ABOUT BMTPC

Building Materials & Technology Promotion Council under the auspices of Ministry of Housing &
Urban Poverty Alleviation is an autonomous organization dedicated to promote and popularize cost
effective, eco-friendly and energy efficient building materials and disaster resistant construction tech-
nology. BMTPC works as a technology transfer council and helps various stake holders involved in
the construction industry for technology development, production, mechanization, implementation,
standardization, certification & evaluation, training & capacity building and entrepreneur develop-
ment. Over the last two decades, BMTPC has expanded its activities and made commendable efforts
in the area of disaster mitigation and management.
Guidelines
Ever since 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake, BMTPC has been pro-actively involved not only in seismic
rehabilitation but also in the area of prevention, mitigation & preparedness as regards earthquake Rapid Visual Screening (RVS)
safety is concerned. The widely popularized publication of BMTPC entitled ‘Vulnerability Atlas of
India’ is one of its kind which depicts the vulnerability of various man made constructions in different of Buildings of Masonry and
districts of India not only from earthquake hazards but also from Wind/Cyclone and Flood hazards.
Efforts of BMTPC were applauded well and in the process UN Habitat selected the same as one Reinforced Concrete as
of the Best Practices. It is being BMTPC’s endeavour to constantly publish guidelines, brochures,
pamphlets on natural hazards so as to educate the common man and create capacities within India to
prevalent in India
handle any disaster. BMTPC has recently published the following documents:-
1. Guidelines for Multi-Hazard Resistant Construction of EWS Housing Projects
2. Guidelines on “Aapda Pratirodhi Bhawan Nirman : Sampurn Bharat Ke Liye Margdarshika” (in
Hindi)
3. Guidelines : Improving Earthquake Resistance of Housing
4. Guidelines : Improving Flood Resistance of Housing
5. Guidelines : Improving Wind/Cyclone Resistance of Housing
6. Manual on Basics of Ductile Detailing
7. Building a Hazard Resistant House, a Common Man’s Guide
8. Manual for Restoration and Retrofitting of Buildings in Uttarakhand & Himachal Pradesh.
9. Seismic Retrofitting of MCD School Buildings at New Delhi
These documents are important tools for safety against natural hazards for various stake holders in-
volved in disaster mitigation and management. Apart from publications, the council is also involved
in construction of disaster resistant model houses and retrofitting of existing life line buildings such
as Schools/Hospitals to showcase different disaster resistant technologies and also spread awareness
amongst artisans and professionals regarding retrofitting and disaster resistant construction.
BMTPC joined hands with Ministry of Home Affairs to draft Model Building Bye-laws incorporat-
ing disaster resistance features so that State/UT Governments incorporate them into their municipal
regulations and prepare themselves against natural hazards. One of the very basic publications of
BMTPC with IIT, Kanpur has been ‘Earthquake Tips’ which was specially designed and published
to spread awareness regarding earthquake amongst citizens of India in a simple, easy to comprehend
language. The tips are being published in other languages also so that there is greater advocacy and
public out reach regarding earthquake safety.

For further information, please contact:

Executive Director
Building Materials & Technology Promotion Council,
Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India,
Core-5A, 1st Floor, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 Building Materials & Technology Promotion Council
Phone: +91-11-24638096, Fax: +91-11-24642849
Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation
E-Mail: bmtpc@del2.vsnl.net.in; info@bmtpc.org
Website: http://www.bmtpc.org Government of India
New Delhi
Guidelines
Rapid Visual Screening (RVS)
of Buildings of Masonry and
Reinforced Concrete as
prevalent in India

Building Materials & Technology Promotion Council

Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation
Government of India
New Delhi
Prepared by Dr. Anand S.Arya, Professor Emeritus, IIT Roorkee

Copyright @2014

Published by:

Building Materials & Technology Promotion Council,

Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India,
Core-5A, 1st Floor, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
Phone: +91-11-24636705, 24638096, Fax: +91-11-24642849
E-Mail: bmtpc@del2.vsnl.net.in; info@bmtpc.org
Website: www.bmtpc.org
 Foreword
Four great earthquakes of magnitude 8.0 and above in different parts of the country and in recent
times earthquakes of different magnitudes [Uttarakhashi (1991), Killari (1993), Jabalpur (1997),
Chamoli (1999), Bhuj (2001) and Jammu & Kashmir (2005)] at regular interval have resulted in
large number of deaths and huge property losses. These devastating earthquakes have exposed the
vulnerability of our housing stock in earthquake prone regions of the country. A comprehensive earth-
quake disaster risk management is, therefore, necessary to mitigate the effects of earthquake.

Earthquake do not kill people, it is the collapse of buildings which kills people. Unfortunately both
load bearing and Reinforced concrete framed structures, which collapsed during these earthquakes,
have been found to be deficient from earthquake safety point of view. While newer buildings may be
found vulnerable due to poor design and construction; the older buildings, designed and constructed
based on provision of prevalent codes at that time may also be found deficient vis-à-vis more stringent
provisions of latest earthquake resistant buildings codes.

For earthquake mitigation, it is not only necessary to build earthquake safe structures but also ensure
safety of existing buildings. For this assessment of existing buildings is necessary. Detailed seismic vul-
nerability analysis is an expensive procedure and in case of RCC framed structures is also technically
complex, which may not be necessary for all buildings. A simpler procedure, therefore, is called for
which can help in rapid evaluation of the vulnerability profile of a building. The Rapid Visual Survey
(RVS) is used for this purpose, so as to prioritize the buildings for more complex and expensive evalu-
ation.

Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for potential seismic hazards, originated in 1988 with the pub-
lication of FEMA 154 Report, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards
A Hand Book. In India, Prof. A.S. Arya, in his capacity as National Seismic Advisor developed a
procedure of Rapid Visual Screening of building types prevalent in India. The procedure is also now
incorporated in Indian Standard IS 13935:2009, Seismic Evaluation, Repair and strengthening of
Masonry Buildings Guidelines.

As a part of our drive to propagate disaster resistant construction practises and mitigation measures,
this publication written by Prof. A.S. Arya has been brought out by BMTPC. This gives the glimpse
of earthquake hazard scenario with building typologies prevalent in the country and the detailed pro-
cedure of RVS developed by Prof. Arya. The publication also gives in brief, the procedure adopted in
FEMA 154 report for information.

BMTPC places on record with gratitude, its deep appreciation for the untiring and inspiring efforts of
Prof. A.S. Arya in the area of earthquake hazard mitigation and providing a tool to Disaster Manage-
ment Authorities to develop a better Disaster Management Plan for the future in the form of these
guidelines.

Dr. Shailesh Kr. Agrawal

Executive Director
BMTPC
 Preface
Vulnerability can be defined as the degree of loss to a given element at risk, or set of such elements,
resulting from an earthquake of a given magnitude or intensity. Earthquake vulnerability is thus a
function of the potential losses from earthquakes- death and injury to people, damage to various
man made structures: buildings, bridges, etc. The damages and losses also depend on the mitigation
and preparedness measure adopted before the occurrence of a damaging earthquake. They reflect the
uncared for weakness in the built environment. Also, the ability of the community to cope with the
hazard’s damaging impact and to absorb the losses after an earthquake event, and also to recover from
the damages. Vulnerable conditions preceding the earthquake event contribute to its disastrous im-
pact and create an emergency situation usually continuing long after the earthquake had struck.

According to the Census of housing 2011 India has 304,882,448 housing units consisting of wall
materials varying from mud/unburnt brick, wood, stone, burnt brick and concrete besides biomass
materials like grass, thatch, bamboo, etc. It has been seen that older residential and commercial build-
ings constructed of unreinforced masonry have inadequate resistant to seismic forces. The Kutcha
buildings consisting of mud/unburnt bricks are highly vulnerable to earthquake shaking and more so
under wet rainy season. Even Pucca construction, if not properly designed and constructed with ad-
equate reinforcement, will also be vulnerable to earthquake shaking. Even reinforced concrete modern
buildings of poor design and constructions can be seriously damaged as seen in the Bhuj earthquake
in the city of Ahmedabad.

It has been seen that under varying intensities of the earthquake from magnitude 5.5 to 8.7 buildings
have been damaged under five categories of damage from G1 (minor damage) to G5 (total collapse).
The number of buildings which are variously damaged may be Few or Many or Most depending on
the building types and the impacting seismic intensity.

It is tragic that with a glorious tradition of earthquake engineering in world class academic centers the
Earthquake Code is still not mandatory and buildings are constructed annually without any seismic
resistance. Since, the number of earthquake unsafe buildings is too huge, concerted action can only
be taken for seismic retrofitting of selected critical and important buildings. To evaluate the need of
retrofitting a building can quickly be assessed by using the RVS procedure developed originally by
Prof. A.S. Arya in 2003 while working as National Seismic Advisor to MHA, Govt. of India. Now
for masonry structures, it is a part of Indian Standard IS 13935:2009 Seismic Evaluation, Repair and
Strengthening of Masonry Buildings – Guidelines. It can be carried out quickly without resorting to
the time consuming analytical methods or detailed testing procedures, that is the usefulness of RVS
procedures applicable to a masonry building or a reinforced concrete frame building.

September 2014
Prof. A.S. Arya
 Contents

1. Introduction
1.1 Need for Seismic Evaluation .............................................................................................1
1.2 Work done in California USA............................................................................................1
1.3 Work done by Arya in India...............................................................................................2
1.4 Main steps in Seismic Evaluation of an Existing Building...................................................2
1.5 Objective of the guideline..................................................................................................2
1.6 Scope of the guideline........................................................................................................2

2. Outline of the RVS Procedure

2.1 Purpose of RVS..................................................................................................................4
2.2 Data collection forms for RVS...........................................................................................4
2.3 RVS Result.........................................................................................................................4
2.4 Use of RVS Result..............................................................................................................4
2.5 List of References...............................................................................................................5

3. Seismic Hazard Intensities in India

3.1 MSK 1964 Intensities used in India (IS:1893- Part I: 2002)..............................................6
3.2 European Macro Seismic Scale (EMS 1998).......................................................................6
3.3 Seismic Hazard Intensities in Arya method for RVS ..........................................................6
3.4 Hazard Intensities for various States and UTs in India........................................................7
3.5 Seismic Hazards considered in RVS forms..........................................................................8

4. Building Typologies in India

4.1 Building Types in India....................................................................................................12
4.2 Building Typologies Classification....................................................................................13
4.3 Wooden Structure............................................................................................................16
4.4 Two traditional earthquake Resistant Building Types used in India..................................16

5. Grades of Damageability
5.1 Damage grades . ..............................................................................................................18
5.2 Definition of terms Few, Many and Most in Intensity Scales............................................19
5.3 Damageability grades of buildings of Masonry and RCC.................................................20
5.4 Examples of Grades of Damage of Masonry Buildings.....................................................21
5.5 Illustrations of Grades of Damage of RCC Buildings.......................................................22

6. Seismic Vulnerability
6.1 Vulnerability....................................................................................................................25
6.2 Vulnerable Elements in the Physical Environment...........................................................25
6.3 Prevalence of Non-Engineered Constructions..................................................................26
6.4 Inadequate Control in the Building Construction............................................................26
6.5 Factors Affecting Seismic Vulnerability of Buildings.........................................................26
6.6 Vulnerability classes specified in EMS (European Macro Seismic Scale)...........................28
7. Rapid Visual Screening Procedure
7.1 The RVS Procedure .........................................................................................................29
7.2 Seismic Hazards considered in RVS Forms.......................................................................29
7.3 Building Types Considered in RVS Procedure..................................................................29
7.4 Grades of Damageability..................................................................................................30
7.5 Relationship of Seismic Intensity, Building Type & Damage Grade..................................30
7.6 RVS Survey Forms – Special Points..................................................................................30
7.7 Building Attributes enhancing Earthquake Risk...............................................................32
7.8 RVS Forms for various Buildings......................................................................................38
7.9 Quick Reference Guide for Ready Reference....................................................................39

8. Sequence of RVS Implementation

8.1 General Sequence of Implementing RVS..........................................................................46
8.2 Cost Estimation and Budget Development .....................................................................46
8.3 Pre-Field Planning............................................................................................................47
8.4 Selection and Review of the Data Collection Form..........................................................47
8.5 Determination of Seismicity of the Region.......................................................................48
8.6 Qualifications and Training for Assessors . .......................................................................48
8.7 Acquisition and Review of Pre- RVS Data........................................................................48
8.8 Information about Foundation Soil Strata . .....................................................................48
8.9 Review of Construction Documents................................................................................49
8.10 Field Screening of Buildings.............................................................................................49
8.11 Checking the Quality and Filing the Field Data in the Record- Keeping System..............50
8.12 Completing Data Collection Form .................................................................................50
8.13 Sketching the Plan and Elevation Views ..........................................................................51

9. Quick Reference Guide for Ready Reference

9.1 Quick Reference Guide for RVS of Masonry Buildings....................................................52
9.2 Quick Reference Guide For RVS Of RC Building............................................................55

10. Template for RVS of Masonry Buildings

10.1 Questionnaire For Collection Of Building Data...............................................................58

Appendix –A: RVS PROCEDURE OF FEMA 154

A.1 Background......................................................................................................................63
A.2 Parameters considered in RVS..........................................................................................63
A.3 Seismic Hazard Intensities................................................................................................65
A.4 Building Types.................................................................................................................65
A.5 Height of Building...........................................................................................................67
A.6 Plan irregularity ..............................................................................................................67
A.7 Vertical Irregularity .........................................................................................................67
A.8 Conformity with earthquake Resistant Building Code ....................................................68
A.9 Type of Base Soil..............................................................................................................68
A.10 Falling Hazard..................................................................................................................68
A.11 The Basic Score, the Score Modifiers and the Final Score ................................................68
A.12 The Data Collection Forms..............................................................................................69
1. Introduction
____________________________________________________
1.1 Need for Seismic Evaluation

An existing building may not comply with requirements of the earthquake building codes for various
reasons, such as the following:
i) The buildings may not have been designed initially to resist earthquake loads, as it may have been
constructed before such a code was adopted, or even if adopted it may not have been mandatory.
ii) Even if the building was initially built to the earthquake code provisions, the seismic resistance
requirements may have been revised upwards in the later revisions of the code. For example, the
basic earthquake code in India namely Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design
of structures was first published in 1962. Since then it has been revised in the years 1966, 1970,
1975, 1984 and the latest revision in 2002. Comparing the requirements of Earthquake Resistant
Design in 1962 with those in 2002, it is seen that the design forces have almost doubled in the year
2002 as compared with 1962. Therefore, buildings designed as per 1962 version of the code will
need seismic strength evaluation to check if the building needs retrofitting to come to the level of
2002 version of the code.
iii) The use of building may have changed requiring higher level of safety. For example a residential
building might have been converted to a building for storage of goods critical to safety or for
commercial use or for a school or medical clinic. For the various building uses, the design criteria
in the code are different, the school or hospital buildings to be designed for 50% higher forces as
compared with residential buildings.
iv) The condition of the building may have deteriorated over the years in the absence of proper
maintenance, which may require refurbishing and retrofitting of the building for continuous use
over the remaining years of the building life.

1.2 Work done in California USA

Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards, originated in 1988 with the publication of
the FEMA 154 Report, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook.

It was written for a broad audience ranging from engineers and building officials to appropriately trained
non-professionals. The Handbook provided a “sidewalk survey” approach that enabled users to classify
surveyed buildings into two categories: those acceptable as to risk to life safety or those that may be seismi-
cally hazardous and should be evaluated in more detail by a design professional experienced in seismic
design.

During the decade following publication of the first edition of the FEMA 154 Handbook, the rapid visual
screening (RVS) procedure was used by private-sector organizations and government agencies to evaluate
more than 70,000 buildings nationwide. This widespread application provided important information
about the purposes for which the document was used, the ease-of-use of the document, and perspectives on
the accuracy of the scoring system upon which the procedure was based. Concurrent with the widespread
use of the document, damaging earthquakes occurred in California and elsewhere, and extensive research
and development efforts were carried out under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP). These efforts yielded important new data on the performance of buildings in earthquakes, and
on the expected distribution, severity, and occurrence of earthquake-induced ground shaking.

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 1

1.3 Work done by Arya in India

While working as National Seismic Advisor in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India, Prof. Arya
developed a procedure of Rapid Visual Screening of Building types prevalent in India. In view of the fact
that the buildings covered under FEMA 154 were almost entirely of different construction technology
commonly used in California, USA, the use of the FEMA 154 was not found suitable to Indian build-
ings. The guidelines on the subject of RVS of Indian buildings was prepared during 2005-2006 and its
use was tried in Tamil Nadu where the seismic zone was upgraded from zone II to zone III which created
some scare in Chennai. The methodology was found very suitable since it applied to the various building
types seen in Chennai.

1.4 Main Steps in Seismic Evaluation of an Existing Building

There are a few steps involved in the evaluation of the seismic resistance of an existing building.
First, A quick assessment may be carried out by the procedure called Rapid Visual Screening (RVS). This
procedure involves a rapid visual inspection and information gathering about the buildings, from the
municipal building department records where available and/or the owner of the building and the main-
tenance personnel to identify the vulnerable elements in the buildings.

When a building is identified as vulnerable, the next step will be to have detailed evaluation by acquiring
relevant data so as to carry out the detailed assessment of the deficiencies which would need treatment by
retrofitting.

1.5 Objective of the Guideline

The objective of this guideline is to formulate the procedure to carry out the Rapid Visual Screening of
large number of various buildings in all the regions of India by which an initial appraisal could be obtained
about the collapse potential or the damageability grades to which they may be subjected under the Seismic
Intensity occurrence postulated in the Seismic Zone they are situated in. This information will help in
developing damage potential of such various community buildings in future earthquake occurrences so
that the states may prepare suitable disaster management plans accordingly.

1.6 Scope of the Guideline

The guideline basically covers buildings constructed using various masonry materials and reinforced con-
crete frame buildings. It starts with the need for seismic evaluation of existing buildings and the purpose
of RVS to be done in the Indian context. The main factors entering into the seismic evaluation of existing
buildings are the building type, the seismic intensity zone in which the building is situated and the vulner-
ability (damagebility) of the building when impacted by the postulated seismic intensity. Therefore, the
topics included are seismic hazard intensity zones in India, the building typologies prevalent in India and
the grades of damagebility under various intensity occurrences. Based on these factors the RVS procedure
developed by Arya is fully described and the RVS data forms to be used by the assessors (screeners) are
developed. For implementation of the RVS procedure, an appropriate sequence of the operations is sug-
gested.

Quick reference guides are also described in very brief which the assessors could carry with them for use
in the field. Finally, a template is developed for collection of building data for general use.

The procedure of RVS developed by FEMA, which has been used extensively for the building types preva-
lent in California, USA, is given in an Appendix for ready information.

2 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

2. Outline of the RVS Procedure
____________________________________________________

2.1 Purpose of RVS

The RVS procedure has been formulated to assess, inventorise, and to rank buildings that may be poten-
tially hazardous under Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) as postulated in the seismic zoning in
India at the site of the building. The RVS procedure is designed to be implemented without performing
structural analysis calculations. It utilizes a procedure that requires the Assessor to (1) identify the primary
structural lateral-load-resisting system of the building; and (2) identify building attributes that will modify
the seismic performance expected of this lateral-load-resisting system as per the MSK Intensity, which is
the basic criteria for determining the macro zones in the country.

2.2 Data Collection Forms for RVS

The inspection, data collection, and decision-making process will occur mostly at the building site with
access to its exterior as well as the interior. Results are recorded on one of RVS Forms (Data Collection
Forms), prepared separately according to the seismicity of the region being surveyed. The RVS procedure
can be implemented relatively quickly and inexpensively to develop a list of potentially hazardous build-
ings without the high cost of a detailed seismic analysis of individual buildings. Some times buildings may
be reviewed from the sidewalk without the benefit of building entry, structural drawings, or structural
calculations. But the reliability and confidence in building attribute determination are increased, however,
if the structural framing system can be verified during interior inspection, or on the basis of a review of
construction documents. The RVS procedure may be applicable throughout the country only for all con-
ventional building types. But it may not be applicable to bridges, large towers, and other non-building
structures.

2.3 RVS Result

If a building receives a high safety score as in FEMA 154 or indicative of minimum structural damage Grade,
the building is considered to have adequate seismic resistance. If a building receives a lower safety score,
or high damageability Grade, it is recommended to be retrofitted, or to be evaluated by a professional
engineer having experience or training in seismic design.

On the basis of a detailed inspection, engineering analysis, and other detailed procedures, a final determi-
nation of the seismic adequacy and need for retrofitting can be finalized. If the RVS authority decides that
a low safety score or high damageability grade will automatically require that further study be performed
by a professional engineer, then some acceptable level of qualification to be held by the Assessor performing
the screening job, will be necessary.

2.4 Use of RVS Result

RVS projects may have a wide range of goals. Such as general level of seismic safety of majority of building
types under residential use, specific safety levels of important buildings used for schools and hospitals or
some critical selected buildings. Accordingly they may have constraints on budget, completion date and
accuracy, which must be considered by the RVS authority as it selects qualification requirements of the

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 3

 screening personnel. Under most circumstances, a well planned and thorough RVS project will require
qualified engineers to perform the inspections. In any case, the program should be overseen by a design
professional knowledgeable in seismic design for quality assurance purposes.

2.5 List of References

1. Arya, A.S. (2003), “Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings in Various Seismic Zones in India”,
Submitted under National Disaster Risk Management Program, and initiative by Government of
India and United Nations development Program.
2. ASCE 31-03 (2003), “Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings”, American Society of Civil
Engineers, USA.
3. European Macro Seismic Scale 1998: (EMS 1998), Edited by G. Grunthal, Luxembourg 1998.
4. FEMA 154 (2002), “Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A
Handbook”, Applied Technology Council, USA.
5. FEMA 155 (2002), “Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting
Documentation”, Applied Technology Council, USA.
6. IS 1893: 2002, “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”, Part 1: General Provisions
and Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards.
7. IS 1904: 1986, “Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Foundations in Soils: General
Requirements”, Bureau of Indian Standards.
8. IS 1905: 1987, “Code of Practice for Structural Use of Unreinforced Masonry”, Bureau of Indian
Standards.
9. IS 4326: 1993, “Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings - Code of Practice”,
Bureau of Indian Standards.
10. Model Town and Country Planning Legislation, Zoning Regulations, Development Control,
Building Regulation/Byelaws for Natural Hazards Zones of India (2004), Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India.
11. Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings (Draft version,
2006) Bureau of Indian Standards.

4 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

3. Seismic Hazard Intensities in India
____________________________________________________

3.1 MSK 1964 Intensities used in India (IS:1893- Part I: 2002)

The intensities scale have 12 steps describing the experiences and damages in buildings observed in the
past earthquakes varying from very minor influences to major disaster effects. These are broadly describe
in Table 3.2.

3.2 European Macro Seismic Scale (EMS 1998)

This scale also follows closely the MSK intensities scale in 12 steps. There are minor differences in the
quantities descriptions between EMS and MSK. EMS also a described in table 3.2 side by side MSK
intensities for ease of understanding and comparison.

3.3 Seismic Hazard Intensities in Arya method for RVS

Arya method uses MSK intensities for preparing RVS form. An equivalence with FEMA 154 hazard
intensities is studied below:

FEMA 154 specifies the following criteria for adoption of seismic hazard intensities namely High hazard,
Moderate hazard and Low hazard. The value of acceleration determined from acceleration response spectra
are used as criterion. The spectral value is obtained for two fundamental time periods of 0.2 sec and 1.0
sec. If 2/3 of the 0.2 sec acceleration spectrum for a site is 0.5g more and 1.0 sec spectrum value is 0.2g
or more, the area will be classified as High hazard intensity area.

If 2/3 of the spectral value for 0.2 sec period lies between 0.5g and 0.167g the area will be classified as
Moderate hazard area but if the 2/3 value of 0.2 sec and 1.0 sec spectra values lie below 0.167g, and
0.067g respectively, it will be treated as Low hazard area.

The spectral Acceleration curves adopted in IS:1893-2002 are shown in Fig. 3.1 for Peak Ground Accel-
eration of 1.0g. Using these curves with Peak Ground Acceleration values specified for the zones, namely
0.36g in Zone V (MSK IX), 0.24g in Zone IV (MSK VIII), 0.16g in Zone III (MSK VII), and 0.1g in
Zone II (MSK VI or less) the value of 2/3 acceleration are obtained as given in Table 3.1, along with
FEMA criterion.

Fig. 3.1 Response Spectra for Rock and Soil Sites for 5 percent Damping

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 5

 Table 3.1 Definition of MSK Intensities in Arya’s RVS relative to FEMA 154

2/3 SA for T= 0.20 sec 2/3 SA for T=1.0 sec Hazard Intensity Zone
Zone Intensity PGA Hard Soil Hard Soil
Zone V MSK IX 0.36g ≥ 0.60 g ≥ 0.24 g Very High
FEMA 154 ≥ 0.50g ≥ 0.20g High
Zone II MSK VIII 0.24 g ≥ 0.40g to 0.6 g ≥ 0.16 g to 0.24 g High
FEMA 154 0.167g to 0.5 g ≥ 0.067g to 0.20 g Moderate
Zone III MSK VII 0.16 g ≥ 0.27g to 0.4 g ≥ 0.11 g to 0.16 g Moderate
FEMA 154 <0.167g <0.067g Low
Zone II MSK VI 0.10 g ≥ 0.169g to 0.27 g ≥ 0.06g to 0.11 g Low

Comparing the values of FEMA 154 criteria with the spectral Acceleration result of IS: 1893-2002 (the
India Standard Design Criteria), shown in the Table 3.1, where only values for Hard Soil are compared
since FEMA 154 has Score Modifiers for softer soils, it may be concluded that for all purposes, MSK IX,
VIII,VII and II may be considered as Very High, High, Moderate and Low hazard intensities for RVS
procedure.

3.4 Hazard Intensities for various States and UTs in India

Four seismic zones are specified in the seismic zoning map of India shown in Fig.3.2 namely Seismic
Zone V, IV, III and II based on MSK Intensities ‘IX and more’, MSK VIII, MSK VII and MSK ‘VI or
lower’ respectively. As stated earlier Seismic Zone V may be taken as Very high hazard intensity, Zone
IV be considered as high hazard intensity and Zone III may be considered as Moderate hazard intensity
area for purposes of carrying out RVS survey of various buildings.

Fig. 3.2 Seismic Zone Map of India

6 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines
3.5 Seismic Hazards considered in RVS forms

Four levels of seismic hazard intensities are considered in Vulnerability Atlas of India (1997 and 2006)
corresponding to the four seismic zones as given below:-

(i) Very High seismic hazard Zone V (maximum damage during earthquake may be under MSK
Intensity IX or greater).
(ii) High seismic hazard Zone IV (maximum damage during earthquake may be as per MSK Intensity
VIII).
(iii) Moderate seismic hazard Zone III(maximum damage during earthquake may correspond to MSK
Intensity VII).
(iv) Low seismic hazard Zone II(corresponding to MSK Intensity VI or lower) is considered negligible,
hence not used for developing RVS Form.

When a particular hazard Intensity occurs, different building types experience different levels of damage
depending on their inherent characteristics.

Table 3.2 Intensity Scales

Arrangement of the scale: The effects of an earthquake occurrence on habitat as observed are co-related
with the intensity scale under the following subdivision:
(a) Effects on humans; (b) Effects on objects and on nature; (c ) Effects on buildings

The effects are described in EMS and MSK Intensity Scales using three quantitative terms: Few, Many and
Most; three building types A.B and C in MSK scale and six buildings vulnerability classes A, B, C, D, E and F
in EMS scale. Both the scales use five grades of damage Grade 1, Grade 2, Grade 3, Grade 4 and Grade 5. All
these terms are explained in Chapter 5 and 6.

EMS SCALE MSK SCALE

I. Not Felt I. Not Noticeable

a. Not felt, even under the most favorable a. The intensity of the vibration is below the limits of
circumstances. sensibility; the tremor is detected and recorded by
seismograph only.
b. No effect. b. None.
c. No damage. c. No damage.
II. Scarcely Felt II. Scarcely noticeable (very slight)
a. The tremor is felt only at isolated instances (<1%) a. Vibration is felt only by individual people at rest in
of individuals at rest and in especially receptive houses, especially on upper floors of buildings.
position indoors. b. No effect.
b. No effect. c. No damage.
c. No damage.

III. Weak III. Weak, partially observed only

a. The earthquake is felt indoors by a few. People at a. The earthquake is felt indoors by a few people, outdoors
rest feel a swaying or light trembling. only in favourable circumstances. The vibration is like that
b. Hanging objects swing slightly. due to the passing of a light truck.
c. No damage. b. Attentive observers notice a slight swinging of hanging
objects, somewhat more heavily on upper floors.
c. No damage.

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 7

 EMS SCALE MSK SCALE

IV. Largely observed IV. Largely observed

a. The earthquake is felt indoors by many and felt a. The earthquake is felt indoors by many people, outdoors
outdoors only by very few. A few people are by few. Here and there people awake, but no one is
awakened. The level of vibration is not frightening. frightened. The vibration is like that due to the passing
The vibration is moderate. Observers feel a slight of a heavily loaded truck.
trembling or swaying of the building, room or bed, b. Windows, doors and dishes rattle. Furniture begins to
chair etc. shake. Hanging objects swing slightly. Liquid in open
b. Chine, glasses, windows and doors rattle. Hanging vessels are slightly disturbed. In standing motor cars the
objects swing. Light furniture shakes visibly in a few shock is noticeable.
cases. Woodwork creaks in a few cases. c. Floors and walls crack.
c. No damage.
V. Strong V. Awakening
a. The earthquake is felt indoors by most, outdoors by a. The earthquake is felt indoors by all, outdoors by many.
few. A few people are frightened and run outdoors. Many people awake. A few run outdoors. Animals become
Many sleeping people awake. Observers feel a strong uneasy.
shaking or rocking of the whole building, room or b. Hanging objects swing considerably. Pictures knock
furniture. against walls or swing out of place. Occasionally pendulum
b. Hanging objects swing considerably. China and clocks stop. Unstable objects overturn or shift. Open doors
glasses clatter together. Small top-heavy and/or and windows are thrust open and slam back again. Liquids
precariously supported objects may be shifted or fall spill in small amounts from well-filled open containers.
down. Doors and windows swing open or shut. In a The sensation of vibration is like that due to heavy objects
few cases window panes break. Liquids oscillate and falling inside the buildings. Sometimes changes in flow
may spill from well-filled containers. Animals indoors of springs.
may become uneasy. c. Slight damages in buildings of type A are possible.
c. Damage of grade 1 to a few buildings of vulnerability
class A and B.
VI. Slightly damaging VI. Frightening
a. Felt by most indoors and by many outdoors. A few a. Felt by most indoors and outdoors. Many people in
persons lose their balance. Many people are frightened buildings are frightened and run outdoors. A few persons
and run outdoors. loose their balance. Domestic animals run out of their
b. Small objects of ordinary stability may fall and stalls.
furniture may be shifted. In few instances dishes and b. In few instances, dishes and glassware may break, and
glassware may break. Farm animals (even outdoors) books fall down. Heavy furniture may possibly move
may be frightened. and small steeple bells may ring. In few cases, cracks up
c. Damage of grade 1 is sustained by many buildings to widths of 1 cm possible in wet ground; in mountains
of vulnerability class A and B; a few of class A and occasional landslips; change in flow of springs and in level
B suffer damage of grade2; a few of class C suffer of well water are observed.
damage of grade 1. c. Damage of Grade 1 is sustained in single buildings of
type B and in many of Type A. Damage in few buildings
of Type A is of Grade 2.

VII. Damaging VII. Damage of buildings

a. Most people are frightened and try to run outdoors. a. Most people are frightened and run outdoors. Many find
Many find it difficult to stand, especially on upper it difficult to stand. The vibration is noticed by persons
floors. driving motor cars. Large bells ring.
b. Furniture is shifted and top-heavy furniture may b. Waves are formed on water, and is made turbid by mud
be overturned. Objects fall from shelves in large stirred up. Water levels in wells change, and the flow of
numbers. Water splashes from containers, tanks springs changes. Sometimes dry springs have their flow
and pools. resorted and existing springs stop flowing. In isolated
c. Many buildings of vulnerability class A suffer damage instances parts of sand and gravelly banks slip off. In
of grade 3 ; a few of grade 4. single instances, landslides of roadway on steep slopes;
Many buildings of vulnerability class B suffer damage crack in roads; seams of pipelines damaged; cracks in
of grade 2; a few of grade 3. stone walls.
A few buildings of vulnerability class C sustain c. Most buildings of Type A suffer damage of Grade 3, few
damage of grade 2. of Grade 4. In many buildings of Type B damage is of
A few buildings of vulnerability class D sustain Grade 2. In many buildings of Type C damage of Grade
damage of grade 1. 1 is caused.

8 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

 EMS SCALE MSK SCALE

VIII. Heavily damaging VIII. Destruction of buildings

a. Many people find it difficult to stand, even a. Fright and panic; also persons driving motor cars are
outdoors. disturbed.
b. Here and there branches of trees break off. Even heavy
b. Furniture may be overturned. Objects like TV sets, furniture moves and partly overturns. Hanging lamps are
typewriters etc. fall to the ground. Tombstones may damaged in part. Small landslips in hollows and banked
occasionally be displaced, twisted or overturned. roads on steep slopes; cracks in ground upto widths of
Waves may be seen on very soft ground. several centimeters. Water in lakes become turbid. New
c. Many buildings of vulnerability class A suffer damage reservoirs come into existence. Dry wells refill and existing
of grade 4; a few of grade 5. wells become dry. In many cases, change in flow and level
Many buildings of vulnerability class B suffer damage of water is observed.
of grade 3; a few of grade 4. c. Most buildings of Type A suffer damage of Grade 4.
Many buildings of vulnerability class C suffer damage Most buildings of Type B suffer damage of Grade 3. Most
of grade2; a few of grade 3. buildings of Type C suffer damage of Grade2, and few of
A few buildings of vulnerability class D sustain Grade 3. Occasional breaking of pipe seams. Memorials
damage of grade 2. and monuments move and twist. Tombstones overturn.
Stone walls collapse.

IX. Destructive IX. General damage of buildings

a. General panic. People may be forcibly thrown to a. General panic; considerable damage to furniture. Animals
the ground. run to and fro in confusion, and cry.
b. Many monuments and columns fall or are twisted. b. On flat land overflow of water, sand and mud is often
Waves are seen on soft ground. observed. Ground cracks to widths of up to 10 cm on
c. Many buildings of vulnerability class A sustain slopes and river banks more than 10 cm. Further more,,
damage of grade 5. a large number of slight cracks in ground; falls of rock,
Many buildings of vulnerability class B suffer damage ,many land slides and earth flows; large waves in water.
of grade4; a few of grade 5. Dry wells renew their flow and existing wells dry up.
Many buildings of vulnerability class C suffer damage Considerable damage to reservoirs; underground pipes
of grade 3; a few of grade 4. partly broken. In individuals cases, railway lines are bent
Many buildings of vulnerability class D suffer damage and roadway damaged.
of grade 2; a few of grade 3. c. Many buildings of Type A suffer damage of Grade 5.
A few buildings of vulnerability class E sustain Many buildings of Type B show a damage of Grade 4
damage of grade 2. and a few old Grade 5. Many buildings of Type C suffer
damage of Grade 3, and a few of Grade 4. Monuments
and columns fall.
X. Very destructive X. General destruction of buildings
c. Many buildings of vulnerability class A sustain damage b. Critical damage to dykes and dams. Severe damage to
of grade 5. bridges. Railway lines are bent slightly. Underground
Many buildings of vulnerability class B sustain damage pipes are bent or broken. Road paving and asphalt show
of grade 5. waves.
Many buildings of vulnerability class C suffer damage In ground, cracks up to widths of several centimeters,
of grade 4; a few of grade 5. sometimes up to 1 m. Parallel to water courses occur broad
Many buildings of vulnerability class D suffer damage fissures. Loose ground slides from steeps slopes. From
of grade 3; a few of grade 4. river banks and steep coasts, considerable landslides are
Many buildings of vulnerability class E suffer damage possible. In coastal areas, displacement of sand and mud;
of grade 2; a few of grade 3. change of water level in wells; water from canals, lakes,
A few buildings of vulnerability class F suffer damage rivers, etc, thrown on land. New lakes occur.
of grade2. c. Most of type A have destruction of Grade 5. Many
buildings of type B show damage of Grade 5. Many
buildings of Type C suffer damage of Grade 4, and a few
of Grade 5.

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 9

 EMS SCALE MSK SCALE

XI. Devastating XII. Destruction

c. Most buildings of vulnerability class B sustain damage b. Severe damage to bridges, water dams and railway lines.
of grade 5. Highways become useless. Underground pipes destroyed.
Most buildings of vulnerability class C suffer damage Ground considerably distorted by broad cracks and fissures,
of grade4; many of grade 5. as well as movement in horizontal and vertical directions.
Many buildings of vulnerability class D suffer damage Numerous landslips and falls of rocks. The intensity of the
of grade4; few of grade 5. earthquake requires to be investigated specifically.
Many buildings of vulnerability class E suffer damage c. Severe damage even to well built buildings.
of grade3; few of grade 4.
Many buildings of vulnerability class F suffer damage
of grade2; few of grade 3.
XIII. Completely devastating XIV. Landscope changes
c. All buildings of vulnerability class A, B and practically b. The surface of the ground is radically changed.
all of vulnerability class C are destroyed. Most buildings Considerable ground cracks with extensive vertical and
of vulnerability class D, E and F are destroyed. horizontal movements are observed. Falling of rock and
The earthquake effects have reached the maximum slumping of river banks over wide areas, lakes are dammed;
conceivable effects. waterfalls appear and rivers are deflected. The intensity of
the earthquake requires to be investigated specially.
c. Practically all structures above and below ground are
greatly damaged or destroyed.

10 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

4. Building Typologies in India
____________________________________________________

4.1 Building Types in India

The building typologies used in various types of buildings in India are listed in Census of Housing (2011)
by wall material and roof material as shown in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 here.

Table 4.1 – H-3B : Census (2011) Houses by Predominant Material of Wall

Area Name INDIA

Total No. of Census Houses 04,882,448
MATERIAL OF WALL
1. Grass/Thatch/Bamboo etc. 28,947,594
2. Plastic/Polythene 1,097,831
3. Mud/Unburnt brick 66,449,827
4. Wood 2,781,271
5. Stone not packed with mortar 10,441,142
6. Stone packed with mortar 33,041,790
7. G.I./Metal/Asbestos sheets 2,331,869
8. Burnt brick 146,545,805
9. Concrete 10,983,679
10. Any other material 2,261,640
Derived categories of houses from above house types:
Category A = Building in field stone, rural structures, unburnt brick houses, clay houses(3+5) 76,890,969
Category B = Ordinary brick building: buildings of the large block & Prefabricated type, half- 179,587,595
timbered structures, building in natural hewn stone(6+8)
Category C = Reinforced buildings, well built wooden structures(9+4) 13,764,950
Category X = Other materials not covered in A.B.C. These are generally light (1+2+4+10) 34,638,934

Table 4.2 – H-3A : Census (2011) Houses by Predominant Material of Roof

(Excluding locked/vacant houses)
Area Name INDIA
Total No. of Census Houses 04,882,448
MATERIAL OF ROOF
1. Grass/Thatch/Bamboo etc. 46,987,669
2. Plastic/Polythene 2,073,373
3. Hand Made Tiles 40,276,749
4. Machine made Tiles 26,425,060
5. Burnt brick 20,254,881
6. Stone/Slate 26,981,694
7. G.I./Metal/Asbestos sheets 50,336,403
8. Concrete 90,243,883
9. Any other material 1,302,736
Derived categories of houses form above house types:
Category R1 = Light Weight Pitched (Grass, Thatch, Bamboo, Wood, Mud, Plastic, Polythene, 100,700,181
GI Metal, Asbestos Sheets, Other Materials) (1+2+7+9)
Category R2 = Heavy Weight Pitched (tiles, Slate) (3+4+6) 93,683,503
Category R3= Flat Roof Rigid (Brick, Stone, Concrete) or Flexible (joisted with flexible 110,498,764
coverings) (5+8)

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 11

4.2 Building Typologies Classification

Considering that there will be varying typologies based on technologies in rural and urban areas, somewhat
similar to residential building technologies, a detailed list of building types is prepared here out of which
the assessors of RVS should be able to identify those used therein.

The nomenclature used for various buildings as used in Arya’s method namely, A, A+, B2, C+ and D for
masonry buildings and C to F for reinforced concrete and steel framed buildings and were identified for
each building as given in the last column of Table 4.3 to 4.6. The nomenclatures A to D and C to F are
in order of decreasing seismic vulnerability (damagebility) have been adopted with reference vulnerability
classes identified in EMS Intensity Scale given in Chapter 3 and further explained in Chapter 5.

Table 4.3 Building Typologies - Clay, Stone and Wood buildings

Designation in
S.No. Wall Material Description of construction Roof Type Floor if any
Arya’s RVS

1 Clay (Cl1) Walls constructed on Pitched & Flexible Flat &

ground or shallow Flexible
Flat & Flexible A
foundation
Flat & rigid
2 Adobe & Walls constructed on Pitched & Flexible Flat &
Unburnt ground or shallow Flexible A+
Flat & Flexible
brick(Cl2) foundation
3 Stone (ST1) Random Rubble, dry Pitched & Flexible Flat &
construction or with mud Flexible A+
mortar Flat & Flexible

4 Stone (ST2) As above with horizontal Pitched & Flexible Flat &
wooden dovels Flexible
Flat & Flexible B
Flat & Rigid
5 Stone (ST3) Dressed stone laid in good Pitched & Flexible Flat &
lime mortar/ cement mortar Rigid B+
Flat & Rigid
6 Stone (ST4) As ST2 with horizontal Pitched & Flexible Flat &
wood runners used as bands Rigid C
Flat & Rigid
or RC bands
7 Wood (WD1) Wattle & daub Pitched & Flexible - B
8 Wood (WD2) Assam Type Stud wall with Pitched & Flexible Flat &
D
Ikra wall panels Flexible
9 Wood (WD3) Wood frame with brick Pitched & Flexible Flat &
C+
nogging (Dhajji Diwari) Flexible
10 Wood (WD4) wood stud wall with wood Pitched & Flexible Flat &
D
or metal siding Flexible
Notes:
1. Pitched & Flexible: Sloping roofs with tiles, slates or shingle corrugated iron. Corrugated galvanised iron sheets or asbestos cement sheets or
thatch, grass, leaves, bamboo etc.
2. Pitched & Rigid : Reinforced Cement Concrete sloping slabs
3. Flat & Flexible : Wooden logs or joists with reeds & bushes covered with earth/wooden joist with bricks & stone slabs
4. Flat & Rigid : Reinforced brick concrete slab /Reinforced Cement Concrete slab / Jack Arch Floor/ roof

12 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

Table 4.4 Building Typologies - Burnt Brick & Cement Concrete Block buildings

Description of Designation in
S.No. Wall Material Roof Type Floor if any
construction Arya’s RVS

1 Burnt brick (BB1) Burnt brick walls in mud Pitched & Flexible Flat & Flexible
mortar
Flat & Flexible Flat & Rigid B
Flat & Rigid
2 Burnt brick (BB2) Burnt brick walls in Pitched & Flexible Flat & Rigid
ordinary lime mortar
Flat & Flexible B+

Flat & Rigid

3 Burnt brick (BB3) Burnt brick walls in good Pitched & Flexible Flat & Rigid
cement mortar C
Flat & Rigid
4 Burnt brick (BB4) Similar to BB3 with RC Pitched & Flexible Flat & Rigid
Seismic Bands
Pitched & Rigid C+

Flat & Rigid

5 Burnt brick (BB5) Similar to BB3 but with Pitched & Rigid Flat & Rigid
seismic bands & vertical
reinforcements at corners D
and jambs of openings or Flat & Rigid
confined masonry
Burnt brick (BB6) Reinforced masonry walls Pitched & Rigid Flat & Rigid
D+
Flat & Rigid
6 Cement Concrete CC blocks with cement Pitched & Flexible Flat & Rigid
block (CC1) (Solid/ mortar
hollow) Pitched & Rigid C
Flat & Rigid

7 CC block (CC2) As CC1 but with seismic Pitched & Flexible Flat & Rigid
(Solid/hollow) bands
Pitched & Rigid C+
Flat & Rigid
8 CC block (CC3) As CC2 with vertical steel Pitched & Flexible Flat & Rigid
(Solid/hollow) at corners D
Pitched & Rigid
Flat & Rigid
Notes:
1. Pitched & Flexible: Sloping roofs with tiles, slates or shingle corrugated iron. Corrugated galvanised iron sheets or asbestos cement sheets
or thatch, grass, leaves, bamboo etc.
2. Pitched & Rigid : Reinforced Cement Concrete sloping slabs
3. Flat & Flexible : Wooden logs or joists with reeds & bushes covered with earth/wooden joist with bricks & stone slabs
4. Flat & Rigid : Reinforced brick concrete slab /Reinforced Cement Concrete slab / Jack Arch Floor/ roof

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 13

Table 4.5 Building Typologies - Reinforced Concrete Frame buildings

Designation in
S.No. Wall Material Description of construction Roof Type Floor if any
Arya’s RVS
1 Reinforced No n - e n g i n e e r e d b e a m p o s t Flat & Rigid Flat & Rigid C
Concrete (RC1) construction with unreinforced
brick infill walls
2 Reinforced Prefabricated reinforced concrete Flat & Rigid Flat & Rigid C+
Concrete (RC2) building

3 Reinforced Moment Resistant Reinforced Flat & Rigid Flat & Rigid C+
Concrete (RC3) Concrete frame of ordinary design
with unreinforced masonry infill
4 Reinforced Moment resistant RC frame with Flat & Rigid Flat & Rigid D
Concrete (RC4) ordinary earthquake resistant
design without ductility details with
unreinforced masonry infill
5 Reinforced Moment resistant RC frame Flat & Rigid Flat & Rigid E
Concrete (RC5) with earthquake resistant design
and special ductility details with
unreinforced masonry infill
6 Reinforced Same as RC5 but with well designed Flat & Rigid Flat & Rigid E+
Concrete (RC6) infill walls
7 Reinforced Moment resistant RC frame with Flat & Rigid Flat & Rigid F
Concrete (RC7) earthquake resistant design with
special ductility details and shear
walls
Notes:
1. Pitched & Flexible: Sloping roofs with tiles, slates or shingle corrugated iron. Corrugated galvanised iron sheets or asbestos cement sheets
or thatch, grass, leaves, bamboo etc.
2. Pitched & Rigid : Reinforced Cement Concrete sloping slabs
3. Flat & Flexible : Wooden logs or joists with reeds & bushes covered with earth/wooden joist with bricks & stone slabs
4. Flat & Rigid : Reinforced brick concrete slab /Reinforced Cement Concrete slab / Jack Arch Floor/ roof

Table 4.6 Building Typologies - Steel Frame buildings

Desig. in
S.No. Wall Material Description of construction Roof Type Floor if any
Arya’s RVS
1 Steel Frame (SF1) Steel frame without bracings Pitched & Flexible Flat & Flexible C
having hinged joints
2 Steel Frame (SF2) Steel frame of ordinary design with Pitched & Flexible Flat & Flexible C+
unreinforced masonry infill Flat & Flexible Flat & Rigid
Flat & Rigid
3 Steel Frame (SF3) Moment resistant steel frame Flat & Rigid Flat & Rigid C+
without bracings & without plastic
design details
4 Steel Frame (SF4) Moment resistant steel frame with Flat & Rigid Flat & Rigid D
ordinary ERD without special
details
5 Steel Frame (SF5) Ordinary steel frame with braces Flat & Rigid Flat & Rigid E
6 Steel Frame (SF6) Moment resistant steel frame with Flat & Rigid Flat & Rigid E+
high level earthquake resistant
design and special plastic design
details/steel braces
7 Steel Frame (SF7) Steel frames with cast in place Flat & Rigid Flat & Rigid F
shear walls with ductile design
Notes:
1. Pitched & Flexible: Sloping roofs with tiles, slates or shingle corrugated iron. Corrugated galvanised iron sheets or asbestos cement sheets
or thatch, grass, leaves, bamboo etc.
2. Pitched & Rigid : Reinforced Cement Concrete sloping slabs
3. Flat & Flexible : Wooden logs or joists with reeds & bushes covered with earth/wooden joist with bricks & stone slabs
4. Flat & Rigid : Reinforced brick concrete slab /Reinforced Cement Concrete slab / Jack Arch Floor/ roof

14 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

4.3 Wooden Structure

Wooden buildings are given relatively brief treatment above since they are not so often encountered India
except the more seismically active parts in North Eastern States and western Himalayas. The flexibility
of wooden construction gives them a high resistance to damage, though this can vary considerably as
function of construction details and durability. Loose joints or rotten wood can make a wooden house
quite vulnerable to collapse, it was notable in the case of Iran earthquake of Manjil Roudbar where the
wooden houses called zigali construction collapse totally due to inadequate nailed joints between main
vertical and horizontal members also in the Kobe earthquake of 1995 that traditional wooden houses in
parts of the city performed very badly on account of poor condition. This was a very good example of
how vulnerability depends on something quite other than type or building construction material.

The structure system providing lateral resistance should be considered carefully. If the beam and columns
are connected by nailed plates (of gypsum and other brittle materials like AC sheets) or if these connections
are weak, the structure will fail if connections fail. This type of timber structure is typically represented by
vulnerability class C, and should be distinguished from timber frame structures which are resistant against
lateral loads caused by earthquake shaking. The ductility of wooden structures depend on the ductility of
the connections.

Some improvements should be made in the future to the way in which wooden structures are handled by
the scale. These should include making some subdivision of wooden structures into different groups, and
addressing in details the stages of damage to wooden buildings which are not described in the definitions
of damage grades in the scale in the way that they are for masonry and RC structures.

4.4 Two traditional earthquake Resistant Building Types used in India

4.4.1 Dhajji Dewari Houses in the Western Himalayas

The term dhajji dewari is thought to be derived from a Persian word meaning “patchwork quilt wall” and
is a traditional building type found in the western Himalayas. It is a straightforward construction tech-
nology that can be easily built using local materials; timber and masonry infill with mud mortar. Typical
image is shown in Figure 4.1.

Fig. 4.1 Typical dhajji dewari buildings from Kashmir

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 15

 Buildings of similar construction are found in Britain, France, Germany, Central America, South America,
Turkey, Portugal and Italy. They are known as “half-timber”, “colombage”, “Fachwerk”, “taquezal or baha-
reque”, “himis” and “Gaiola” respectively.
1. Dhajji dewari can safely resist earthquakes in high seismic regions of the world when built properly
and maintained adequately. This makes dhajji dewari a valid form of construction in seismic
areas.
2. The timber framing provides stable confinement to the infill masonry as long as it remains
together. Therefore it is critical that the timber connections are detailed to have sufficient strength
and flexibility. Proper use of nails and /or metal straps improves the building ductility hence the
performance.
3. Seismic energy is dissipated through friction between the masonry panels and the timber frame
and within the yielding of the connections.
4. Increased level of overburden acting on the masonry increases the energy absorption capacity of the
assembly, which provides evidence that the use of the system for two or even more storey structures
is seen to be satisfactory. As per some observations of resilience of multi-storey buildings in India
after recent earthquakes.
5. Diagonal brace removal may offer acceptable performance with simpler construction (as the bricks
do not have to be cut or placed at angles) and reduced timber volume, which is helpful to minimize
cost of construction.
6. It was seen that after an earthquake there was only limited and repairable damage to a dhajji dewari
building due to the unique energy absorbing properties of the system.

Ref. Seismic Performance of Dhajji Dewari, 15WCEE, Lidra 2012

4.4.2 Assam Type House

Assam-type houses are commonly found in the northeastern states of India. Generally, it is single storey
house; however, two-storey houses are also found at some places. The main function or use of this con-
struction type is multi-family housing. These are generally single dwelling units and do not have common
walls with adjacent buildings. The house is made largely using wood-based materials. Performance of
Assam-type houses has been extremely good in several past earthquakes in the region. Structural strengths
that influence earthquake safety of the house include good configuration, light-weight materials used for
walls and roofs, flexible connections between various wooden elements at different levels, etc. However,
he houses are vulnerable to fire because of use of untreated wood-based materials. When built on hill
slopes, unequal length of the vertical posts leads to unsymmetrical shaking that may damage the house.

This construction type has been in practice for more

than 200 years. The house is made largely using wood-
based materials. The vertical posts, roof trusses and
elevated floor are made of Sal wood. A weed, called
Ikra, which grows wildly in river plains and adjoining
Fig 4.2
lakes across the state of Assam, is extensively used in
the walls and roof of the house. The wall panels are made of bamboo frames infilled with the shoots of
the Ikra reed oriented in the vertical direction; the Ikra reed shoots are plastered from either sides with
mud-dung mixture. The covering on the roof truss is a thick stack of Ikra reed. Those who can afford,
choose metal sheet roof instead of reed roof covering on the roof truss.

Ref. Assam Type House : World Housing Encyclopedia, EERI and IAEE
16 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines
5. Grades of Damagebility
____________________________________________________

5.1 Damage grades

Five damage grades are defined in both EMS and MSK Intensity Scales. Grades 1 to 5 should ideally
represent a linear increase in the strength of building shaking. They do this only approximately, and are
heavily influenced by the need to describe classes of damage which can be readily distinguished by the
inspection team. One should also note that not all possible combinations of vulnerable building of A,
B and C types and D, E and F types and damage grade are mentioned for each degree of the scale; usu-
ally only the two highest damage grades for a particular building type are mentioned; it is assumed that
proportionate numbers of buildings of that type will suffer lower grades of damage.

A point may be mentioned that different types of building respond and fail in different ways. This can be
addressed by giving separate, illustrated accounts of damage to both masonry and reinforced concrete build-
ings. Locations of damage and damage patterns may also be different for engineered and non-engineered
structures.

One should note the difference between structural and non-structural damage, and carefully distinguish
between damage to the primary (load bearing/structural) system and damage to secondary (non-structural)
elements (like parapets infills or curtain walls).

It is advisable to examine buildings both inside and out, as outward appearances may be misleading.

One should not take into consideration damage caused by earthquake-related phenomena other than the
actual strong shaking. Such phenomena include damage caused by mutual pounding of adjacent build-
ings with insufficient separation, landslides, slope failure, and liquefaction. By contrast, damage which
is greater than expected due to such factors as resonance conditions, or the strength of the seismic load
exceeding level provided for by the level of Earthquake Resistant Design (ERD) is still a direct product
of seismic shaking and can be taken into consideration. In the special case of engineered structures with
ERD, the progression of damage with shaking may not increase linearly. This can be justified with respect
to modern design principles which are related to the performance of engineered structures under different
levels of design earthquake intensity specified in IS:1893 part 1-2002:

a) Structures designed against an earthquake of low intensity less than Design Basis Earthquake (DBE),
to be expected with high probability of occurrence, should sustain such an event without structural
damage and with no damage, or only minor damage, that could affect the serviceability.
b) Structures designed against an earthquake of medium intensity (DBE), to be expected with low
probability of occurrence, are explicitly allowed to react under the design earthquake with slight
structural damage, but should survive without loss of serviceability.
c) Structures designed against an earthquake of high intensity, Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE) have to sustain structural damage without loss of structural integrity and stability. For
this level of design earthquake damage is permitted but should not exceed irreparable damage
(Grade3).

One should be very much aware that when investigating the damage effects caused by an aftershock the

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 17

 buildings may have been much more vulnerable than would normally have been the case on account of
damage (perhaps not very visible) caused by the main shock. This should be taken into consideration
when assessing vulnerability.

5.2 Definition of terms Few, Many and Most in Intensity Scales

(a) MSK Intensity Scale:

The following quantities are indicated for the terms:

Single, Few About 5 percent
Many About 50 percent
Most About 75 percent

(b) EMS Intensity Scale:

The use of quantitative terms (few, many, most) provides an important statistical element in the scale. It
is necessary to confine this statistical element to broad terms, since any attempt to present the scale as a
series of graphs showing exact percentages would be impossible to apply in practice and would destroy the
robustness of the scale. But defining these terms numerically is not very easy. If few, many and most are
defined as three contiguous ranges of percentages ( e.g. 0-20%, 20-60%, 60-100%), the undesirable effect
occurs that a small percentage increase in some observation may in one case cross a threshold value and put
the intensity up by one degree, whereas in another case the same increase will not cross a threshold and so
not have the same effect. Broadly overlapping definitions (0-35%), 16-65%, 50-100%) cause problems of
ambiguity for an observed value (e.g. 25%) in the overlap, and widely separated definitions. For example
(0-20%, 40-60%, 80-100%) cause similar problems where a value may be undefined. A compromise
solution has been found for this version of the EMS scale, using narrowly overlapping definitions (see fig
5.1), but no solution is ideal. The objective here has been to try and maximize the robustness of the scale,
and the definitions of quantity presented here should be used with this in mind. This has been presented,
very deliberately, in graphical format to emphasize the way these numerical categories are blurred rather
than sharply defined.

In such a case as a precisely determined quantity falls into an overlapping area, the user should consider
the implications of classing it as one category or the other, in terms of which would be more consistent
with any other data available for the same place.

Few 0-10% Many 20-47% Most 64-100%

Blurred overlap 10-20% Blurred overlap 47-64%

Fig 5.1 Definition of Quantity (EMS)

18 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

5.3 Damageability grades of buildings of Masonry and RCC

Five grades of damageability from G1 to G5 are specified in MSK and European Macro Intensity Scales
as described in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 for Masonry and RCC buildings respectively.

Table 5.1: Grades of Damageability of Masonry Buildings

Grade 1: Negligible to slight damage (no structural damage, slight non-structural damage)
Structural: Hair-line cracks in very few walls.
Non-structural: Fall of small pieces of plaster only.
Fall of loose stones from upper parts of buildings in very few cases.
Grade 2: Moderate damage (Slight structural damage, moderate non-structural damage)
Structural: Cracks in many walls, thin cracks in RC* slabs and A.C.* sheets.
Non-structural: Fall of fairly large pieces of plaster, partial collapse of smoke chimneys on roofs. Damage to parapets, chajjas.
Roof tiles disturbed in about 10% of the area. Minor damage in under structure of sloping roofs.
Grade 3: Substantial to heavy damage (moderate structural damage, heavy non-structural damage)
Structural: Large and extensive cracks in most walls. Wide spread cracking of columns and piers.
Non-structural: Roof tiles detach. Chimneys fracture at the roof line; failure of individual non-structural elements (partitions,
gable walls).
Grade 4: Very heavy damage (heavy structural damage, very heavy non-structural damage)
Structural: Serious failure of walls (gaps in walls), inner walls collapse; partial structural failure of roofs and floors.
Non-structural: Near total destruction or non-structural building components.
Grade 5: Destruction (very heavy structural damage)
Structural: Serious failure of walls (gaps in walls), inner walls collapse; partial structural failure of roofs and floors.
Non-structural: Total or near total collapse of the building.
* RC = Reinforced Concrete; AC = Asbestos Cement

Table 5.2: Grades of Damageability of RCC Buildings

Grade 1: Negligible to slight damage (no structural damage, slight non-structural damage)
Structural: Nil
Non-Structural: Fine cracks in plaster over frame members or in walls at the base; Fine cracks in partitions & infills.
Grade 2: Moderate damage (Slight structural damage, moderate non-structural damage)
Structural: Cracks in columns & beams of frames & in structural walls.
Non-Structural: Cracks in partition & infill walls; fall of brittle cladding & plaster. Falling mortar from the joints of wall pan-
els.
Grade 3: Substantial to heavy damage (moderate structural damage, heavy non-structural damage)
Structural: Cracks in columns & beam column joints of frames at the base & at joints of coupled walls. Spalling of concrete
cover, buckling of reinforced rods.
Non-Structural: Large cracks in partition & infill walls, failure of individual infill panels.
Grade 4: Very heavy damage (heavy structural damage, very heavy non-structural damage)
Structural: Large cracks in structural elements with compression failure of concrete & fracture of rebar’s; bond failure of
beam reinforcing bars; tilting of columns. Collapse of a few columns or of a single upper floor.
Non-Structural: Failure of loosely filled partition and infill wall panels.
Grade 5: Destruction (very heavy structural damage)
Structural: Collapse of ground floor parts (e.g. Wings) of the building.
Non-Structural: Total destruction of non-structural building components.

* The grades of damage in steel and wood buildings will also be based on non-structural and structural damage classification (shown in
bold print in above Table 5.2). Non-structural damage to infills would be the same as indicated for masonry infills in the above table 5.2.
Structural damage grade in steel & wooden elements still needs to be defined.

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 19

5.4 Examples of Grades of Damage of Masonry Buildings

Fig 5.1 G1 Cracks (a) Fine diagonal cracks Fig 5.1 G1 Cracks (b) Raking Shear Fine Cracks
in Brick Wall House with Tile Roof in Brick Pier

Fig. 5.2 G2 Cracks Fig. 5.2 G2 Cracks Fig. 5.2 G2 Cracks

(a) Diagonal wide cracks in gable (b) Column Base Shear Crack (c) Large Plaster Spalling
wall

Fig. 5.3 G3 damage Fig. 5.3 G3 damage

(a) Corner Deep & Wide Crack (b) Disturbed Tiles on Bricks House

20 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

 Fig. 5.4 G4 damage Partial Collapse

Fig. 5.5 G5 damage Total Collapse

5.5 Illustrations of Grades of Damage of RCC Buildings

Visibly Clear Shear Cracks Wide Cracks Big Cracks Visible settlement of floor
(Crack width 0.2-1mm) (Crack width 1-2mm) (Crack width >2mm)

Damage G 2 Damage G 3 Damage G 4 (a) (b)

Damage G 5 Damage G 5

Fig. 5.6 Grades of Damage in RC Columns

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 21

 Visibly Clear Shear Cracks
(Crack width 0.2-1mm)
Damage G 2

Wide or big shear Cracks

Damage G 3 (Crack width 1-5mm)

Big shear crack

Damage G 4 (Crack width >5mm)

Visible settlement and/or

inclination of floor
Damage G 5

Fig. 5.7 Grades of Damage in RC Beams

Spalling of Column Spalling of cover Diagonal Shear cracks Bucking of reinforcing bars
corner concrete concrete of joint Crush of core concrete

Damage G 2 Damage G 3 Damage G 4 Damage G 5

Fig. 5.8 Grades of Damage in RC Beam-Column Joints

22 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

 Fig. 5.9 G4 Damage of RC Short Column

Fig. 5.10 G5 Damage of RC Column

Fig. 5.11 G5 Damage of Beam Column Joint

Fig. 5.12 Total Damage G5 of RC Frame Building

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 23

6. Seismic Vulnerability
____________________________________________________
6.1 Vulnerability

Vulnerability can be defined as the degree of loss to a given element at risk, or set of such elements, result-
ing from an earthquake of a given magnitude or intensity, which is usually expressed on a scale from 0
(no damage) to 10 (total loss).

Earthquake vulnerability is thus a function of the potential losses from earthquakes- death and injury
to people, damage to various man made structures: buildings, bridges, etc. The damages and losses also
depend on the mitigation and preparedness measure adopted the occurrence of a damaging earthquake.
They reflect the uncared for weakness in the built environment of a village, town or city. Also, the limita-
tions in the community which affect its ability to cope with the hazard’s damaging impact and to absorb
the losses after an earthquake event, and also to recover from the damages. Vulnerable conditions preced-
ing the earthquake event contribute to its disastrous impact and create an emergency situation usually
continuing long after the earthquake had struck.

6.2 Vulnerable Elements in the Physical Environment

The likelihood of an earthquake disaster increases when the community’s built environment (i.e. buildings
and lifeline systems- or community infrastructure) is comprised of the following vulnerable elements.
• Older residential and commercial buildings and infrastructure constructed of unreinforced masonry
or any other construction materials having inadequate resistance to lateral forces of ground shaking,
or if they were not built to seismic codes and standards on built to those standard that are now
considered to be outdated and inadequate.
• Older non-engineered residential and commercial buildings that have no lateral resistance and are
also vulnerable to fire following an earthquake.
• New buildings and infrastructure that have not been sited, designed and constructed with adequate
reinforcement as per earthquake building codes and regulations.
• Buildings and lifeline systems sited in close proximity to an active fault system, or on poor soils
that either enhance ground shaking or fall through permanent displacements (e.g., liquefaction
and landslides), or in low-lying or coastal areas subject to tsunami flood waves.
• Modern buildings of poor design and construction (examples are buildings that were damaged
seriously even in low intensity of shaking in Ahmedabad and Bhuj in the January 2001
earthquake).
• Schools and other buildings that have been to low construction standards.
• Communication and control centers that are concentrated in one area and not built to seismic
standards.
• Hospital buildings and facilities that are insufficient for large number of casualties and injuries.
• Bridges, overhead crossings and viaducts that have not been built to withstand shaking forces of
earthquakes and are likely to collapse or be rendered unusable by ground shaking.
• Electrical, gas and water supply lines that are likely to be knocked out of service by ground failure
(i.e., liquefaction, lateral spreads, and landslides).

24 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

6.3 Prevalence of Non-Engineered Constructions

It is estimated for most of the towns and cities of India, that non-engineered construction accounts for
more than half, and in some case more than even 90% of all building stock. The volume of such non-
engineered buildings is, unfortunately growing, especially in the periphery of cities. It is to be understood
that about 75% of fatalities attributed to earthquakes in the last 50 years were caused by the collapse of
masonry buildings or even RC buildings that were not adequately designed for earthquake resistance,
were built with inadequate materials, or were poorly constructed.

There are large human settlements located in earthquake/prone areas in India. Most of these settlements
have a significant proportion of old and unsafe buildings that are of poor quality of design and construc-
tion. Aging and lack of maintenance are other factors of the deterioration of the material quality.

Erosion of the traditional wisdom in building construction is also responsible for the increased vulner-
ability of traditional building types.
• Extensive use of timber bands running over the walls.
• Use of wooden pins to provide integrity between structural members of the building for restricting
relative displacement,
• Very strict selection of quality materials,
• Adequate thickness of the walls
• High level of craftsmanship

6.4 Inadequate Control in the Building Construction

While the building code is mandatory in China and Japan, and they have developed the required institu-
tional capacity at the municipal levels, in India, the seismic building code is yet a recommended practice,
and the municipal organizations do not have the human resources capacity for the strict implementation
of the seismic code for building construction.

It is tragic that India with a glorious tradition of earthquake engineering in world class academic centers,
the earthquake code is not mandatory and millions of buildings are constructed annually without any
seismic resistance.

6.5 Factors Affecting Seismic Vulnerability of Buildings

IS: 4326 : 1993, lays down general principles to be observed in the construction of earthquake resistant
buildings. The factors considered are the following:
i. Lightness of the building components as far as possible consistent with structural safety and the
functional requirements.
ii. Continuity of construction between the parts of the buildings so that the buildings acts as an integral
unit to resist the earthquake force which may impacting the buildings in any direction. The
principles should apply to all additions and alterations carried out after the initial constructions of
the building.
iii. Projecting and suspended parts of the building are recommended to be avoided as far as possible and
if avoiding is not practical, then these should be properly reinforced and firmly connected with the
building structure.
iv. Building configuration has to be made as regular and symmetrical as possible in plan as well as elevation

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 25

 so that torsion and stress concentration during earthquake is minimized if not totally avoided. This
principle applies to both mass and rigidity of the various components of the building.
v. Strength in various directions, the building structure should have adequate strength against earthquake
effects in the longitudinal as well as transverse directions.
vi. Ductility in the building components as well as their connections needs to be achieved by appropriate
details.
vii. Damage to non-structural parts has to be avoided by suitable design of the non-structural parts and
their connection with the main structure of the building.
viii. Fire safety of building structure needs to be ensured since there will be chances of fire occurrence
during a severe earthquake due to kitchen fire or electrical short-circuiting.
ix. Separation of adjoining buildings with proper gap must be achieved to avoid mutual impact during
earthquake vibrations which may damage either or both of the adjoining buildings or blocks of
the same building.
x. Foundations of buildings will have to be planned and designed after due soil investigations to avoid
displacement or tilting of the foundations on soft soils or liquefaction of sandy soils submerged
under high water table.
xi. Roofs and floors should not preferably be constructed using terrace of ordinary bricks or prefabricated
concrete elements supported on steel, timber or RC joists, since during earthquake shaking the
supporting joists may be moved apart and the prefabricated elements may fall down. If adopted
the roof or floor will have to be contained in RC bands preventing the separation of the joists.
xii. Jack Arches of masonry resting on steel joists will have to be prevented from spreading by use of steel
ties in all spans so as to ensure integral diaphragm action.
xiii. Staircases are frequently cause of distress in view of their diagonal strut action during earthquake
vibrations leading to their own damage or damage to the supporting building structure. Appropriate
construction details will have to be adopted as advised in the standard, IS: 4326.

The above important guidelines provided in the Code where followed in construction will give a safe
earthquake resistant construction. But in the case, the above guidelines are not followed, the building will
be unsafe and will have a vulnerability of the same grade as any other non-engineered building constructed
in the usual manner. Besides the above points for achieving earthquake safe construction, there are other
points which may result into higher damageability of the building.

i. Quality of material and workmanship during construction. What will constitute good and bad
construction during a building survey may generally be of subjective nature. It is certain that use
of good quality materials and good construction techniques will result in a building which will be
much better able to withstand earthquake shaking than the building having use of poor materials as
well as workmanship. In masonry construction, the quality and strength of mortar is of particular
importance. Poor workmanship in stone construction will be the one where the through stones
will not be used in the walls.
ii. State of maintenance, a building which is well maintained will perform with the expected strength
and a building which has been allowed to decay may be much weaker, hence more vulnerable. A
particular case is that of a building already damaged in an earlier shock but not properly restored.
Such buildings can behave very poorly even under a weak earthquake shock and may suffer large
amount of damage including collapse. One should note that a building may appear to be in good
condition if repaired aesthetically by nice plaster and paint. Such a building will only be safe if
structurally restored after the earlier damage.

26 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

 iii. Position of building in the cluster, if it is at the end of a row of many buildings, it gets worst affected
during an earthquake.
iv. Seismically retrofitted buildings behave much better during a severe earthquake with reduced
vulnerability.
v. Earthquake resistance design (ERD) could be of three qualities; (a) Low with minimum level of ERD
(b) Medium with of moderate level of ERD and (c ) High with high level of ERD. Accordingly
the vulnerability of the building will be higher with level low and lowest with level High.

6.6 Vulnerability classes specified in EMS (European Macro Seismic Scale)

The vulnerability classes suggested in EMS are shown in table 6.1 wherein the solid circle indicates the
most likely vulnerability class of the building type stated. The solid line variation to the right side shows
the better performance of the building class with reduced vulnerability and the dotted line variation to
the left side shows the poorer performance of the building class with increased vulnerability. The same
type of variation has been adopted by Arya while changing the nomenclature of the buildings as A to A+,
B to B+ etc. where in A and B etc., coincide with the solid circle of EMS.

Table 6.1 Vulnerability as per EMS

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 27

7. Rapid Visual Screening Procedure
____________________________________________________

7.1 The RVS Procedure

The screening procedure is based on Code based Seismic Intensity Zones, Building Types, their Seismic
Vulnerability and Damageability Grades as observed in past earthquakes and covered in Chapter 3,4,5 &
6 in the guidelines.

Uses of RVS Results : The main uses of this procedure in relation to seismic evaluation and possible up-
grading of existing buildings are:
(i) To identify if a particular building requires further evaluation for assessment of its seismic
vulnerability.
(ii) To assess the seismic damageability (structural vulnerability) of the buildings if and when the design
seismic intensity as postulated in IS: 1893 part 1-2002 may occur.
(iii) To assess the damageability of non-structural building elements requiring stabilization.

7.2 Seismic Hazards considered in RVS Forms

Four levels of seismic hazard intensities are considered in IS: 1893 as given below:-
(i) Very High seismic hazard Zone V (maximum damage during earthquake may be under MSK
Intensity IX or greater).
(ii) High seismic hazard Zone IV (maximum damage during earthquake may be as per MSK Intensity
VIII).
(iii) Moderate seismic hazard Zone III (maximum damage during earthquake may correspond to MSK
Intensity VII).
(iv) Low seismic hazard Zone II (corresponding to MSK Intensity VI or lower). The hazard is considered
negligible.

It is considered that various States of India will be able to choose the applicable Hazard Intensity equivalent
to one of these and select the RVS form accordingly.

When a particular hazard Intensity occurs, different building types experience different levels of damage
depending on their inherent characteristics.

7.3 Building Types Considered in RVS Procedure

A wide variety of construction types and building materials are used in urban and rural areas of India
(See Chapter-4). These include local materials such as mud, bamboo and wood, semi-engineered materi-
als such as burnt brick and stone with different dressings, and engineered materials such as concrete and
steel. The seismic vulnerability of the different building types depends on the choice of building materials
and construction technology adopted. The building vulnerability is generally highest with the use of local
materials without engineering inputs and lowest with the use of engineered materials and professional
skills.

The basic vulnerability class of a building type is based on the average expected seismic performance

28 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

 for that building type (see chapter 6, Table 6.1). All buildings have been divided into type A to type F
based on the European Macro-seismic Scale (EMS-98) recommendations. The buildings in type A have
the highest seismic vulnerability while the buildings in type F have the lowest seismic vulnerability. A
building of a given type, however, may have its vulnerability different from the basic class defined for that
type depending on the condition of the building, presence of earthquake resistant features, architectural
features, number of storeys, etc. It is therefore possible to have a damageability range for each building
type considering the different factors affecting its likely performance. Some variations in building type
are, therefore, defined by the author as A, A+, B, B+ etc.

The RVS procedure presented here has considered different building types, based on the building materials
and construction types that are most commonly found in Indian subcontinent. Masonry buildings are
presented in Table 7.1 and framed RC and steel buildings in Table 7.2. The likely damages to buildings
have been categorized in different Grades depending on the seismic intensity impact on the strength of
the building.

7.4 Grades of Damageability

Five grades of damageability from G1 to G5 are specified in MSK and European Intensity Scales as de-
scribed in Tables 7.3 and 7.4 for Masonry and RCF/SF buildings respectively.

7.5 Relationship of Seismic Intensity, Building Type & Damage Grade

Tables 7.5 and 7.6 provide guidance regarding likely performance of the masonry and RCF/SF build-
ings respectively in the event of occurrence of the earthquake intensity postulated in the seismic hazard
zones.

This information has been used in developing the RVS forms to arrive at Grade of Damage likely to oc-
cur in the building surveyed and to decide if there is necessity of further evaluation of the building using
higher level procedures. It can also be used to identify need for retrofitting, and to recommend simple
retrofitting techniques for ordinary buildings where more detailed evaluation is not considered economi-
cally feasible.

The Indicative quantities Few, Many and Most as defined in European Macro Intensity Scales are as fol-
lows:
Few: Less than (15 ±5) %; Many: Between (15± 5) to (55±5) %; Most: Between (55±5) to100%

As per MSK Intensity scale the average values of these terms may be taken as
About single, Few: (5-15%) Many: about 50% Most: about 75%

Tables 7.5 & 7.6 are generally based on MSK descriptions.

Note:- EMS and MSK Intensities related to building performance are described in (rows c) of Table 3.2 and
may be used for ready reference.

7.6 RVS Survey Forms - Special Points

The RVS survey forms are developed here for the seismic hazard intensity zones, the building types A to

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 29

 F and damageability grades G1 to G5 as described here above. Some special cases included therein are
explained below:

7.6.1 Identifying the Lateral, Load resisting System

A frame structure (for example, those given in Table 7.2) is made up of beams and columns
throughout the entire structure, resisting both vertical and lateral loads. A bearing wall structure
(for example, those given in Table 7.1) uses vertical-load-bearing walls, which are more or less
solid, to resist the vertical and lateral loads. When a building has large openings on all sides, it is
probably a frame structure as opposed to a bearing wall structure. A common characteristic of a
frame structure is the rectangular grid pattern of the facade, indicating the location of the columns
and beams behind the finish material. This is particularly revealing when windows occupy the entire
opening in the frame, and no infill wall is used. A newer multistory commercial building should
be assumed to be a frame structure, even though there may exist interior shear walls carrying the
lateral loads (this would be a frame structure with shear walls).

Bearing wall systems carry vertical and lateral loads with walls. Structural floor members such as slabs,
joists, and beams, are supported by load-bearing walls. A bearing wall system is thus characterized
by more or less solid walls and, a load-bearing wall will have more solid areas than openings. It also
will have no wide openings, unless a structural lintel is used.

Some composite structures incorporate structural walls as well as columns, or are partly frame
structures. This is especially popular in multistory commercial buildings in urban lots where girders
and columns are used in the ground floor of a bearing wall structure to provide larger openings
for retail shopping. Another example is where the loads are carried by both interior columns and a
perimeter wall. Both of these examples should be considered and record as bearing wall structures,
because lateral loads are resisted by the bearing walls. Bearing wall structures sometimes utilize only
two walls for load bearing. The other walls are non-load-bearing and may have large openings.
Therefore, the openness of the front elevation should not be used to determine the structure type.
The Assessor should also look at the side and rear facades. If at least two of the four exterior walls
appear to be solid then it is likely that it is a bearing wall structure. Whereas open facades on all
sides clearly indicate a frame structure. Bearing walls are usually much thicker than infill walls, and
increase in thickness in the lower storey of multi-storey buildings. This increase in wall thickness can
be detected by comparing the wall thickness at windows on different floors. Thus, solid walls can
be identified as bearing or non-bearing walls according to their thickness, if the structural material
is known. A bearing wall system is sometimes called a box system. It is then useful to know that:
• unreinforced masonry buildings are usually bearing-wall type,
• steel buildings and pre-cast concrete buildings are usually frame type,
• Training by knowledgeable building design professionals, should assist the Assessor in the
determination of lateral-force-resisting systems. There will be some buildings for which the
lateral-force-resisting system cannot be identified because of their facade treatment. In this
case, the Screener should eliminate those lateral-force-resisting systems that are not possible
and assume that any of the others are possible.

Ideally, whenever possible, the Assessor should seek access to the interior of the building to identify,
or verify, the lateral-force-resisting system for the building.

30 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

7.6.2 Importance of Building/Structure

In most earthquake building codes an importance factor I is defined which require enhancement of the
seismic strength of buildings & structures. For example, school and hospital buildings fall in structures
included in the category of important buildings. Other Important buildings include: Monumental build-
ings; emergency communication buildings like telephone exchange, television, radio stations, lifeline buildings
like railway stations, fire stations, large community halls like cinemas, assembly halls and subway stations,
power stations, VIP residences & Residences of Important Emergency persons. Any building having more than
100- 1000 Occupants at any time of the day or night may be treated as Important for purpose of RVS.

For these important buildings the value of I is specified differently in various Codes. IS:1893 (Part-1) -
2002 specifies I as 1.5, by which the design seismic force is increased by a factor of 1.5.

Now the seismic zone factors for MCE for zone II to V in the Indian Standard IS:1893-2002 are as fol-
lows.

Seismic Intensity Zone MSK VI MSK VII MSK VIII MSK IX & More
Zone Factor 0.10 0.16 0.24 0.36
(Peak ground acceleration)

It is seen that one Unit change in Seismic Hazard Intensity increases the Zone Factor about 1.5 times.

Hence it may be argued that to deal with the damageability of important buildings in any Hazard Intensity
zone, they should be checked for one unit higher Intensity Zone. As shown in Chapter 3, Para 3.1. MSK
IX, VIII and VII intensities qualify to be taken for Very High, High and Moderate hazard intensities
for RVS purposes.

7.7 Building Attributes enhancing Earthquake Risk

There are some special hazardous conditions to be considered:

7.7.1 Liquefiable condition: Normal loose sands submerged under high water table are susceptible to
liquefaction under moderate to high ground accelerations. Therefore the building founded on
such soils will require special evaluation and treatment.
7.7.2 Land Slide Prone Area: If the building is situated on a hill slope which is prone to land slide/ land
slip or rock-fall under monsoon and/or earthquake occurrences, special geological & geotechnical
evaluation of the site and treatment for the safety of the building will be needed.
7.7.3 Irregular Buildings: Irregularities in buildings are defined in the building code IS:1893 Pat 1-2002
under the following sub- heads:
a. Plan Irregularities: These are generally defined as follows:
(i) Torsion Irregularity
(ii) Re-entrant Corners
(iii) Diaphragm Discontinuity
(iv) Out of Plane Offsets
(v) Non - Parallel Systems
The Geometric Irregularities in building plans which can be easily identified are shown in in
Fig.7.1.

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 31

 A/L>0.15 - 0.20 A/L>0.15 - 0.20

A/L>0.15 - 0.20

Re-entrant Corner

Fig. 7.1 Plan Irregularities

Plan Irregularity

If a building has a plan irregularity, as described above, the damageability becomes higher. Plan
irregularity can affect all building types. Examples of plan irregularity include buildings with re-
entrant corners, where damage is likely to occur; buildings with good lateral-load resistance in
one direction but not in the other; and buildings with major stiffness eccentricities in the lateral
force- resisting system, which may cause twisting (torsion) around a vertical axis.

Buildings with re-entrant corners include those with long wings that are E, L, T, U, or + shaped
(see Figures 7.1. Plan irregularities causing torsion are especially prevalent among corner buildings,
in which the two adjacent street sides of the building are largely windowed and open, whereas the
other two sides are generally solid. Wedge-shaped buildings, triangular in plan, on corners of streets
not meeting at 90°, are similarly susceptible. Although plan irregularity can occur in all building
types, primary concern lies with wood, pre-cast frame, and unreinforced masonry construction.
Damage at connections may significantly reduce the capacity of a vertical-load-carrying element,
leading to partial or total collapse.

These irregularities may enhance the overall damage by one grade (increased grade of damage).
Such a building may be recommended for detailed evaluation, or for retrofitting.

b. Vertical Irregularities: The following vertical irregularities may be seen in masonry buildings
(see Fig. 7.2).
(i) Mass Irregularity
(ii) Vertical Geometric Irregularity
(iii) In-Plane Discontinuity in vertical Elements Resisting Lateral Forces.

Vertical Irregularity

Examples of vertical irregularity include buildings with setbacks, hillside buildings, and buildings
with soft storey (see illustrations of example vertical irregularities in Figure 7.2). If the building
is irregularly shaped in elevation, or if some walls are not vertical, then we have to enhance the
damageability grade.

If the building is on a steep hill so that over the up-slope dimension of the building, the hill rises
at least one story height, a problem may exist because the horizontal stiffness along the lower side
may be different from the uphill side. In addition, in the up-slope direction, the stiff short columns
attract the seismic shear forces and may fail.

A soft story exists if the stiffness of one story is dramatically less than that of most of the others.

32 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

 Examples are shear walls or infill walls not continuous to the foundation. Soft storeys are difficult
to verify without knowledge of how the building was designed and how the lateral forces are to be
transferred from storey to storey. In other words, there may be shear walls in the building that are
not visible from the outside and should be checked from inside. In many commercial buildings, the
first story is soft due to large window openings for display purposes. If one story is particularly tall
or has windows on all sides, and if the storeys above have fewer windows, then it is probably a soft
storey. A building may be adequate in one direction but be “soft” in the perpendicular direction.
For example, the front and back walls may be open but the side walls may be solid. Another
common example of soft story is “stilt floor” parking commonly found in RCF buildings. Several
past earthquakes in California, New Zenland and India have shown the vulnerability of this type of
construction. Vertical Irregularity is a difficult characteristic to define, and considerable judgment
are required for identification purposes.

Fig. 7.2 Vertical Irregularities

If any of these irregularities are noticed, the building may undergo much more severe damage even
upto Grade 4 or 5 and should be recommended for detailed evaluation or a Grade of damage by
two units higher may be specified.

7.7.4 Falling Hazard: Where such hazards are present, such as high parapets, flower pots resting on
parapet walls, particularly in High Intensity Zones, recommendations should make reference to
these in the survey report as indicated. Such hazards will need to be removed or strengthened for
stability.

Potential Non-structural Falling Hazards

Non-structural falling hazards such as chimneys, parapets, cornices, veneers, overhangs and heavy
cladding can pose life-safety hazards if not adequately reinforced and anchored to the building.
Although these hazards may be present, the basic lateral load system for the building may be adequate
and require no further review. The falling hazards of major concern are:
• Unreinforced Chimneys. Unreinforced masonry chimneys are common in older masonry and
wood-frame buildings. They are often inadequately tied to the building structure and fall
when strongly shaken. If in doubt as to whether a chimney is reinforced or unreinforced,
assume it is unreinforced.

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 33

 • Parapets. Unbraced parapets are difficult to identify from outside. Parapets often exist on all
sides of the building, their height may not be visible from any side of the structure. Climbing
to the roof will indicate the situation correctly.
• Heavy Cladding. Large heavy cladding elements, usually precast concrete panels should be
entered in the survey Data Form for documenting non-structural falling hazards. If improperly
anchored, the loss of panels may also create major changes to the building stiffness (the
elements are considered non-structural but often contribute substantial stiffness to a building),
thus setting up plan irregularities or torsion when only some panels fall.

If any of the above non-structural falling hazards exist, the appropriate box should be checked in
the RVS form.
If there are any other falling hazards, the type of hazard indicated in the comments section. The
RVS authority may later use this information as a basis for action.

Note: Glass curtain walls may not be considered as heavy cladding in the RVS procedure.

7.7.5 Type of Foundation Soil: Normally earthquake resistant building codes define three soil types:
hard/stiff, medium & soft.

No effect of these is seen in the design spectra of short period buildings, i.e. having T< 0.4 second,
covering practically all masonry buildings, hence the soil effect may be considered not so significant
in masonry buildings, but it will be prudent to specify one unit higher Grade of damage for Soft
Soil condition.

The soft soils will be affecting performance of high-size RC buildings towards higher damage.

Table 7.1: Masonry load bearing wall buildings

Building Description
Type
A a) Walls constructed using clay on ground with shallow foundation
A+ b) Rubble (Field stone) in mud mortar or without mortar usually with sloping wooden roof.
c) Uncoursed rubble masonry without adequate ‘through stones’.
d) Masonry with round stones.
e) Unburnt brick wall in mud mortar
B Semi-dressed, rubble, brought to courses, with through stones and long corner stones; unreinforced brick
walls with country type wooden roofs; unreinforced CC block walls constructed in mud mortar or weak
lime mortar.
B+ a) Unreinforced brick masonry in mud mortar with vertical wood posts or horizontal wood elements or
wooden seismic band (IS: 13828)*
b) Unreinforced brick masonry in lime mortar.
C a) Unreinforced masonry walls built from fully dressed (Ashler) stone masonry or CC block or burnt brick
using good cement mortar, either having RC floor/roof or sloping roof having eave level horizontal
bracing system or seismic band.
b) As at B+ with horizontal seismic bands (IS: 13828)*
C+ Like C(a) type but having horizontal seismic bands at lintel level of doors & windows (IS: 4326)*
D Masonry construction as at C(a) but reinforced with bands & vertical reinforcement, etc (IS: 4326), or
confined masonry using horizontal & vertical reinforcing elements of reinforced concrete.
D+ Reinforced burnt brick masonry walls
IS:13828-1993, “Improving Earthquake Resistance of Low Strength Masonry Buildings --- Guidelines”.
IS:4326-1993, “Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings - Code of Practice BIS 2005

34 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

 Table 7.2: Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings (RCF) and Steel Frames (SF)

Frame Type Description

C a) RC Beam Post buildings without ERD or WRD, built in non-engineered way.
b) SF without bracings having hinge joints;.
c) RCF of ordinary design for gravity loads without ERD or WRD.
d) SF of ordinary design without ERD or WRD
C+ a) MR-RCF/MR-SF of ordinary design without ERD or WRD.
b) Do, with unreinforced masonry infill.
c) Flat slab framed structure.
d) Prefabricated framed structure.
D a) MR-RCF with ordinary ERD without special details as per IS: 13920*, with ordinary infill walls
(such walls may fail earlier similar to C in masonry buildings.
b) MR-SF with ordinary ERD without special details as per Plastic Design Hand Book SP:6(6)-
1972*.
E a) MR-RCF with high level of ERD as per IS: 1893-2002* & special details as per IS: 13920*.
b) MR-SF with high level of ERD as per IS: 1893-2002* & special details as per Plastic Design Hand
Book, SP:6(6)-1972*
E+ a) MR-RCF as at E with well designed infills walls.
b) MR-SF as at E with well designed braces
F a) MR-RCF as at E with well designed & detailed RC shear walls.
b) MR-SF as at E with well designed & detailed steel braces & cladding.
c) MR-RCF/MR-SF with well designed base isolation.
*IS:13920-1993, “Ductile Detailing of Reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces-Code of Practice” BIS.2002”.
*IS:1893(Part-I) 2002, “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”, BIS 2007.
*SP:6(6)-1972, “Plastic Design of Steel Structures-Handbook”, BIS.1972.
Notes: RCF = Reinforced concrete column- beam frame system
SF = Steel column- beam frame system
ERD = Earthquake Resistant Design
WRD = Wind Resistant Design
MR = Moment Resistant jointed frame

IMPORTANT NOTE: Buildings having severe vertical irregularity e.g. open plinth, stilt floor called soft storey & those having floating columns
resting on horizontal cantilever beams are not covered in the above table & will require special evaluation.

Table 7.3: Grades of Damageability of Masonry Buildings

Grade 1: Negligible to slight damage (no structural damage, slight non-structural damage)
Structural: Hair-line cracks in very few walls.
Non-structural: Fall of small pieces of plaster only.
Fall of loose stones from upper parts of buildings in very few cases.
Grade 2: Moderate damage (Slight structural damage, moderate non-structural damage)
Structural: Cracks in many walls, thin cracks in RC* slabs and A.C.* sheets.
Non-structural: Fall of fairly large pieces of plaster, partial collapse of smoke chimneys on roofs. Damage to parapets, chajjas. Roof
tiles disturbed in about 10% of the area. Minor damage in under structure of sloping roofs.
Grade 3: Substantial to heavy damage (moderate structural damage, heavy non-structural damage)
Structural: Large and extensive cracks in most walls. Wide spread cracking of columns and piers.
Non-structural: Roof tiles detach. Chimneys fracture at the roof line; failure of individual non-structural elements (partitions, gable
walls).
Grade 4: Very heavy damage (heavy structural damage, very heavy non-structural damage)
Structural: Serious failure of walls (gaps in walls), inner walls collapse; partial structural failure of roofs and floors.
Grade 5: Destruction (very heavy structural damage)
Total or near total collapse of the building.
* RC = Reinforced Concrete;
AC = Asbestos Cement

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 35

 Table 7.4: Grades of Damageability of RCC Buildings

Grade 1: Negligible to slight damage (no structural damage, slight non-structural damage)
Fine cracks in plaster over frame members or in walls at the base.
Fine cracks in partitions & infills.
Grade 2: Moderate damage (Slight structural damage, moderate non-structural damage)
Cracks in columns & beams of frames & in structural walls.
Cracks in partition & infill walls; fall of brittle cladding & plaster. Falling mortar from the joints of wall panels.
Grade 3: Substantial to heavy damage (moderate structural damage, heavy non-structural damage)
Cracks in columns & beam column joints of frames at the base & at joints of coupled walls. Spalling of concrete cover, buckling of
reinforced rods.
Large cracks in partition & infill walls, failure of individual infill panels.
Grade 4: Very heavy damage (heavy structural damage, very heavy non-structural damage)
Large cracks in structural elements with compression failure of concrete & fracture of rebar’s; bond failure of beam reinforcing bars;
tilting of columns. Collapse of a few columns or of a single upper floor.
Grade 5: Destruction (very heavy structural damage)
Collapse of ground floor parts (e.g. Wings) of the building.
* The grades of damage in steel and wood buildings will also be based on non-structural and structural damage classification (shown in
bold print in above Table 7.4). Non-structural damage to infills would be the same as indicated for masonry building in the above table.
Structural damage grade in steel & wooden elements still needs to be defined.

Table 7.5: Damageability Grades of Masonry Buildings

Type of Low Intensity Moderate Intensity High Intensity

Building MSK VII MSK VIII (MSK IX or More)
A and A+ Most of grade 3 Most of grade 4 Many of grade 5
Few of grade 4 Few of grade 5 (rest of grade 4 & 3)
(rest of grade2 or 1) (rest of grade 3, 2)
B Many of grade 2 Most of grade 3 Many of grade 4
and Few of grade 3 Few of grade 4 Few of grade 5
B+ (rest of grade 1) (rest of grade 2) (rest of grade 3)
C Many of grade 1 Most of grade 2 Many of grade 3
and Few of grade 2 Few of grade 3 Few of grade 4
C+ (rest of grade 1, 0) (rest of grade 1) (rest of grade 2)
D and D+ Few of grade 1 Few of grade 2 Many of grade 2
Few of grade 3
(rest of grade 1)

NOTE:
1. As per MSK scale, Few, Many and Most may be taken as: Few: about 5-15%, Many: about 50% and Most: about 75%.
2. While selecting the damageability grade for ordinary residential building, the grade may be taken as indicated for Many, for important
buildings such as Schools and Hospital building the highest grade may be chosen even if indicated for Few.
3. Buildings having vertical irregularity may undergo severe damage in seismic High & Very High Intensity zones MSK (VIII and ‘IX or
more)’ if not specifically designed. Hence they will require special evaluation. Also buildings sited in liquefiable or landslide prone areas
will require special evaluation for seismic safety.
4. Buildings having plan irregularity may undergo a damage of one grade higher in the Moderate, High and Very High Intensity zones
MSK VII, VIII& IX and higher. The surveyor may recommend re-evaluation if damageability grade G4 or more is indicated.
5. Masonry buildings of three storey height may have a damage grade one unit higher, as also buildings founded on Soft Soil.

36 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

 Table 7.6: Relationship of RCC Building and Damageability Grades

Type of Building Low Intensity Moderate Intensity High Intensity

MSK VII MSK VIII (MSK IX or More)
C Few of grade 2 Many of grade 2 Many of grade 3
and (rest of grade 1 or0) Few of grade 3 Few of grade 4
C +
(rest of grade 1) (rest of grade 2)
D and D+ Few of grade 1 Few of grade 2 Many of grade 2
Few of grade 3
(rest of grade 1)
E Few of grade 2
and - - (rest of grade 1 or 0)
E+
F - - Few of grade 1
NOTE:
1. As per MSK scale, Few, Many and Most may be taken as: Few: about 5-15%, Many: about 50% and Most: about 75%.
2. While selecting the damageability grade for ordinary residential building, the grade may be taken as indicated for Many, for important
buildings such as Schools and Hospital building the highest grade may be chosen even if indicated for Few.
3. Buildings having vertical irregularity may undergo severe damage in seismic High & Very High Intensity zones MSK (VIII and ‘IX or
more)’ if not specifically designed. Hence they will require special evaluation. Also buildings sited in liquefiable or landslide prone areas
will require special evaluation for seismic safety.
4. Buildings having plan irregularity may undergo a damage of one grade higher in the, Moderate, High and Very High Intensity zones
MSK VII, VIII& IX and higher. The surveyor may recommend re-evaluation if damageability grade G4 or more is indicated.
5. Frame buildings of more than four storayes founded on Soft Soil may have a Damage Grade one unit higher.

7.8 RVS Forms for various Buildings

The RVS Forms (Arya’s Procedure) for Load Bearing Masonry Buildings as well as for Reinforced Concrete
or Steel Frame buildings for each Hazard Intensity Moderate, High or Very High are given in this chapter.
The forms are explained here by using the form for Masonry Building in High Hazard Area as example
(see Fig 7.3). The following items may be identified in this form:

1.0 General Information: It deals with the seismic zone, building name, its address the use of the
building, its ground coverage and the soil type, etc.

2.1 Foundation Type

2.3.1 Wall Type: Various types of wall types are included for identification.
2.3.2 Mortar Type.
2.3.3 Vertical Reinforcing Bars Provided in the Building.
2.3.4 Seismic Bands Provided in the Building at various levels.
2.3.5 Special Observations in regard to the building.

Every item has been assigned a digital number by which the data could be entered in digitized data base
of each building.

Besides the above, other information is also to be verified as follows:

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 37

 4.0 Special hazard including Water Table in the ground, landslide proneness of the area and vertical
and plan irregularities of the building.

Information is also required about the non-structural components including Falling hazards,
equipment and furnishing and basic installation and services. These will not have influence on the
damageable of the building as whole but will require taking care to prevent their own damage.

Under the item 6.0 the probable damageability of the building is to be identified after the building
category has been identified between A and D+. Under item 6.0 the damageability grade is to be
en circled along with the building classification.

The recommended action to be specified by the Assessor is next given in the form.

At the top of the form space is provided where a sketch of the building plan and/or elevation may
be drawn, or one or two photographs could be pasted illustrating the most important views of the
building.

Note that all items on the form are assigned a digital number which will simplify preparing the
data base about the building components.

7.9 Quick Reference Guide for Ready Reference

It has been prepared in compact form in Chapter 9. This information is to be taken by the Assessor along
with the forms while going out for RVS exercise for a building.

This Guide shows the relationship between the building type A to D for masonry are C to F for RCF
building. The items of equipment to be taken by the Assessor in the field for survey work is given for
ready reference, Explanatory notes are provided for understanding the items such as plan and vertical ir-
regularities.

This guide will be found handy by the Assessors so that he may not have to refer to the whole guide at
the time of field survey.

38 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

1 RVS of Masonry Buildings

Moderate Hazard MSK VII

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 39

2 RVS of Masonry Buildings

High Hazard MSK VIII

40 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

3 RVS of Masonry Buildings

Very High Hazard MSK IX or Higher

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 41

4 RVS of RCF/SF Buildings

Moderate Hazard MSK VII

42 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

5 RVS of RCF/SF Buildings

High Hazard MSK VIII

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 43

6 RVS of RCF/SF Buildings

Very High Hazard MSK IX or Higher

44 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

8. Sequence of RVS Implementation
____________________________________________________

There are several steps involved in planning and performing RVS of the selected potentially seismically hazard-
ous buildings. As a first step, these building engineers should formally approve of the general RVS procedure.
Second, the School and Hospital authorities and managements of others should be informed about the purpose
of the screening process and how it will be carried out soliciting their cooperation and assistance. There are also
other decisions to be made, such as use of the screening results, responsibilities of the building owners and the
community, and actions to be taken.

8.1 General Sequence of Implementing RVS

The general sequence of implementing the RVS procedure will include the following:
1) Budget development and cost estimation, recognizing the expected extent of the screening and
further use of the gathered data;
2) Pre-planning, including selection of the buildings to be surveyed, identification of building types to
be screened, selection and development of a record-keeping system, and compilation and acquisition
of maps that give local seismic hazard information;
3) Selection and review of the RVS Data Collection Form to sent the building types
4) Selection and training of Assessors, the screening personnel;
5) Acquisition and review of pre-survey data; for example review of existing building files and databases
of the survey area to document information identifying buildings to be screened (e.g., address, lot
number, number of storeys, design and / or construction date) and identifying soil types
6) Review of existing building plans, if available say in municipal files, school or hospital records;
7) Visual screening of individual buildings in the field. It will consist of:
• Verifying and updating building identification information,
• Walking around the building and sketching a plan and elevation view on the Data Collection
Form,
• Determining occupancy (that is, the building use and number of occupants during day and
night),
• Determining soil type, if not identified during the pre-planning process, by asking
questions.
• Identifying potential nonstructural falling hazards.
• Identifying the seismic-lateral-load resisting system (entering the building, if possible, to
facilitate this process),
• Identifying the appropriate seismic performance attributes (e.g., number of storeys, design
and / or construction date, and soil type),
• Photographing the building; and
• Checking the quality of RVS data form, and filing the screening data in the record-keeping
system, or database.
8) Determining the Final Damageability Score, and deciding if a detailed evaluation is required.

8.2 Cost Estimation and Budget Development

Many decisions about the level of details to be documented during the Rapid Visual Screening may depend
upon budget constraints. Although the RVS procedure is designed such that screening of each building

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 45

 should take no more than one hour, the time and funds should also be allocated for pre-survey data col-
lection. This can be extremely useful in reducing the total survey time and in increasing the reliability of
data collected in the field. A good example of this is the age, or design and construction date, of a building.
This might be readily available from municipality or building department files but is much more difficult
to determine otherwise. Another issue to consider is travel time, if the distance between buildings to be
screened is large. Other factors in cost estimation are training of personnel and the development and
administration of a record keeping system for the screening process.

8.3 Pre-Field Planning

The RVS authority may decide the priorities that should be set for certain sectors within the chosen region
on certain building types as for example, educational and health sector buildings that should be surveyed
immediately, whereas other areas and buildings can be surveyed at a later time. An area may first be selected
because it is older and may have a higher density of potentially seismically hazardous buildings relative to
other areas. For example an older part of the region that consists mainly of unreinforced masonry buildings
may be of higher priority than a residential section consisting of woodframe single-family dwellings.

Compiling and developing maps for the concerned region is important in the initial planning phase as
well as in scheduling of the Assessor. Maps of soil profiles, maps of landslide potential, maps of liquefac-
tion potential and those of active faults will be directly useful in the screening.

Discussions with Local Body Authorities should include the information about the dates when certain
aspects of seismic design and detailing were adopted, and properly enforced.

Planning phase may include deciding how buildings are to be identified such as name of building. Its
address, Census identification, lot number, and owner. Consideration should be given to developing a
computerized database containing location and other building information to generate forms that incor-
porate unique information for each building. The advantage of using a computerized record generation
and collection system is that graphical data, such as sketches and photographs, are increasingly more easily
converted to digital form and stored on the computer, especially if they are collected in digital format in
the field. This can be facilitated through the use of digital cameras.

8.4 Selection and Review of the Data Collection Form

The RVS Data Collection Forms are developed one for each of the seismicity regions: which may be called
Low (L), Moderate (M), High (H), and Very High (VH) intensity seismic zones. Full-sized versions of
each form are provided in chapter. Reference Guide that contains definitions and explanations for terms
used on the Data Collection Form are also provided with the forms.

Each RVS Data Collection Form provides space to record the following:
• the building identification information,
• for drawing a sketch of the building (plan and elevation views),
• attaching a photograph of the building,
• to indicate the occupancy,
• to indicate the soil type,
• documentation of the existence of falling hazards,
• to develop a Final Structural Score and/for Damageability Grade for the building,

46 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

 • to indicate if a detailed evaluation is required, and
• to provide additional comments.

8.5 Determination of Seismicity of the Region

To select the appropriate RVS Data Collection Form, it is first necessary to determine the seismicity of
the region in which the area to be screened is located.

The seismicity region very (H, M, or L) for the screening area can be determined as follows:

The maximum ground motions considered in the scoring system of the RVS procedure should be consistent
with those specified for detailed Seismic Structural Design procedure of India (Refer IS:1893 Part-I - 2002)
the Country. Seismic Ground motions having a 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years are commonly
referred to as the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) ground motions. MCE for each seismic zone of
any country is specified in zoning Map specifications. Hence the location of the survey-region is to found on the
seismicity map of the country or enlarged seismicity map of the state or province where available.

8.6 Qualifications and Training for Assessors

It is considered that a training program will be required to ensure a consistent, high quality of the data and
uniformity of decisions among Assessors. The training should include discussion of lateral force-resisting
systems and how they behave when subjected to seismic loads, how to use the RVS Data Collection
Form, what to look for in the field such as the building attributes, and how to account for uncertainty.
In parallel with a professional engineer (a structural engineer) experienced in seismic design, the Assessor
trainees should simultaneously consider and score buildings of several different types and compare the
results determined by the professional engineer. This will serve as a “calibration” for the Assessors. This
process can easily be accomplished in a classroom setting with photographs and / or architectural and
structural drawings of actual buildings to use as examples. Prospective Assessors should study the drawings
and photographs and perform the RVS procedure as though they were in the field. Upon completion, the
class should discusses the results and the trainees can compare how they did in relation to the rest of the
class.

8.7 Acquisition and Review of Pre- RVS Data

Information on the structural system, age or occupancy may be available from Local Body Authority
sources. These data may be selected from Municipal building department files, Building Census data and
previous studies, if any should be reviewed and collated for a given area or building type under study,
before commencing the field survey for that area. It is recommended that this supplemental information
either be written directly on the RVS Forms as it is retrieved or be entered into a computerized database.
The advantage of a database is that selected information can be printed in a report format that can be
taken into the field, or printed onto structures labels that can be affixed to the relevant RVS Forms. In
addition, RVS survey data can be added to the database and used to generate maps and reports.

8.8 Information about Foundation Soil Strata

Soil type has a major influence on amplitude and duration of shaking, and thus structural damage. Gener-
ally speaking, the deeper and softer the soils at a site, the more damaging the earthquake motion will be.

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 47

 Six soil types are considered in the RVS procedure of FEMA 154 as follows
1) Hard rock (type A); measured shear wave velocity>1524 m/s (500 ft/s)
2) average rock (type B); Shear wave velocity between 762 & 1524 m/s (2500-5000 ft/s)
3) dense soil (type C); SPT N>50 or SWV between 366 & 762 m/s (1200-2500 ft/s)
4) stiff soil (type D); SPT value from 15to 50 or SWV 183-366 m/s (600-1200 ft/s)
5) soft soil (type E); more than 30 m (100 ft) soft soil with SWV<183 m/s (600 ft/s)
6) poor soil (type F); Soils requiring specific evaluation, very compressible in nature.

Information on these soil types and how to identify them should be learnt by the Assessor. As per the
Indian Seismic Code, IS: 1893 Part-I, there are three soil types as follows;
Type I Rock or Hard Soil: SPT N (corrected)>30
Type II Medium Soil: SPT N (corrected) between 10 and 30
Type III Soft Soils: SPT N (corrected)≤ 10

Thus Type I Rock or Hard Soil Types partly cover A,B and C of FEMA 154: Type II medium Soil same
as parts of type D & E and Type III is roughly between Types E & F. FEMA 154 provides that buildings
on Soil Type F (liquefiable or highly compressible) cannot be screened effectively by the RVS procedure.
Similarly Soft Soils (Type III or IS:1893) have to be left out of screening other than to recommend that
buildings on this soil type be further evaluated by a geotechnical engineer and design professional expe-
rienced in seismic design.

Since soil conditions cannot be readily identified by visual methods in the field, geologic and geotechnical
maps and other information should be collected during the planning stage and put into a readily usable
map format for use during RVS. During the screening, or the planning stage, this soil type should also be
documented on the Data Collection Form by circling the correct soil type, as designated by the letters A
through F on the FEMA forms or Type I, II, III of Arya’s Form.

Default Values:

If sufficient guidance or data are not available during the planning stage to classify the soil type as A
through F, a soil type E should be assumed. However, for one-storey or two-storey buildings with a roof
height equal to or less than 7.5 m, a class D soil type or Type III of IS:1893 may be assumed when site
conditions are not known.

8.9 Review of Construction Documents

Whenever possible, design and construction documents should be reviewed prior to the conduct of field
work to help the Assessor identify the type of lateral-force- resisting system for each building. The review
of construction documents to identify the building type substantially improves the confidence in RVS
which requires that each building be identified as one of model building types considered in developing
the RVS methodology.

8.10 Field Screening of Buildings

RVS screening of buildings in the field should be carried out by teams consisting of two persons each.

48 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

 Teams of two are recommended to provide an opportunity for them to discuss issues requiring judgment
and to facilitate the data collection process. If at all possible, one of the team members should be a design
professional who can identify lateral-force resisting systems. Relatively few tools or equipment are needed.
The following list provides a checklist of items that may be needed in performing an RVS as described in
this document.
1) Binoculars, if high-rise buildings are to be evaluated
2) Camera, preferably digital
3) Clipboard for holding Data Collection Forms
4) Copy of the RVS document
5) Laminated version of the Quick Reference Guide defining terms used on the Data Collection
Form
6) Pen or pencil
7) Straight edge (optional for drawing sketches)
8) Tape or stapler, for affixing photo, as required
9) Adequate number of RVS Data Forms relevant to the Seismicity Zone

8.11 Checking the Quality and Filing the Field Data in the Record- Keeping System

The last step in the implementation of Rapid Visual Screening is checking the quality and filing the RVS
data in the record-keeping system established for this purpose. If the data are to be stored in file folders or
envelopes containing data for each building that was screened, the process is straightforward, and requires
careful organization. If the data are to be stored in digital form, it is important that the data input and
verification process include either double entry of all data, or systematic in-depth checking of print outs
(item by item review) of all entered data. It is also recommended that the quality review be performed
under the supervision of a design professional with significant experience in seismic design.

8.12 Completing Data Collection Form

RVS Form has to be selected, based on the seismicity level of the area to be screened. The Data Collection
Form is completed for each building screened through the following steps:
1) Verifying and updating the building identification information;
2) Walking around and in the building to identify its size and shape, and sketching a plan and elevation
view on the Data Collection Form;
3) Determining and documenting occupancy;
4) Determining soil type, if not identified during the pre-planning process;
5) Identifying potential nonstructural falling hazards, if any, and indicating their existence on the
Data Collection Form;
6) Identifying the seismic lateral-load resisting system on the form.
7) Identifying and circling the appropriate seismic performance attributes (number of storeys, design
date, and soil type)
8) Determining the Final Score, and deciding if a detailed evaluation is required; and
9) Photographing the building and attaching the photo to the form or indicating a photo reference
number on the form if a digital camera is used.

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 49

8.13 Sketching the Plan and Elevation Views

As a minimum, a sketch plan of the building should be drawn on the Data Collection Form. An eleva-
tion may also be useful in indicating significant features. The sketches are especially important, as they
reveal many of the building’s attributes to the Assessor as the sketch is made. In other words, it forces the
Assessor to systematically view all aspects of the building. The plan sketch should include the location of
the building on the site and distance to adjacent buildings. The sketch should note and emphasize special
features such as existing significant cracks or configuration problems.

50 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

9. Quick Reference Guide for RVS in the Field
____________________________________________________

9.1 Quick Reference Guide for RVS of Masonry Buildings

RM 1. Equipment to be carried by the Surveyor:-

1) Camera, preferably digital.
2) Hard board with clip.
3) Adequate no. of survey sheets.
4) One copy of RVS guidelines.
5) One copy of Quick Reference Guide (Laminated for Repeated Use)
Pencil & eraser/ ball pen (black), foot scale, measuring tape as found suitable

RM 2. Masonry Load Bearing Wall Buildings (Table RM 1)

Table RM 1: Masonry Load Bearing Wall Buildings

Building Description
Type
A a) Walls constructed using clay on ground with shallow foundation
A+ b) Rubble (Field stone) in mud mortar or without mortar usually with sloping wooden roof.
c) Uncoursed rubble masonry without adequate ‘through stones’.
d) Masonry with round stones.
e) Unburnt brick wall in mud mortar
B Semi-dressed, rubble, brought to courses, with through stones and long corner stones; unreinforced
brick walls with country type wooden roofs; unreinforced CC block walls constructed in mud mortar
or weak lime mortar.
B+ a) Unreinforced brick masonry in mud mortar with vertical wood posts or horizontal wood elements
or wooden seismic band (IS: 13828)*
b) Unreinforced brick masonry in lime mortar.
C a) Unreinforced masonry walls built from fully dressed (Ashler) stone masonry or CC block or burnt
brick using good cement mortar, either having RC floor/roof or sloping roof having eave level
horizontal bracing system or seismic band.
b) As at B+ with horizontal seismic bands (IS: 13828)*
C+ Like C(a) type but having horizontal seismic bands at lintel level of doors & windows (IS: 4326)*
D Masonry construction as at C(a) but reinforced with bands & vertical reinforcement, etc (IS: 4326),
or confined masonry using horizontal & vertical reinforcing elements of reinforced concrete.
D+ Reinforced burnt brick masonry walls
IS:13828-1993, “Improving Earthquake Resistance of Low Strength Masonry Buildings --- Guidelines”.
IS:4326-1993, “Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings - Code of Practice

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 51

 RM3.Grades of Damageability of Masonry Buildings (Table RM 2)

Table RM 2: Grades of Damageability of Masonry Buildings

Grade 1: Negligible to slight damage (no structural damage, slight non-structural damage)
Structural: Hair-line cracks in very few walls.
Non-structural:Fall of small pieces of plaster only.
Fall of loose stones from upper parts of buildings in very few cases.
Grade 2: Moderate damage (Slight structural damage, moderate non-structural damage)
Structural: Cracks in many walls, thin cracks in RC* slabs and A.C.* sheets.
Non-structural:Fall of fairly large pieces of plaster, partial collapse of smoke chimneys on roofs. Damage to parapets, chajjas
Roof tiles disturbed in about 10% of the area. Minor damage in under structure of sloping roofs.
Grade 3: Substantial to heavy damage (moderate structural damage, heavy non-structural damage)
Structural: Large and extensive cracks in most walls. Wide spread cracking of columns and piers.
Non-structural:Roof tiles detach. Chimneys fracture at the roof line; failure of individual non-structural elements (partitions,
gable walls).
Grade 4: Very heavy damage (heavy structural damage, very heavy non-structural damage)
Structural: Serious failure of walls (gaps in walls), inner walls collapse; partial structural failure of roofs and floors.
Grade 5: Destruction (very heavy structural damage)
Total or near total collapse of the building.
* RC = Reinforced Concrete; AC = Asbestos Cement

RM 4. Relationship of Building Types, Earthquake Zone Intensity and Grade of Damageability

(Table RM3)

Table RM 3: Damageability Grades of Masonry Buildings

Type of Building Low Intensity Moderate Intensity High Intensity

MSK VII MSK VIII (MSK IX or More)
A and A+ Most of grade 3 Most of grade 4 Many of grade 5
Few of grade 4 Few of grade 5 (rest of grade 4&3)
(rest of grade 2or1) (rest of grade 3,2)
B Many of grade 2 Most of grade 3 Many of grade 4
and Few of grade 3 Few of grade 4 Few of grade 5
B+ (rest of grade 1) (rest of grade 2) (rest of grade 3)
C Many of grade 1 Most of grade 2 Many of grade 3
and Few of grade 2 Few of grade 3 Few of grade 4
C+ (rest of grade 1,0) (rest of grade 1) (rest of grade 2)
D and D+ Few of grade 1 Few of grade 2 Many of grade 2
Few of grade 3
(rest of grade 1)

52 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

RM 5.Plan Irregularity (Fig. RM 1)

A/L>0.15 - 0.20 A/L>0.15 - 0.20

A/L>0.15 - 0.20

Re-entrant Corner

Fig. RM 1: Plan Irregularity

RM 6.Vertical geometrical irregularity Fig RM 2

A/L>0.25 A/L>0.15 A/L>0.10

Fig. RM 2: Vertical Irregularity

RM 7. Important Notes regarding damageability Grades.

1. As per MSK scale, Few, Many and Most may be taken as: Few: 15%, Many: 50% and Most: 75%.
2. While selecting the damageability grade for ordinary residential building, the grade may be taken as
indicated for Many.
3. For many important buildings such as Schools and Hospital buildings, the highest grade may be chosen
even if indicated for Few, and checked for hazard Intensity of next higher zone.
4. Buildings having vertical irregularity may undergo one grade higher damage in seismic Moderate &
High Intensity zones MSK (VIII and ‘IX or more)’ if not specifically designed.
5. Buildings having plan irregularity may undergo a damage of one grade higher in the Moderate, High and
Very High Intensity zones MSK VII, VIII & IX and higher. The surveyor may recommend re-evaluation
if damageability grade G4 or more is indicated.
6. Masonry buildings of three storey height may have a damage grade one unit higher, as also buildings
founded on Soft Soil.
7. Buildings sited in liquefiable or landslide prone areas will require special evaluation for seismic safety.

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 53

9.2 Quick Reference Guide for RVS of RC Buildings

RC.1 Equipments to be carried by the Surveyor:-

1) Camera, preferably digital AND Binoculars for Tall Buildings.
2) Hard board with clip.
3) Adequate no. of survey sheets.
4) One copy of RVS guidelines.
5) One copy of Quick Reference Guide (Laminated for Repeated Use)
Pencil & eraser/ ball pen (black), foot scale, measuring tape as found suitable

RC.2 RC Building Types (Table RC 1)

Table RC 1: Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings (RCF) and Steel Frames (SF)

Frame Type Description

C e) RC Beam Post buildings without ERD or WRD, built in non-engineered way.
f) SF without bracings having hinge joints;.
g) RCF of ordinary design for gravity loads without ERD or WRD.
h) SF of ordinary design without ERD or WRD
C+ e) MR-RCF/MR-SF of ordinary design without ERD or WRD.
f) Do, with unreinforced masonry infill.
g) Flat slab framed structure.
h) Prefabricated framed structure.
D c) MR-RCF with ordinary ERD without special details as per IS: 13920*, with ordinary infill walls
(such walls may fail earlier similar to C in masonry buildings.
d) MR-SF with ordinary ERD without special details as per Plastic Design Hand Book SP:6(6)-
1972*.
E c) MR-RCF with high level of ERD as per IS: 1893-2002* & special details as per IS: 13920*.
d) MR-SF with high level of ERD as per IS: 1893-2002* & special details as per Plastic Design Hand
Book, SP:6(6)-1972*
E+ c) MR-RCF as at E with well designed infills walls.
d) MR-SF as at E with well designed braces
F d) MR-RCF as at E with well designed & detailed RC shear walls.
e) MR-SF as at E with well designed & detailed steel braces & cladding.
f) MR-RCF/MR-SF with well designed base isolation.
*IS:13920-1993, “Ductile Detailing of Reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces-Code of Practice” BIS.2002”.
*IS:1893(Part-I) 2002, “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”, BIS 2007.
*SP:6(6)-1972, “Plastic Design of Steel Structures-Handbook”, BIS.1972.
Notes: RCF = Reinforced concrete column- beam frame system
SF = Steel column- beam frame system
ERD = Earthquake Resistant Design
WRD = Wind Resistant Design
MR = Moment Resistant jointed frame

54 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

 RC.3 Grades of Damageability of RCF Buildings (Table RC 2)

Table RC 2 Grades of Damageability of RCC Buildings

Grade 1: Negligible to slight damage (no structural damage, slight non-structural damage)
Structural: Nil
Non-Structural: Fine cracks in plaster over frame members or in walls at the base; Fine cracks in partitions & infills.
Grade 2: Moderate damage (Slight structural damage, moderate non-structural damage)
Structural: Cracks in columns & beams of frames & in structural walls.
Non-Structural: Cracks in partition & infill walls; fall of brittle cladding & plaster. Falling mortar from the joints of wall panels.
Grade 3: Substantial to heavy damage (moderate structural damage, heavy non-structural damage)
Structural: Cracks in columns & beam column joints of frames at the base & at joints of coupled walls. Spalling of concrete
cover, buckling of reinforced rods.
Non-Structural: Large cracks in partition & infill walls, failure of individual infill panels.
Grade 4: Very heavy damage (heavy structural damage, very heavy non-structural damage)
Structural: Large cracks in structural elements with compression failure of concrete & fracture of rebar’s; bond failure of beam
reinforcing bars; tilting of columns. Collapse of a few columns or of a single upper floor.
Non-Structural: Failure of loosely filled partition and infill wall panels.
Grade 5: Destruction (very heavy structural damage)
Structural: Collapse of ground floor parts (e.g. Wings) of the building.
Non-Structural: Total destruction of non-structural building components.

* The grades of damage in steel and wood buildings will also be based on non-structural and structural damage classification (shown in
bold print in above Table 5.2). Non-structural damage to infills would be the same as indicated for masonry infills in the above table
5.2. Structural damage grade in steel & wooden elements still needs to be defined.

RC.4 Relationship of Buildings Types, Earthquake Intensity and Grades of Damage Grades of
Damageability of RCF Buildings (Table RC 3)

Table RC 3 Relationship of RCC Building and Damageability Grades

Type of Building Low Intensity Moderate Intensity High Intensity

MSK VII MSK VIII (MSK IX or More)
C Few of grade 2 Many of grade 2 Many of grade 3
and (rest of grade 1 or0) Few of grade 3 Few of grade 4
C+ (rest of grade 1) (rest of grade 2)
D and D+ Few of grade 1 Few of grade 2 Many of grade 2
Few of grade 3
(rest of grade 1)
E and E+ - - Few of grade 2
(rest of grade 1 or 0)
F - - Few of grade 1
NOTE:
1. As per MSK scale, Few, Many and Most may be taken as: Few: about 5-15%, Many: about 50% and Most: about 75%.
2. While selecting the damageability grade for ordinary residential building, the grade may be taken as indicated for Many, for important
buildings such as Schools and Hospital building the highest grade may be chosen even if indicated for Few.
3. Buildings having vertical irregularity may undergo severe damage in seismic High & Very High Intensity zones MSK (VIII and ‘IX or
more)’ if not specifically designed. Hence they will require special evaluation. Also buildings sited in liquefiable or landslide prone areas
will require special evaluation for seismic safety.
4. Buildings having plan irregularity may undergo a damage of one grade higher in the, Moderate, High and Very High Intensity zones
MSK VII, VIII& IX and higher. The surveyor may recommend re-evaluation if damageability grade G4 or more is indicated.
5. Frame buildings of more than four storeys founded on Soft Soil may have a Damage Grade one unit higher.

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 55

 RC.5 Plan Irregularity (Fig RC 1)

A/L>0.15 - 0.20 A/L>0.15 - 0.20

A/L>0.15 - 0.20

Re-entrant Corner

Fig. RC 1

RC.6 Vertical Irregularity (Fig RC 2)

Fig. RC 2 Vertical Irregularities

RC.7 Important Notes regarding Damageability Grades

1. As per MSK scale, Few, Many and Most may be taken as: Few: 15%, Many: 50% and Most: 75%.
2. While selecting the damageability grade for ordinary residential building, the grade may be taken as
indicated for Many.
3. For many important buildings such as Schools and Hospital buildings, the highest grade may be chosen
even if indicated for Few, and checked for hazard Intensity of next higher zone.
4. Buildings having vertical irregularity may undergo one grade higher damage in seismic Moderate &
High Intensity zones MSK (VIII and ‘IX or more)’ if not specifically designed.
5. Buildings having plan irregularity may undergo a damage of one grade higher in the Moderate, High and
Very High Intensity zones MSK VII, VIII& IX and higher. The surveyor may recommend re-evaluation
if damageability grade G4 or more is indicated.
6. Masonry buildings of three storey height may have a damage grade one unit higher, as also buildings
founded on Soft Soil.
7. Buildings sited in liquefiable or landslide prone areas will require special evaluation for seismic safety.

56 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

10. Template for RVS of Buildings
____________________________________________________

The total template is in two parts given in main sections 10.1 and 10.2 covering the following aspects:

Section 10.1 gives questionnaire through witch all the data about the general buildings including office, school
and hospital buildings may be collected by the assessor. The data points are digitally numbered so that the whole
data could be entered in the computer data base dealing with all the buildings. In the cases where all data has
been obtained, rapid assessment of the seismic safety of the building could be carried out while sitting in office
and site visit will be useful to verify and authenticate the data.

Section 10.2 deals with the RVS forms and quick reference guide for Masonry and R.C Frame buildings which was
fully explained in Chapter 7 and only the RVS forms and quick reference guide are presented in this Section.

10.1 Questionnaire for Collection of Building Data

1.0 General Information

1.1 Seismic Zone _______________________________________
1.2 Building Name______________________________________
1.3 Use_______________________________________________
1.4 Address:___________________________________________
________________________Pin ________________
1.5 Other Identifiers_____________________________________
1.6 No. of Stories____________
1.7 Year Built _____________
1.8 Total Covered Area; all floors (sq.m) ___________________
1.9 Ground Coverage (Sq.m): ____________________________
1.10 Soil Type: __________

2.0 Masonry Building Typology

2.1 Foundation Type
2.1.1 Strip footing Yes  No 
2.1.2 Isolated pier footing Yes  No 
2.1.3 Any other ______________________________________________________
2.2 Roof whether flat or pitched with material
2.2.1 Flat Roof or Floor
2.2.1.1 Wooden joist with earth fill Yes  No 
2.2.1.2 Steel joist with stone slabs Yes  No 
2.2.1.3 Jach arch roof/ floor Yes  No 
2.2.1.4 Reinforced cement concrete/reinforced brick Concrete Yes  No 
2.2.1.5 Any other (please describe) ___________________________

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 57

 2.2.1.6 Thickness of slab Yes  No 
2.2.2 Pitched roof Understructure
2.2.2.1 Bamboo truss/rafter/purlin Yes  No 
2.2.2.2 Wooden truss/rafter/purlin Yes  No 
2.2.2.3 Steel truss/purlin Yes  No 
2.2.2.4 Any other (please describe)___________________________
2.2.3 Pitched Roof Covering
2.2.3.1 Stone slates Yes  No 
2.2.3.2 Burnt Clay Tiles Yes  No 
2.2.3.3 Corrugated Galvanised Iron (CGI)Sheets Yes  No 
2.2.3.4 Asbestos Cement (A.C.) Sheets Yes  No 
2.2.3.5 Fibre sheets Yes  No 
2.2.3.6 Any other _________________________________________
2.3 Structural Components:
2.3.1 Wall Type
2.3.1.1 Earthen / clay mud / Adobe Yes  No 
2.3.1.2 Bamboo Yes  No 
2.3.1.3 Wooden Yes  No 
2.3.1.4 Uncoursed Random Rubble Masonry Yes  No 
2.3.1.5 Dressed stone masonry Yes  No 
2.3.1.6 Burnt Brick Yes  No 
2.3.1.7 Cement Concrete Blocks Yes  No 
2.3.1.8 Any other (please state) _______________________________
2.3.1.9 Thickness of wall ___________________________________
2.3.2 Mortar Type:
2.3.2.1 Mud mortar Yes  No 
2.3.2.2 Lime Mortar Yes  No 
2.3.2.3 Cement Mortar Yes  No 
2.3.3 Vert. R/F bars provided
2.3.3.1 At Corners Yes  No 
2.3.3.2 At T-junctions Yes  No 
2.3.3.3 At Jambs of doors/windows Yes  No 
2.3.4 Seismic bands in all external and internal walls
2.3.4.1 Plinth level Yes  No 
2.3.4.2 Lintel level of doors and windows Yes  No 
2.3.4.3 Eaves level of pitched roofs Yes  No 
2. 3.4.4 Gable wall top Yes  No 
2.3.4.5 Window Sill Level
2.3.5 Special Observation (as per IS:4326 and IS:13828)

58 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

 2.3.5.1 Length of wall between two cross walls Yes  No 
2.3.5.2 Percentage of openings in wall Yes  No 
2.3.5.3 Ratio of height & width of wall Yes  No 
3.0 Reinforced Concrete/Steel Frame Building Typology
3.1 Foundation Type
3.1.1 Individual footing Yes  No 
3.1.2 As in 3.1.1, with interconnecting beams Yes  No 
3.1.3 Beam raft footing Yes  No 
3.1.4 Full Solid Raft Yes  No 
3.1.5 Pile foundation Yes  No 
3.1.6 Any other _________________________________________
3.2 Roof whether flat or pitched with material
3.2.1 Flat Roof and Floor
3.2.1.1 Reinforced concrete flat slab on T beam Yes  No 
3.2.1.2 Steel beam and steel plate deck Yes  No 
3.2.1.3 Overall thickness of floor/roof______________
3.2.2 Pitched roof Understructure
3.2.2.1 Reinfoced Cement Concrete Yes  No 
3.2.2.2 Steel truss/purlin Yes  No 
3.2.2.3 Any other (please describe)________________
3.2.3 Pitched Roof Covering
3.2.3.1 Corrugated Galvanised Iron (CGI)Sheets Yes  No 
3.2.3.2 Asbestos Cement (A.C.) Sheets Yes  No 
3.3.2.3 Fibre Sheets Yes  No 
3.2.3.4 Any other ______________________________
3.3 Structural Components: (ERD Earthquake Resistant Design)
3.3.1 ‘R.C. beam-post’ buildings without ERD,
(built in Non-engineered way). Yes  No 
3.3.2 Reinforced Concrete Frame (RCF) of ordinary design for
gravity loads without ERD. Yes  No 
3.3.3 Moment Resistant - RCF/SF (steel Frame) of ordinary
design without ERD. Yes  No 
3.3.4 Moment Resistant - RCF/SF with ordinary ERD and with
ordinary infill walls. Yes  No 
3.3.5 Moment Resistant - RCF/SF with high level of ERD and
special details as per IS:13920/Plastic Hand Book. Yes  No 
3.3.6 Moment Resistant - RCF/SF with high level of ERD and special
details as per IS:13920 or plastic hand book and with well
designed infill walls/braces. Yes  No 

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 59

 3.3.7 Moment Resistant - RCF/SF with high level of ERD, special details
as per IS:3920/ Plastic Hand Book and with special details of RC
shear walls/detailed steel braces & cladding. Yes  No 
4.0 Special Hazard
4.1 High Water Table (within 3m below ground level) & if sandy soil, then
liquefiable site indicated Yes  No 
4.2 Land Slide Prone Site Yes  No 
4.3 Severe Vertical Irregularity in the building Yes  No 
4.4 Severe Plan Irregularity in the building Yes  No 
5.0 Non-structural Components
Whether the following non-structural elements have been properly anchored/
fastened keeping into consideration the potential damages from earthquake?
5.1 Architectural
5.1.1 Divisions and partitions (brick wall/wooden partitions etc.) Yes  No 
5.1.2 Façade elements (cladding materials/decorative elements) Yes  No 
5.1.3 False Ceilings Yes  No 
5.1.4 Parapets (brick wall/pillars/planters etc.) Yes  No 
5.1.5 Roof Chimneys Yes  No 
5.1.6 Glass (large size used in windows/doors) Yes  No 
5.1.7 Attachments (Signs, display boards etc.) Yes  No 
5.2 Equipments & Furnishings
5.2.1 Medical equipment/lab equipments Yes  No 
5.2.2 Industrial equipment (generators/machines etc.) Yes  No 
5.2.3 Office Equipments
5.2.3.1 Almirahs Yes  No 
5.2.3.2 Computer Yes  No 
5.2.3.3 Photocopy Machine Yes  No 
5.2.3.4 Printer Yes  No 
5.2.3.5 Fax machines Yes  No 
5.2.4 Shelving (Library books/pharmaceuticals etc.) Yes  No 
5.3 Basic Installation & Services (the pipes used for supply of services should have flexible joints)
5.3.1 Medical gases (Oxygen etc.) Yes  No 
5.3.2 Industrial fuel (Diesel/ L.P.G./C.N.G. etc.) Yes  No 
5.3.3 Electricity (Poles/fixtures etc.) Yes  No 
5.3.4 Telecommunications
5.3.4.1 Roof top antennas Yes  No 
5.3.4.2 Satellite Dishes Yes  No 

60 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

 5.3.5 Vacuum network Yes  No 
5.3.6 Drinking water
5.3.6.1 Roof top water tanks Yes  No 
5.3.6.2 Water coolers Yes  No 
5.3.7 Air conditioning plants/Air conditioners/ducts Yes  No 
5.3.8 Piping Yes  No 
5.3.9 Waste disposal Yes  No 

10.2 Forms for Data Collection and Screening

Following Six forms are given in Chapter-7:

(a) Masonry Buildings

i) For Moderate hazard in MSK VII zone.
ii) For High hazard in MSK VIII zone
iii) For Very High hazard in MSK IX zone

(b) Reinforced Concrete Frame (RCF) Buildings

i) For Moderate hazard in MSK VII zone.
ii) For High hazard in MSK VIII zone
iii) For Very High hazard in MSK IX zone

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 61

 Appendix-A

RVS Procedure of FEMA 154

A.1 Background

Basically the FEMA 154 procedure is based on Seismicity zone classification, building typology and soil
classification used in USA and analysis for performance of buildings obtained during the earthquake oc-
currences in California.

The FEMA Handbook 154 provided a “sidewalk survey” approach that enabled users to classify surveyed
buildings into two categories: those acceptable as to risk to life safety or those that may be seismically haz-
ardous and should be evaluated in more detail by a design professional experienced in seismic design.

A.2 Parameters considered in RVS

The following parameters are considered in the RVS Data Form for determing the total numerical score
of building (See Fig. A.1)
1. Seismic Hazard Intensity
2. Building Type and Occupancy
3. Height of the building
4. Vertical Irregularity of the building
5. Plan irregularity of the building
6. Conformity to the seismic building code in the design or not
7. Soil Type in the foundation

Among the above parameters, each Hazard Intensity has a separate Form and the building type is assigned
a Basic Score which is in fact related to its lateral load resisting structural system and earthquake perfor-
mance observed in past earthquake. The other five parameters are used as Modifiers to the Basic Score.
The final score is the total sum of the Basic Score and the Modifiers.

The other information on the data collection form is the following:

1. Address of the building and other relevant data, name of the Screener (Assessor)
2. Building Occupancy (use and maximum number of occupants).
3. Soil Type
4. Falling hazards

Space is provided for the Screener (Assessor) for making a sketch of the building, and attaching a photograph
thereof. Beside giving the result ‘Detailed evaluation required or not, space is provided for comments by
the Assessor.

The building parameters forming part of the date collection form are explained below in brief.

62 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

Fig. 6.1 RVS Format (FEMA 154)

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 63

A.3 Seismic Hazard Intensities

According to FEMA 154, the level of hazard intensity will be determined in the following manner. From
the seismic hazard map of the country, find the design Spectral Accelerations (SA) for the time Period of
0.2 second and 1.0 second, then multiply the value by a factor of 2/3 and check the calculated values as
below:

Table A.1 Definition of Hazard Intensities in FEMA 154 RVS Handbook

Level of Seismic hazard Calculated 2/3 SA for Calculated 2/3 SA for

intensity period of 0.2 second period of 1.0 second
High Hazard Greater than or equal to 0.50 g Greater than or equal to 0.20 g
Moderate Hazard Between 0.167 g and 0.5 g Between 0.067 g and 0.20 g
Low Hazard Less than 0.167 g Less than 0.067 g

A.4 Building Types

The building types considered are given in Table A.2 along with the basic score assigned to them in the
three Hazard Intensities area. It may be seen that these types are as seen in USA in general and California
in particular. It will be only rare to find exactly similar buildings in India.

Table A.2 Building Types in RVS of FEMA 154

Building Identifier Description Basic Structural hazard Score

High Mod. Low
Hazard Hazard Hazard
C2 Concrete shear- wall buildings are usually cast in place,
Concrete shear wall and show typical signs of cast-in-place concrete.
2.8 3.6 4.8
buildings Shear-wall thickness ranges from 6 to 10 inches (150-
250 mm).
C3 Concrete columns and beams may be full wall thickness
Concrete frames with and may be exposed for viewing on the sides and rear
unreinforced masonry of the building. 1.6 3.2 4.4
infill walls Usually masonry is exposed on the exterior with narrow
piers (less than 4 ft, 1.2 m wide) between windows.
PC1 Tilt-ups are typically one or two stories high and are
basically rectangular in plan.
Tilt –up buildings Exterior walls were traditionally formed and cast on the 2.6 3.2 4.4
ground adjacent to their final position, and then “tilted-
up” and attached to the floor slab.
PC2 Precast concrete frames are, in essence, post and beam
construction in concrete.
2.4 3.2 4.6
Precast concrete frame Structures often employ concrete or reinforced
buildings masonry (brick and block) shear walls.
RM1 Walls are either brick or concrete block.
Reinforced masonry Wall thickness is usually 8 inches to 12 inches (300
buildings with flexible mm). 2.8 3.6 4.8
diaphragms Interior inspection is required to determine if
diaphragms are flexible or rigid.

64 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

 Building Identifier Description Basic Structural hazard Score
High Mod. Low
Hazard Hazard Hazard
RM2 Walls are either brick or concrete block.
Wall thickness is usually 8 inches to 12 inches (200-
Reinforced masonry 300 mm). 2.8 3.4 4.6
buildings with rigid Interior inspection is required to determine if
diaphragms diaphragms are flexible of rigid.
URM These buildings often used weak lime mortar to bond
the masonry units together.
1.8 3.4 4.6
Unreinforced masonry Arches are often an architectural of older brick bearing
buildings wall buildings.
W1 Wood stud walls are typically constructed of 2-inch
Light wood frame by 4-inch vertical wood members set about 16
residential and inches apart (2-inch by 6-inch for multiple stories).
2.8 5.2 7.4
commercial buildings Most common exterior finish materials are wood
equal to or smaller than siding, metal siding, or stucco.
5,000 sq ft (465 m2)
W2 These are large apartment buildings, commercial
Light wood frame buildings or industrial structures usually of one to
3.8 4.8 6.0
buildings greater than three stories, and rarely, as tall as six stories.
5,000 sq ft (465 m2)
Typical steel moment-resisting frame structures
usually have similar bay widths in both the
S1 transverse and longitudinal directions, around 20-30
Steel moment resisting ft. 2.8 3.6 4.6
frame The floor diaphragms are usually concrete, sometimes
over steel decking. This structural type is used for
commercial, institutional and public buildings.
These buildings are braced with diagonal members,
which usually cannot be detected from the building
S2
exterior. 3.0 3.6 4.8
Braced steel frame
Braced frames are sometimes used for long and
narrow buildings because of their stiffness.
The structural system usually consists of moment
frames in the transverse direction and braced frames in
S3
the longitudinal direction, with corrugated sheet-metal 3.2 3.8 4.6
Light metal building
siding. In some regions, light metal buildings may have
partial height masonry walls.
S4 Lateral loads are resisted by shear walls, which usually
Steel frames with cast- surround elevator crores and stairwells, and are covered
2.8 3.6 4.8
in-place concrete shear by finish materials.
walls
S5 Steel columns are relatively thin and may be hidden
Steel frames with in walls.
2.0 3.6 5.0
unreinforeced masonry Usually masonry is exposed on exterior with narrow
infill walls piers (less than 4 ft wide) between windows.
All exposed concrete frames are reinforced concrete
C1 (not steel frames encased in concrete).
Concrete moment A fundamental factor governing the performance 2.5 3.0 4.4
resisting frames of concrete moment resisting frames is the level of
ductile detailing.

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 65

A.5 Height of Building

Two height ranges are considered: (i) Mid-Rise (4 to 7 storeys) and ii) High Rise (more than 7 storeys).

The height of a storey will generally be in the range 2.8 to 4 m. The storey may be counted from where
the building is considered fixed near its base. In a stepped building, the face having the maximum number
of storeys may be considered.

Some building types namely, URM, PCI, S3, W2 and W1 are generally low height, hence modification
score for height are Not Applicable (N/A).

In this RVS procedure, the score modifiers for greater than 3 storeys are seen to be positive, that is, such
buildings are considered safer against seismic hazard, possibly because of use of better quality material like
concrete & better quality masonry, better design proficiency and higher skills in construction.

A.6 Plan irregularity

Plan irregularity (see Fig. A.3) also lowers the performance of a building under earthquake motions, hence
the score modifier has a negative value.

A/L>0.15 - 0.20 A/L>0.15 - 0.20

A/L>0.15 - 0.20

Re-entrant Corner

Fig. A.3 Plan Irregularities

A.7 Vertical Irregularity

Vertical irregularity (see Fig. 6.4) particularly in stiffness is considered a serious weakness and the cor-
responding score modifier is negative for all building types.

Fig. A.4 Vertical Irregularities

66 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

A.8 Conformity with earthquake Resistant Building Code:

Here a number of situations will arise:

(i) Pre Code construction - The design and construction of the building was done before the seismic
building code was adopted. For example in India the earthquake codes were published as
follows:
IS: 1893-1962, “Criteria for Earthquake Resistance Design of Structure”.
IS: 4326-1967, “Earthquake Resistance Design and Construction of Buildings--Code of
Practice”.
All framed construction before 1963 and all masonry buildings before 1968 may be considered
without Earthquake Resistant Design, that is, (without ERD).

(ii) Code Revised and made more stringent - The building may have been designed as per the then
Earthquake Code but may be deficient in terms of the revised Code.

(iii) Building not designed for the Earthquake Code - This situation may be commonly found in India
since the use of Code may not be mandatory in the Municipal Building Bylaws.

In the score modifiers, Pre Code and Post Benchmark are stated which will infact mean ‘No ERD’ and
‘Code Compliant’. Obviously Pre Code (No ERD) will indicate decrease of seismic safety and will have
negative score modifier. And Post Benchmark (Code Compliant) will increase seismic safety, hence posi-
tive score modifier.

A.9 Type of Base Soil

In the USA standard, six soil type are considered

Type A Hard Rock
Type B Average Rock
Type C Soft Rock / Dense Soil
Type D Stiff Soil
Type E Soft Soil
Type F Poor Soil

The Basic Score given in the Data Collection Form is for Rocks i.e., Types A & B. Soil type F if met under
a building will be referred to a geotechnical expert for the site evaluation of the building. For the cases for
Soil Types C, D and E, there is a negative effect on seismic safety, the negative effect being more as the
soil becomes softer. Thus the score modifiers are negative, become more negative for soil type E and least
for soil type C.

A.10 Falling Hazard

They include unreinforced smoke chimneys, parapets, infill and cladding walls. If present, the comments
will have to specify the need for their stabilization using appropriate means.

A.11 The Basic Score, the Score Modifiers and the Final Score

The structural scoring system consists of a matrix of Basic Structural Hazard Scores (one for each building

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 67

 type and its associated seismic lateral force-resisting system) and Score Modifiers to seismic performance.
The Basic Structural Hazard Scores and Score Modifiers are based on (1) design and construction practices
in the California region of USA, (2) attributes known to decrease or increase seismic resistance capacity,
and (3) maximum considered ground motions for the seismicity region under consideration. The Basic
Structural Hazard Score, Score Modifiers, and Final Structural Score, S, all relate to the probability of
building collapse, should the maximum ground motions considered by the RVS procedure occur at the
site. Final S scores typically range from 0 to 7, with higher S scores corresponding to better seismic per-
formance.

The maximum ground motions considered in the scoring system of the RVS procedure are consistent
with those specified for detailed building seismic evaluation in the FEMA 310 Report, Handbook for
the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings-A Pre standard. Such ground motions generally have a 2% chance of
being exceeded in 50 years, and are multiplied by a 2/3 factor in the FEMA 310 evaluation procedures
and in the design requirements for new buildings in FEMA 302, Recommended Provisions for Seismic
Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures. (Ground motions having a 2% probability of being
exceeded in 50 years are commonly referred to as the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) ground
motions).

Note: The Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) values specified for MCE in each seismic zone (IS:1893-2002) are
based on same definition.

Determination of Cut-Off Score:

Use of the RVS on a community-wide basis enables the RVS authority to divide screened buildings into
two categories: those that are expected to have acceptable life safety seismic performance, and those that
may be seismically hazardous and should be studied further. This requires that the RVS authority to de-
termine, preferably as part of the pre-planning process, an appropriate “cut-off” score. The S score of 2 is
suggested as a “cut-off”, based on present seismic design criteria. Using this cut-off level, buildings having
an S score of 2 or less should be investigated by a design professional experienced in seismic design, and
S>2 may be taken as acceptable seismic safety of the building.

A.12 The Data Collection Forms

There is one form for each Hazard Intensity, namely High Seismicity, Moderate Seismicity & Low Seis-
micity.

68 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines

Table A.2 Building Types in RVS of FEMA 154

Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 69

70 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines
Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines – 71
72 – Rapid Visual Screening Guidelines
ABOUT BMTPC
Building Materials & Technology Promotion Council under the auspices of Ministry of Housing &
Urban Poverty Alleviation is an autonomous organization dedicated to promote and popularize cost
effective, eco-friendly and energy efficient building materials and disaster resistant construction tech-
nology. BMTPC works as a technology transfer council and helps various stake holders involved in
the construction industry for technology development, production, mechanization, implementation,
standardization, certification & evaluation, training & capacity building and entrepreneur develop-
ment. Over the last two decades, BMTPC has expanded its activities and made commendable efforts
in the area of disaster mitigation and management.
Guidelines
Ever since 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake, BMTPC has been pro-actively involved not only in seismic
rehabilitation but also in the area of prevention, mitigation & preparedness as regards earthquake Rapid Visual Screening (RVS)
safety is concerned. The widely popularized publication of BMTPC entitled ‘Vulnerability Atlas of
India’ is one of its kind which depicts the vulnerability of various man made constructions in different of Buildings of Masonry and
districts of India not only from earthquake hazards but also from Wind/Cyclone and Flood hazards.
Efforts of BMTPC were applauded well and in the process UN Habitat selected the same as one Reinforced Concrete as
of the Best Practices. It is being BMTPC’s endeavour to constantly publish guidelines, brochures,
pamphlets on natural hazards so as to educate the common man and create capacities within India to
prevalent in India
handle any disaster. BMTPC has recently published the following documents:-
1. Guidelines for Multi-Hazard Resistant Construction of EWS Housing Projects
2. Guidelines on “Aapda Pratirodhi Bhawan Nirman : Sampurn Bharat Ke Liye Margdarshika” (in
Hindi)
3. Guidelines : Improving Earthquake Resistance of Housing
4. Guidelines : Improving Flood Resistance of Housing
5. Guidelines : Improving Wind/Cyclone Resistance of Housing
6. Manual on Basics of Ductile Detailing
7. Building a Hazard Resistant House, a Common Man’s Guide
8. Manual for Restoration and Retrofitting of Buildings in Uttarakhand & Himachal Pradesh.
9. Seismic Retrofitting of MCD School Buildings at New Delhi
These documents are important tools for safety against natural hazards for various stake holders in-
volved in disaster mitigation and management. Apart from publications, the council is also involved
in construction of disaster resistant model houses and retrofitting of existing life line buildings such
as Schools/Hospitals to showcase different disaster resistant technologies and also spread awareness
amongst artisans and professionals regarding retrofitting and disaster resistant construction.
BMTPC joined hands with Ministry of Home Affairs to draft Model Building Bye-laws incorporat-
ing disaster resistance features so that State/UT Governments incorporate them into their municipal
regulations and prepare themselves against natural hazards. One of the very basic publications of
BMTPC with IIT, Kanpur has been ‘Earthquake Tips’ which was specially designed and published
to spread awareness regarding earthquake amongst citizens of India in a simple, easy to comprehend
language. The tips are being published in other languages also so that there is greater advocacy and
public out reach regarding earthquake safety.

For further information, please contact:

Executive Director
Building Materials & Technology Promotion Council,
Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India,
Core-5A, 1st Floor, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 Building Materials & Technology Promotion Council
Phone: +91-11-24638096, Fax: +91-11-24642849
Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation
E-Mail: bmtpc@del2.vsnl.net.in; info@bmtpc.org
Website: http://www.bmtpc.org Government of India
New Delhi