the average spectral
acceleration over the period band corresponding to a particular class of RC frame
building.
2. Damage of the building is measured using an equivalent form of Park and Ang index
(Park and Ang, 1985a, 1985b) defined as follows:
dE
u M yu
(14)
Where:
m= maximum positive or negative plastic hinge rotation
u= plastic hinge rotation capacity under monolithic loading
= model parameter (0.15 for this study)
My = calculated yield strength
34
Minor
0.1-0.2
Moderate
0.2-0.5
Severe
0.5-1.0
Collapse
>1.0
Distribution type
Mean
Coefficient of
variation
Concrete compressive
strength
Normal
1.14fck
0.14
Lognormal
1.05fy
0.11
Figure 11: Building plan of generic structure (Singhal and Kiremedjian, 1996)
35
Figure 12: Building elevation of generic structure for three classes (a) Low-rise
frame, (b) mid-rise frame and (c) high-rise frame (Singhal and Kiremedjian, 1996)
Non-linear dynamic analysis of the models was performed. Non-linearity was
introduced in terms of non-linear moment-rotation relationship and a hysteretic
relationship in terms of the restoring force and the member deformation. For details of
the method Singhal and Kiremedjian (1996) should be referred.
4. Building models as created in Step 3 were analysed for all the 100 artificial
earthquake time histories generated at each value of spectral acceleration. Results of
these analyses were used to generate the fragility curve for each class of structure.
5. Fragility curves were used to construct damage probability matrices (DPM) by
establishing the relationship between MMI and average spectral acceleration in each
period band. This was done using the average spectral acceleration values for ground
motion recorded on firm sites and the MMI values from these earthquakes at the
recording station. Once relationship between MMI and spectral values is established,
following equation is used to find out the different values in DPM.
PD|MMI [d | MMI ]
D |S a
Sa
(15)
where:
[ |
] = probability of reaching or exceeding given damage state at
specified MMI;
|
36
PD|Sa [ d | Sa ]
specified MMI
a(t ) n Anm
n 1
n 1
*
sin n (t tnm
)
cos(n t n )
*
(t tnm )
(16)
Where:
Anm = relative amplitudes of different surface wave modes
2n FS (n )
37
Using above parameters 240 synthetic earthquakes with both the orthogonal
components of earthquake were obtained. These time histories ranged from 30 to 80
seconds.
4. Most of the RC buildings in the region were from 4 to 18 stories. Hence two
representative building of 6 story and 16 story were chosen to represent buildings of
4-10 story and 11-18 story respectively. 6 story building was a frame structure
composed of columns and beams which 16 story structure also had shear wall in
addition to column and beam. Variations in the material strength within or among the
building were not taken into study because of lack of data. This was also avoided due
to high variation in earthquake characteristic incorporating 240 ground motions.
5. Nonlinearity in the model was introduced through tri-linear moment-curvature (M-)
relationship. The three parametric model proposed by Park was used in IDARC-2D
programme.
6. Damage to the building was defined by modified Park and Angs model, which is
linear combination of maximum deformations and absorbed hysteretic energy. Global
damage index was calculated by averaging the damage indices of individual members.
Damage state of building is defined as following table:
Table 17: Damage States (Dumova-Jovanoska, 2000)
S. No.
Damage State
Damage Index
None
< 0.05
Minor
0.05-0.1
Moderate
0.1-0.25
Severe
0.25-0.5
5
Collapse
> 0.5
7. Non-linear time history analysis was performed for all the 240 earthquake time
histories with time interval of 0.0001 seconds and 0.00001 seconds (for extremely
high maximum acceleration Amax > 1.0g)
38
Table 18: Random variable for representative buildings (Borzi et al., 2008)
Structural Parameter
Distribution
0.0021
0.00021
Normal
Beam length
5.0m
1.0m
Normal
Beam depth
0.34m
0.07m
Lognormal
Column depth
0.38m
0.11m
Lognormal
Story height
3.0m
Deterministic value
2
Gravity load
3 kN/m
(2.5 for roof)
0.5 kN/m
Normal
Wind load
0.9 kN/m2
0.2 kN/m2
Normal
2.
39
various peak ground acceleration values. Estimation of PGA scales was calculated
using elastic damped spectra and inelastic capacity spectra.
3. Material uncertainty: Concrete and steel strengths were introduced as random
variable based on previous studies of Barlett and MacGregor (1996) and Mirza and
MacGregor(1979), respectively. In-place concrete strength was assumed as normally
distributed with average value of 33.6MPa and coefficient of variation 18.6%. Steel
yield strength was also assumed as normally distributed with mean value of 337 MPa
and 10.7% coefficient of variation.
4. Combination of random variables: Ground motion set of low, moderate and high
a/v ratio were combined with ten ultimate concrete strengths, fc, and ten steel yield
strength, Fy, generating total 100 frames. Artificial ground motion sets for Lowlands
soil profile were combined with 50 concrete and steel strengths and similarly timehistories for Uplands soil profile were combined with 100 concrete and steel
strengths.
5. Limit state definition: Three limit states were defined in this study as serviceability,
damage control and collapse prevention. These limit states were defined based on 1st
story drift, which is equal to 0.57%, 1.2% and 2.3% respectively for limit states.
6. Analysis and result presentation: Simulation of time history analysis also
incorporated geometrical nonlinearity and material inelasticity. Based on 23,000
analysis for natural building time history and similar number of analysis for artificial
time history vulnerability curves were plotted for three limit states. It was observed
that effect of variability of ground motion on the vulnerability curve was much bigger
than the material variation of concrete or steel, especially at low PGA levels.
40
1. Buildings were categorised into six typologies for the purpose of study:
2. Empirical DPMs were constructed on the basis of damage scale suggested by Whitman et
al. (1973), i.e. by dividing the cost of repair by the replacement cost. Based on the
damage data of 3707 buildings only a part of DPM could be created. This database could
provide damage value only for the column of intensity VII (MMI scale) in DPM, because
all the surveyed building belonged to the intensity VII area.
3. The analytical method was applied to construct the DPMs column for intensity VIII. This
was achieved through generic four-story and nine-story buildings designed as per 1959
seismic code of Greece. The computer models of these buildings were created as bareframe as well as dual systems. Additionally two different sets of analyses were performed
for model with and without infill wall (Figure 13).
Figure 13: Analytical models for structures analysed: (a) four-story building; (b)
nine-story building. (Kappos et al., 1998)
The building models were analysed for 10 sets of input motions, each one
corresponding to a typical soil profile in the area under consideration derived from the
input motion at bedrock, corresponding to the 1978 earthquake. Another set of 10 input
motions was derived for a 7.0 magnitude earthquake which was estimated to be the
41
design earthquake for the city and corresponded to intensity of approximately VIII when
the M-I correlation equations for the area under consideration was used. Each of six
generic structures were analysed for 20 ground motions. The results of ductilities and
interstory drift from the analysis were used to arrive at the building damage using
available empirical damage data. This helped in creating DPM column corresponding to
intensity VIII.
A similar procedure was used to evaluate the DPM column for intensity VI. In
order to complete the DPM for higher intensities from XI to XII, the values suggested by
ATC 13 were adopted. This was required to be done because neither statistical nor
empirical data was available for higher intensity earthquakes.
This study is a good example of using the best of empirical and analytical
methods. With the help of available damage data for intensity VII, damage data for other
intensities (VI & VIII) were estimated using the analytical models. These types of
applications are very useful especially if there is limited damage data is available from
past earthquakes, that too only for some intensities. This use of analytical method and
calibrating it with available damage data may provide better results than using empirical
damage data from other regions.
A sample damage probability matrix for medium-rise (4-7story) non-ductile RC
frame buildings is shown in Table 17.
Table 19: DPM for medium-rise (4-7 story) non-ductile RC frame building (Kappos et
al., 1998)
Modified Mercalli Intensity
Central damage
ratio (%)
VI
VII
VIII
IX
XI
XII
0.0
29.1
26.5
23.7
0.5
45.0
40.9
34.8
5.0
15.3
19.3
24.3
1.9
0.2
20.0
10.0
10.9
11.5
65.1
30.8
3.6
0.5
45.0
0.6
1.2
4.3
33
67.7
70
27.9
80.0
1.2
1.4
1.3
26.4
71.2
100.0
0.4
3.2
4.8
6.7
27.9
37.7
53.3
70
42
43
44
methodology (Table 3). In the recent times Homogenised Reinforced Concrete Damage scale
was proposed by Rossetto and Elnashai (2003) (Tables 10 & 11) for low-rise infilled
European-type RC buildings.
In order for vulnerability assessment to be used in a performance-based framework, it
is desirable that the selected damage scale is defined in terms of at least three damage limit
states, corresponding to serviceability, damage control and collapse prevention. The damage
scale limit states must also be clearly defined in terms of the damage expected in the
structural and non-structural elements of buildings with different lateral load resisting
systems. For analytical curve derivation, the damage scale should further be calibrated to a
measurable structural response parameter. The choice of response parameter for the
calibration and its values are important in determining the reliability of the vulnerability
relationships. (Rossetto and Elnashai, 2003)
different building classes. Based on expert opinion DPMs were developed for each building
classes for each intensity level.
Table 20: Format of DPM proposed by Whitman et. Al. (1973)
Damage
State
Structural
Damage
Nonstructural
Damage
None
Intensity of Earthquake
Damage
Ratio
(%)
VI
VII
VIII
IX
None
0-0.05
10.4
None
Minor
0.05-0.3
16.4
0.5
None
Localised
0.3-1.25
40.0
22.5
Not Noticeable
Widespread
1.25-3.5
20.0
30.3
2.7
Minor
Substantial
3.5-4.5
13.2
47.1
92.3
58.8
14.7
Substantial
Extensive
7.5-20
0.2
5.0
41.2
83.0
Major
Nearly total
20-65
2.3
Building Condemned
100
Collapse
100
46
Intensity
V
Few
VI
Many
VII
Few
Many
Few
VIII
Many
IX
Few
Many
Few
Many
XI
Most
XII
The EMS98 DPMs are meant to be used after an earthquake, but with little
modification same methodology can also be used to calculate vulnerability for buildings.
These modification comes in the form of defining damage distribution functions, which are
based on past earthquake damage observations, and introducing fuzzy set theory to put
numerical values of probabilities in place of few, many and most terms.
This method can be used for already existing statistical data and properly surveyed
data. Additionally it can be applied on a single building or on multiple buildings. A sound
analytical background allows this method to be adopted for large scale GIS environment.
Thus economic losses and life safety of people can be predicted and it can become a powerful
risk assessment tool for a larger region.
Following the introduction of DPMs based on intensity, the assessment of seismic risk
on a large scale was made possible in both an efficient and cost effective manner because in
the past seismic hazard maps were also defined in terms of macroseismic intensity. Examples
of the use of DPMs based on the ATC-13 approach for the assessment of risk and loss
include the city of Basel (Fah et al., 2001) and Bogot (Cardona and Yamin, 1997).
The limitations of DPM methods (Calvi et al., 2006) include the following:
47
Most of current damage data is available for low damage/ low ground motion
earthquakes. Hence higher damage end of DPM may not give accurate picture of
damage.
Seismic hazard maps are now defined in terms of PGA and thus PGA needs to be
related to intensity.
When PGA is used in the derivation of empirically defined vulnerability, the
relationship between the frequency content of the ground motions and the period of
vibration of the buildings is not taken into account.
48
Figure 14: Vulnerability curves produced by Spence et al. (1992) for bare
moment-resisting frames using the parameterless scale of intensity (PSI); D1 to D5
relate to damage states in the MSK scale.
49
Sub- Types
Load Resisting
System
(Lateral/Vertical)
Proposed methods
50
Material
Sub- Types
Moment Resisting
Frame (MF)
Proposed methods
Structural
Concrete
(C)
Load Resisting
System
(Lateral/Vertical)
Shear Wall
Structure (SW)
Moment Resisting
Frame (MF)
51
Material
Load Resisting
System
(Lateral/Vertical)
Sub- Types
Wooden
Structures
(W)
Proposed methods
Load Bearing
Timber Frame (TF)
52
Table 23: Damage scale of GSDMA (2006) and its comparison with other international
methods
DIHRC
0
HAZUS
1999
FEMA273
EMS98/
MSK-64
ATC-13
Grade 1
Slight
ATC-20
GSDMA
10
20
30
Slight
damage
40
Grade 2
Light
Moderate
damage
S1
Moderate
S2
Grade 3
Yellow
tag
70
80
Limited safety
(D4)
90
Extensive Collapse
Grade 4
damage
prevention (D5)
100
Green
tag
Damage control
(D2)
50
60
Immediate
occupancy (D1)
S3
Heavy
S4
Red tag
Partial Collapse
Major
S5
53
Description
Not noticeable
II
Scarcely noticeable
III
IV
Largely observed
Awakening
VI
Frightening
VII
Damage of buildings
VIII
Destruction of buildings
IX
General destruction of
buildings
XI
Destruction
XII
Landscape changes
4.4.2 Wood
Wood construction was very popular till recent times and there are large numbers of
wood building in countrys building stock. A quality construction of wood tends to last for
decades. For the purpose of vulnerability assessment empirical method or expert-opinion
method is more suitable.
4.4.3 Concrete
Concrete structures are becoming increasing popular in the country. They are
considered to be long lasting and better as compared to wood or masonry construction.
Computer based analysis is also possible for these buildings because of relative homogeneity
of material strength across the building and monolithic behaviour at joints at quality
54
construction. However, the major challenge for vulnerability assessment is to incorporate the
effects of poor code compliance, unreliable construction quality and varied construction
practices at different parts of nation.
4.4.4 Steel
Steel is more popular construction material for industrial buildings as compared to
residential buildings. Steel buildings can be easily analysed using computer based analytical
techniques. This material is more reliable than concrete because of quality control at the
production stage. All the four types of vulnerability assessment methods can be used for steel
buildings.
55
back to experts and asked to revise their opinion if they wish after considering
the average opinion of group. This iteration procedure is repeated for a predecided number of times or till acceptable consensus is achieved.
b. Consensus Method: In this method experts work as a team and arrive at an
opinion. Combined efforts are put and issues are settled through discussions.
This method is less time consuming than Delphi method. However, there is
greater chance of bias in results since more vocal experts may be given
disproportionate weightage.
In the Indian scenario it is recommended to use consensus method, because Delphi
method is required to have certain minimum number of experts (10 to 18), which is not
feasible in Indian scenario. Hence method of consensus is the way forward for expert
opinion-based methods in the initial phase.
6. Design the questionnaire clearly stating the objectives, limitations, building
classifications, earthquake intensity scale, damage scale and any other information which
may be required.
7. A revised questionnaire can be developed if required and to streamline the variation in
expert opinion. This can be considered as an iterative step till the desired uniformity
among experts is achieved or pre-decided number of iterations is performed.
8. Response of all the experts should be processed by statistical operations to arrive at final
conclusion.
The step-by-step method given above is shown in flowchart in Figure 15.
Decide the objectives of expert opinion survey
Choose the
building typology
Define earthquake
intensity as per MSK-64
Choose the
experts
Is consensus
reached?
Y
Use the DPM or fragility curve
Figure 15: Flowchart for vulnerability assessment based on expert opinion for
masonry buildings.
56
Choose the
building typology
Define earthquake
intensity as per MSK-64
57
58
Choose the
building typology
Define earthquake
intensity as per MSK-64
Select appropriate
natural/synthetic earthquakes
depending upon geology and
past seismic activity
59
Choose the
building typology
Define earthquake
intensity as per MSK-64
Select appropriate
natural/synthetic earthquakes
depending upon geology and
past seismic activity
Choose building configuration
Generate appropriate number of buildings
based on selected random variables and their
probability distribution
Create the computer model for all the
buildings, which could be
1. Linear dynamic model
2. Non-linear dynamic model
Perform time-history analysis of all buildings
for all earthquakes
Compare structural performance
of all buildings with earthquake
demand of all possible seismic
activities
Construct DPM or fragility curve
based on comparison of
earthquake demand and
structural capacity
60
1. The main goal of using hybrid method is to assess the vulnerability of existing
construction typologies in India.
2. Decide the building typologies from Table 20, which can be covered in a single
questionnaire. Out of 14 sub-types of masonry structure some of them can be grouped and
assessed for their vulnerability jointly.
3. Use earthquake intensity indicator MSK-64 scale for vulnerability assessment.
4. Define the damage states of structure based on MSK-64 given in Table 21.
5. Prepare the DPM or fragility curve for selected building typology using analytical
method.
6. Present the results to an expert panel and ask them to give recommendations on it.
7. If expert group is not in agreement with analytical results, revise analytical model based
on expert recommendations.
The step-by-step method given above is shown in flowchart in Figure 19.
Decide the objectives of hybrid method
Choose the
building typology
Define earthquake
intensity as per MSK-64
Are results
satisfactory?
N
Make appropriate changes in the
result as per suggestions of expert
panel
61
62
Chapter 5 Conclusions
Study of some of the important vulnerability methods clearly shows that there is no
unique or best solution for assessing vulnerability of selected building stock. Various
methods have been evolved in the different parts of world to address different issues of
seismic risk assessment. A clear trend can be seen that with the advent of faster
computational facilities researchers are applying advance mathematical tools for vulnerability
assessment. Probability based assessment is being tried out by many in recent past and
current advancement is the introduction of fuzzy logic to assess vulnerability. It is also
evident that with increased awareness about earthquake risk there are more attempts to collect
field data of existing buildings stock.
A clear definition of chosen earthquake intensity scale and damage scale should be
decided for chosen vulnerability assessment method. Empirical methods are not
recommended for Indian scenario because of lack of quality post earthquake damage data.
Analytical method has limited applicability for only RCC or steel buildings, and masonry
building up to some extent. Expert opinion procedure is an iterative procedure, where greater
consensus is tried to be built up with each iteration. Hence the criteria to terminate iterations
should be decided beforehand. Valid criteria can be pre-decided range of expert opinions or
number of iterations. A separate tech-doc is submitted for details of expert-opinion method.
Study of vulnerability assessment methods shows that it needs careful application of
mathematical models to ground reality. Extrapolation of data from few chosen building to
entire city or region is a task that requires great care, structural understanding, judgment and
experience. Conclusively it can be said that vulnerability assessment methods are ample and
one needs to choose carefully depending on its need, building type, available technical skill,
time frame and resources.
Currently the main challenge seems to be the verification and calibration of results
obtained from various probabilistic models using available data. Post earthquake data
collection could be only tool to verify various probability density functions.
Finally, it can be said that there is still a long way to go before we can reach the
appropriate level of confidence in vulnerability assessment.
63
64
References
ATC-13 (1985). Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California. Applied Technology
Council, Redwood City, California, USA.
Borzi, B., Pinho, R., and Crowley, H. (2008). Simplified pushover-based vulnerability
analysis for large-scale assessment of RC buildings. Engineering Structures, 30(3), 804-820.
Braga, F., Dolce, M., and Liberatore, D. (1982). A Statistical Study on Damaged Buildings
and an Ensuing Review of the MSK-76 Scale. Proceedings of the Seventh European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Athens, Greece, 431-450.
Calvi, G.M., Pinho, R., Magenes, G., Bommer, J.J., Restrepo-Vlez, L.F., and Crowley, H.
(2006). Development of Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies over 30 years.
ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 43(3), 75-104.
Cardona, O.D., and Yamin, L.E. (1997). Seismic Microzonation and Estimation of
Earthquake Loss Scenarios: Integrated Risk Mitigation Project of Bogot, Colombia.
Earthquake Spectra, 13(4), 795-814.
Coburn, A. and Spence, R. (2002). Earthquake Protection. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 2nd
Edition, Chichester, England.
Dayala, D.F. (2005). Force and Displacement Based Vulnerability Assessment for
Traditional Buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 3(3), 235-265.
Demartinos, K., and Dritsos, S. (2006). First-Level Pre-earthquake Assessment of Buildings
Using Fuzzy Logic. Earthquake Spectra, 22(4), 865-885.
Fah, D., Kind, F., Lang, K., and Giardini, D. (2001). Earthquake Scenarios for the City of
Basel. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 21(5), 405-413.
FEMA-154 (1988). Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a
handbook. FEMA Report-154, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington (DC).
FEMA-273 (1997). NEHERP Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA
Report-273, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington (DC).
Fischer, T., Alvarez, M., De la Llera, J.C., and Riddell, R. (2002). An integrated model for
earthquake risk assessment of buildings. Engineering Structures, 24(7), 979-998.
Giovinazzi, S., and Lagomarsino, S. (2004). A macroseismic method for the vulnerability
assessment of buildings. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,
B.C., Canada, Paper no 896.
GSDMA (2006). Volumne-III, Annexure-7: Damage assessment of buildings. Study on
damage and loss assessment methodology in Gujarat. Gujarat State Disaster Management
Authority, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India.
65
Gulkan P., and Yakut A (1994). An expert system for reinforced concrete structural damage
quantification. In: Wight JK, Kreger ME, editors. ACI SP-162, Mete A. Sozen Symposium,
5371.
IS 1893 (2002). Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures (Part-1). Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Jaiswal, K., and Wald, D. J. (2008). Creating a Global Building Inventory for Earthquake
Loss Assessment and Risk Management USGS Open File Report, 1160.
Kappos, A.J., Stylianidis, K.C., and Pitilakis, K. (1998), Development of Seismic Risk
Scenarios Based on a Hybrid Method of Vulnerability Assessment, Natural Hazards, 17(2),
177-192.
Liu, Ben-Chieh and Hsieh, Chang-Tseh (1981). An integrated model for earthquake risk and
damage assessment. Mathematical Social Sciences, 1(2), 201-214.
Norea, F., Castaeda, C., and Iglesias J. (1989). The Mexico Earthquake of September 19,
1985Evaluation of the Seismic Capacity of Buildings in Mexico City. Earthquake
Spectra, 5(1), 19-24.
Papathanassiou, G., and Pavlides, S. (2007). Using the INQUA scale for the assessment of
intensity: Case study of the 2003 Lefkada (Ionian Islands), Greece earthquake. Quaternary
International, (173174), 414.
Park, Y.J. and Ang, A.H.S. (1985a). Mechanistic Seismic Damage Model for Reinforced
Concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 111(4), 722-739.
Park, Y.J. and Ang, A.H.S. (1985b). Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete
buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering, 111(4), 740-757.
Rossetto, T., and Elnashai, A. (2003). Derivation of Vulnerability Functions for Europeantype RC Structures Based on Observational Data. Engineering Structures, 25(10), 12411263.
Rossetto, T., and Elnashai, A. (2005). A New Analytical Procedure for the Derivation of
Displacement-Based Vulnerability Curves for Populations of RC Structures. Engineering
Structures, 7(3), 397-409.
Scawthorn, C., Iemura, H., and Yamada, Y. (1981). Seismic Damage Estimation for Lowand Mid-Rise Buildings in Japan. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 9(2), 93115.
Singhal, A., and Kiremidjian, A.S. (1996). Method for Probabilistic Evaluation of Seismic
Structural Damage. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 122(12), 1459-1467.
Sinha, R., Shaw, R., Goyal, A., Choudhary, M.D., Jaiswal, K., Saita, J., Arai, H., Pribadi K.
and Arya, A.S. (2001). The Bhuj Earthquake of January 26, 2001. Indian Institute of
Technology Bombay and Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Research Centre, Miki, Japan.
Spence, R., Coburn, A.W., and Pomonis, A. (1992). Correlation of Ground Motion with
Building Damage: The Definition of a New Damage-Based Seismic Intensity Scale,
Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 1,
551-556.
Sucuoglu, H., and Yazgan, U. (2003). Simple survey procedures for seismic risk assessment
in urban building stocks. In: Wasti ST, Ozcebe G, editors. Seismic assessment and
66
67