ESTIMATION OF SEISMIC VULNERABILITY OF BUILDINGS

OF DELHI MUNICIPAL AREA -

an approach towards building damage scenario
Shailesh Kr Agrawal
Ajay chourasia
Scientist
Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee

FACTS
& FIGURES
@ EARTHQUAKES

1. In India, 2/3rd area is earthquake prone

2. Some of the Great Earthquake in last century :
1. 1819 Cutch Earthquake (Ms=8.3)
2. 1897 Assam Earthquake (Ms = 8.7 )
3. 1905 Kangra Earthquake (Ms = 8.6)
4. 1934 Bihar-Nepal Earthquake (Ms = 8.4)
5. 1950 Assam-Tibet Earthquake (Ms = 8.7)
3. Now, 26 Jan. 2001, Bhuj Earthquake (Ms=7.9)
4. After 1935, Quetta Earthquake
MES Codal provisions : Provide RC Bands at Plinth, Lintel, Roof

1
Performance of Masonry
Buildings during Bhuj
Earthquake

Performance of RC
Structures during Bhuj
Earthquake

2
 PERFORMANCE OF
HERITAGE
BUILDINGS DURING
BHUJ EARTHQUAKE

Clock tower to the Prag Mahal (New

Palace) in Bhuj constructed in the
latter part of the 19th century with
ornate marble and sandstone. The
palace suffered important damage
particularly in the towers.
Detail of the damage sustained in the
left tower of the main facade of the
Prag Mahal (New Palace).

Collapse of temple pagodas made of large block

stone masonry at Halvad near Ahmehdabad.

Entrance to the Willingd on

secretariat in the city of Morbi.
Building was opened on January 13th
1936 by the viceroy and governor
general of India.

Detail of the damage to the towers

of the Bhadra gate in Amehdabad
built in or around 1411.

3
 Interior of the prayer hall
of the Jami mosque. This
prayer hall has fifteen
principal stone domes
supported by more than
three hundred stone
columns like those shown in
this photo. This prayer hall

Entrance to the Jami Masjid sustained some damage. Facade of the prayer hall of
(Jami mosque) built by the Jami mosque. On top of
Sultan Ahmad Shah I, the the main arch there used to
founder of Amehdabad in be two shaking minarets
1424. that partially collapsed in
the 1819 earthquake, and
the 1957 earthquake
completed its demolition.

Palace at Morbi. Suffered Partially collapsed pagoda at

damage. palace at Morbi.

Mosque and tomb of Bibiji

in the suburb of Gomtipur
in Amehdabad. It had two
shaking minarets, the one
shown here on the left was
partially dismantled, lost
its upper portion
during the earthquake.

Repair/Retrofitting of RC
Structures after Bhuj
Earthquake

4
INDIAN CODES FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT
DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION

1. Seismic Design Codes

1. IS-1893 – 1962 (Started in 1960)
2. IS-1893 – 1966,1970
3. IS-1893 – 1975 Criteria for Earthquake
4. IS-1893 – 1984 (Fourth Revision)
Resistant Design of
Structures
5. IS-1893 – 2002 (Fifth Revision)
2. 1. IS-4326 – 1967
Earthquake Resistant
2. IS-4326 – 1976
Design & Construction of
3. IS-4326 – 1993 Buildings
3. Year 1993 (Phenomenal year for Indian Earthquake history)
1. IS-13920 (Ductile detailing of RC Structures)
2. IS-13827 (Improving earthquake resistance of earthen buildings)
3. IS-13828 (Improving earthquake resistance of low strength masonry buildings)
4. IS-13935 (Repair & strengthening of buildings)
5. SP-22-1982 (Explanatory note of IS-1893-1975 & IS4326-1976)

SEISMIC ZONING MAP OF INDIA

Based on epicentral
distribution & isoseismals of
significant past earthquakes
MMI ZONE
VI & Below II
VII III
VIII IV
IX & Above V

5
 Seismic Microzonation
The purpose of microzonation is to show the seismic
hazard and risk distribution in a large region. It
integrates data from geological, seismological,
geotechnical and structural inputs and the end
product is the appropriate portrayal of the risk of
specific seismic hazards for the selected area. The
seismic hazard and risk assessment is used as a
scientific tool for pre-disaster planning as
preventive measures.

Where are We ??
• No Microzonation map available

• All we have is seismic zoning map (Four zones)

• Every time an earthquake comes, we modify our

seismic zoning map

6
 Seismic Vulnerability of Existing Buildings in Delhi

• Defined as ‘degree of loss to buildings structural components which are at risk resulting from
occurrence of an earthquake of a given magnitude’
• Involves seismic evaluation of existing buildings, quantitatively and qualitatively
• Seismic evaluation is a complex process encompassing
• Visit to the site
• Detailed survey of building stock
• Filling-up of questionnaire
• Non-destructive testing
• Development of database on building
• Analysis of buildings
• Delhi has been divided into 134 zones/wards
• The existing building stock was categorized into three categories viz. Type A (Buildings in
field stone, rural structure, unburnt brick houses, clay houses), Type-B (Ordinary brick
buildings), & Type-C (Reinforced buildings and well built wooden structures).

VULNERABLE BUILDING FEATURES IN DELHI

Alteration of SFS Slenderness,

flats of DDA by Adjancy,
owners as per Pounding effects
their wish makes makes most of the
the building private buildings
seismically seismically
vulnerable vulnerable

7
 Examples of
Earthquake Resistant
Construction in Delhi

Most of the existing & upcoming

Govt. Buildings are well
designed, and can be deemed to
be safe from earthquake point of
view

WARDWISE MAP OF DELHI

Delhi is divided into:

8 Zones

134 Wards , by Municipal Corporation of Delhi

8
 Wardwise Map of Delhi
Ward No. Name of the Ward 68 Dallupura
1 Minto Road 69 Mayur Vihar
2 Nizamuddin 70 Kondli
3 Sewa Nagar 71 Shakarpur
4 Defence Colony 72 Mandaoli
5 Jangpura 73 Geeta Colony
6 Bhogal 74 Laxmi nagar
7 Okhla 75 Gandhi Nagar
8 Shri Niwas Puri 76 Raghubir Pura
9 Greater Kailash II 77 Krishna Nagar
10 Kalkaji 78 Jagatpuri
11 Malviya Nagar 79 Preet Vihar
12 Greater Kailash I 80 Vishwas Nagar
13 Hauz Khas 81 Shahdra
14 Gulmohar Park 82 Vivek Vihar
15 R.K. Puram 83 Dilshad Garden
16 Vasant Vihar 84 Seemapuri
17 Janakpuri 85 Nand Nagri
18 Nangal Raya 86 Gokulpuri
19 Partap Nagar 87 Rohtash Nagar
20 Subhash Nagar 88 Bhagwanpur Khera
21 Tagore Garden 89 West Gorakh Park
22 Tilak Nagar 90 Babarpur
23 Rajouri Garden 91 Seelampur
24 Raghubir Nagar 92 Jafrabad
25 Madipur
93 Ambedkar Basti
26 Paschim Vihar
94 Usmanour
27 Tri Nagar
95 Yamuna Vihar
28 Keshav Puram
96 Maujpur
29 Shakarpur
97 Karawalnagar
30 Saraswati Vihar
98 Mustafabad
31 Shalimar Bagh
99 Bharat Nagar
32 Pitampura
100 Ashok Vihar
33 Rohini
101 Narela
34 Badli
102
35 Rithala
103 Bhalswa Jahangirpur
36 Prahlad Pur
104 Burari
37 Bawana
105 Adarsh Nagar
38 Kanjhawala
39 Pira Garhi 106 Pipalthala
107 Bazar Sita Ram
40 Sultanpur Majra
41 Mangolpuri (North) 108 Pahar Ganj
42 Mangol Puri (South) 109 Dariya Ganj
43 Nangloi 110 Jama Masjid
44 Mundaka 111 Ballimaran
45 Khayala 112 Quassav Pura
46 Guru Nanak Nagar 113 Chandni Chowk
47 Hastsal 114 Civil Lines
48 Uttam Nagar 115 Timarpur
49 Roshanpura 116 G.T.B. Nagar
50 Isapur 117 Rana Pratap Bagh
51 Dadri 118 Model Town
52 Sagar Pur 119 Kamla Nagar
53 Matola 120 Shastri Nagar
54 Madhu Vihar 121 Subzi Mandi
55 Bijwasan 122 Sadar Bazar
56 Mahipalpur 123 Karam Nagar
57 Mehrauli 124 Ramesh Nagar
58 Chattarpur 125 East Patel Nagar
59 Saket 126 South Patel Nagar
60 Deoli 127 Rajendra Nagar
61 Dr. Ambedkar Nagar 128 Narayana
62 Madangir 129 Beadan Pura
63 Tuglakabad 130 Dev Nagar
64 Sangam Vihar 131 Quadam Sharif
65 Badarpur 132 Manakpura
66 Harkesh nagar 133 Kishan Ganj
67 Trilok Puri 134 Anand Parvat

DISCRITIZED MAP OF WARD NO. 15 (R.K. PURAM)

9
 Seismic Vulnerability of Existing Buildings in Delhi

BUILDING SURVEY
• In order to assess the existing building stock quantitative & qualitatively, a questionnaire
was developed comprising of structural configuration, condition of structure & ambience,
distress in non-structural component, and seismic vulnerability parameters
• Over 30 representative sample buildings from each ward of Delhi is surveyed by a team of
scientists
• First of its kind database of existing building stock with special emphasis on seismic
vulnerability
• A new quantitative approach i.e. demand-capacity ratio (which compares demand placed
by earthquake vis-à-vis capacity of structural member) for seismic vulnerability has been
implemented.
• Rapid Screening Procedure (RSP) is proposed for qualitative evaluation of Type-A houses.
The method generates structural score which consist of series of ‘scores’ and modifiers
based on building attributes that can be seen during detailed survey.

Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee 247 667

Study on “Estimation of Seismic Vulnerability of Building in Delhi”
Sponsor: Department of Science & Technology, New Delhi
Data Collection Form

Owner’s Name & Address: _____________________________________________

Ward No & Name: ____ - _____________________________________________

Identifiers : ___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

No.of Stories : __________ Year of Construction: _________________

Usage : ___________________________________________________

Type of Building: A / B / C - ___________________________________________

Earthquake Resisting Measures Adopted : Yes / No

I
Overall Condition : Excellent Good Damaged Distressed

Footing Details : Wall / Isolated Column / Raft / Pile

Dimension of Building: Length - ______ m Width - _______m

% Opening (Lopening/L): Long Walls- _______% Cross Walls - _______ %

Wall Thickness : __________ cm

Possibility of Liquefaction / Slope Failure : _________________________________

Dampness / Waterlogging Condition : _________________________________

Distress in Building, if any:

Comments of Scientist on Structural Condition:

STRUCTURAL SCORE ++
Basic Structural Hazard (BSH):Type – A (2.0); B (2.5); C (3.0)
Performance Modification Factors (PMFs)
High Rise Upto 2 storey 0
Between 3 - 7 storey -0.2
More than 7 storey -0.5
Quality of Construction High 0
Medium -0.25
Low -0.50
Vertical Irregularity Steps in elevation, inclined walls, -0.50
discontinuities in load path, building on hills
Without vertical irregularity 0
Soft Storey Open on all sides of buildings, tall ground floor, -0.50
buildings on stilts
Without soft storey 0
Plan Irregularity “L”, “U”, “E”, “T”, or other irregular building -0.50
shape
Without plan irregularity 0
Pounding Floor levels of adjacent buildings not aligned -0.50
and less than 100 mm of separation per storey
Without pounding 0 PHOTOGRAPH
Falling Hazards Chimneys, Parapets, Cladding, Excessive -0.50
Cantileverage, Oerhead Tank, Mumty
Without falling hazard 0
Soil Condition Buildings founded on rocks 0
Buildings founded on medium soil -0.3
Buildings founded on soft/sandy soil -0.6
Ground Condition & Buildings in flat/plain land domain 0
Slope Ambience Buildings on hill slopes/tank bunds/reservoir -0.10
rims with slope > 10o - gentle
-do- - moderate -0.20
-do- - steep -0.30
Earthquake Resistance Yes 1.0
Measures Adopted No 0
TOTAL MODIFIERS (PMF)
FINAL SCORE (BSH + S)
Requires Detailed Seismic Evaluation (YES / NO)* Signature of the Scientist
++ Encircle the relevant scores
* Score of 2 or less denotes building requires detailed investigation. Date:

10
ZONEWISE DETAILS OF REPRESENTATIVE BUILDING SAMPLES

ZONEWISE DETAILS OF REPRESENTATIVE BUILDING SAMPLES

11
 SEISMIC EVALUATION : APPROACH

(A) Quantitative Approach

 Demand-Capacity Ratio for RC & Masonry Buildings

(B) Qualitative Approach

 Rapid Screening Procedure

QUANTITATIVE APPROACH:

Demand-Capacity Ratio (DCR) for RC Buildings

12
 Seismic Evaluation Procedure
Input Data Stage

Step 1: Study of soil conditions at the site.

Step 2: Measurement of actual geometry of building and its
components.
Step 3: In-situ NDT to estimate actual strength of concrete in the
building components.
Step 4: Tests to estimate extent of corrosion to carefully for
determination of available diameters and verify the size,
number and spacing of reinforcing bars.

Seismic Evaluation Procedure

Analysis Stage

Step 5: Preparation of 3-dimensional model of building frame, using measured

geometry, and material properties.
Step 6: Estimation of design lateral force on building using IS 1893-2002 for
the given design response spectra for 5% damping.
Step 7: Application of design lateral force on 3-D building model to determine
stress-resultants (i.e. axial forces, shear forces, bending moments) in
the frame members & determination of inter storey drifts.
Step 8: Determination of RC member capacities with actual cross section
geometry & material properties as per IS 456-2000 and
Demand/Capacity ratios of RC members at critical locations.
Step 9: Identification of deficient members or deficiency in lateral stiffness of
the building, if any.

13
 Seismic Evaluation Procedure
Retrofit & Verification Stage

Step 10: Identification of suitable retrofitting technique to rectify the

deficiencies.

Step 11: Estimation of the new member sizes along with the additional
reinforcement required, and/or the new members required.

Step 12: Re-analysis of building to confirm the adequacy with the

proposed retrofit techniques.

Step 13: If strength and stiffness requirements are satisfied, then the
proposed retrofit scheme may be adopted, else other more
appropriate retrofit schemes may be identified.

QUANTITATIVE APPROACH:

Demand-Capacity Ratio (DCR) for Masonry Buildings

14
 ASSESSMENT OF SEISMIC VULNERABILITY FOR
MASONRY BUILDINGS

DCR Computation for –

 Shear (DCR > 1, leads to diagonal cracking)
 Compression & Tension (DCR > 1, implies building not designed for gravity
load causing collapse)
 Overturning (DCR > 1, corroborates falling of walls)
 Stability of Non-structural members (DCR > 1, tends to falling hazard of
parapet walls)

DCR Computation For Masonry Buildings

Vavg ,i
Shear Stress DCR =
fs
σ t ,i
Tensile Stress DCR =
ft
σ c ,i
Compressive Stress DCR =
fb

FOSi
Overturning DCR =
1.5

15
 QUALITATIVE APPROACH:

Rapid Screening Procedure

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF
SEISMIC VULNERABILITY FOR BUILDINGS

• Rapid Screening Procedure

• Aimed for identifying potentially hazardous buildings in the
study area by visual inspection and noting structural
configuration
• Identifying primary structural lateral load resisting system and
quality of material of the building
• Generation of Structural Score (S) comprising of basic score
hazard (BSH) and modifiers (PMF). The Structural score is
related to probability of building sustaining life-threatening
damage due to earthquake in the region.

16
 RAPID VISUAL SCREENING PROCEDURE FOR
SEISMIC VULNERABILITY OF BUILDINGS
BASIC STRUCTURAL HAZARD (BSH) :
• Based upon construction practices adopted in India, performance of
different types of buildings during past earthquakes and earthquake
forces likely to be experienced in the study area, BSHs are estimated.

• BSH reflects the estimated likelihood of a typical building of that

category sustaining major damage given its seismic environment.

• These values are determined so that seismically good building has a

high value, while potentially weak/hazardous building has a low value.

• Estimated BSH used in Jabalpur are :

Type-A : 2.0

Type-B : 2.5

Type-C : 3.0

RAPID VISUAL SCREENING PROCEDURE FOR

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY OF BUILDINGS

PERFORMANCE MODIFICATION FACTORS (PMFs) :

• The significant factors such as high rise, quality of construction, vertical
and plan irregularities in structure, soft storey, pounding, cladding and
ground condition & slope ambience, can negatively affect seismic
performance of building

• Primarily, these factors are related to significant deviations from the

normal structure practice or conditions, or have to do with effects of soil
amplifications on the expected ground motion

• PMFs were assigned values based on judgement by group of

experts,such that when added/subtracted to BSH, the resulting
modified score would approximate the possible major damage.

17
 PERFORMANCE MODIFICATION FACTORS
Modifiers Description PMFs
High Rise Upto 2 storey 0
Between 3-7 storey -0.20
More than 7 storey -0.50
Quality of High 0
Construction
Medium -0.25
Low -0.50

Vertical Irregularity With vertical irregularity -0.50

Without vertical irregularity 0
Soft Storey With soft storey -0.50
Without soft storey 0
Plan Irregularity With plan irregularity -0.50
Without plan irregularity 0
Pounding With pounding -0.50
Without pounding 0
Cladding With pounding -0.50
Without pounding 0
Soil Condition Building founded on rock 0
Building founded on cohesionless soil -0.30
Building founded on black cotton soil -0.60

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF SEISMIC

VULNERABILITY OF BUILDINGS

• Final Structural Score ‘S’ = BSH – ∑ PMFs

• Building having Final Structural Score ‘S’ < 2.0 - vulnerable

18
COMPUTATION OF STRUCTURAL SCORE FOR QUALITATIVE SEISMIC
EVALUATION OF REPRESENTED BUILDINGS
Annexure-5.13: Computation of Structural Score 'S' for Qualitative Seismic Evaluation of Represented Building Samples

SCOREING

Vertical Discontinuity
Basic Hazard Score
Name of the Owner

TOTAL SCORE 'S'

Plan Irregularity
Zone/Ward No.

Soft First Story

Poor Condition
House No.

Pounding
High Rise

Soil Type
Cladding
S.No.

1 Shri M.R. Sharma 2660 1 2 0 -0.5 0 0 0 -0.5 0 -0.3 0.70

2 Pt.Kunj Bihari Pathak 27/A 1 2.5 0 0 -0.5 0 0 0 0 -0.6 1.40
3 Perfect Enclave 993 1 3 -0.2 -0.25 0 -0.5 0 0 0 -0.6 1.45
4 CMC Ltd - 2 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.3 2.20
5 Dr Hemlata Srivastava - 2 2.5 0 -0.25 0 0 0 0 0 -0.3 1.95
6 Smt Saroj Kaushal 15 2 2.5 0 -0.5 0 0 0 -0.5 0 -0.6 0.90
7 Harish Sales Corpn. - 2 3 -0.2 0 0 -0.5 0 0 0 -0.3 2.00
8 Adv Alok Avadhe - 2 3 0 0 0 -0.5 0 0 0 -0.3 2.20
9 S Seksaria - 2 3 -0.2 0 0 -0.5 0 0 0 -0.3 2.00
10 Dr Pramod Vajpeyee - 2 3 0 0 0 -0.5 0 0 0 -0.3 2.20
11 Shri Rajendrakumar Sharma 113 3 2.5 0 -0.25 0 0 0 0 0 -0.6 1.65
12 Smt Vijaylaxmi Shukla 10-11-14/2 3 2.5 -0.2 -0.5 0 0 0 -0.5 0 -0.6 0.70
13 Shri Ravin N Das 405 3 2.5 0 -0.25 0 0 0 0 -0.5 -0.6 1.15
14 Mohd Haider 254/2 4 2.5 0 -0.5 0 0 0 -0.5 0 -0.6 0.90
15 Shri Muralilal Yadav 596 4 2.5 0 -0.5 0 0 0 0 0 -0.6 1.40
16 Shri Chand Prakash Bhatnagar 14/8 4 2.5 0 -0.25 0 0 0 -0.5 -0.5 -0.3 0.95
17 JDA - 4 3 -0.2 -0.5 0 0 0 0 0 -0.6 1.70
18 Maharashtra Vyamshala - 4 3 0 -0.25 0 0 0 0 0 -0.6 2.15
19 JDA - 4 3 -0.2 -0.25 0 0 0 0 0 -0.3 2.25
20 JDA - 4 3 0 -0.25 0 0 0 0 0 -0.6 2.15

WARDWISE SEISMIC VULNERABILTY OF BUILDINGS IN DELHI

Case Study for Ward No. 15 (R.K. Puram)
Puram)

TYPE-A
8%

TYPE-C TYPE-B
55% 37%

Type-C

0%
11% 0%

Type-B 34%

1% 16% 15%
0%
1%

32%

29% 9%
7% 7%
36%
2%

EC FW FH EC+FW EC+FH FW+FH EC+FW+FH SAFE EC DC FH EC+DC DC+FH EC+FH EC+DC+FH SAFE

19
 Prognostic Seismic Vulnerability of RC Buildings
in Delhi Region
Excessive Cracking
1%
Diagonal Cracking
1%
Falling Hazard
25%

Exe.Cracking+Diagonal Cracking
2%
Safe Buildings
61% Diagonal Cracking+Falling Hazard
3%

Exe.Cracking + Falling Hazard

4%
Exe.Cracking+Dia.Cracking+Fallin
g Hazard
3%

20
 IMPACT OF STRUCTURAL MITIGATION OF MASONARY BUILDINGS IN DELHI

STAUS OF MASONRY BUILDING VULNERABILITY IN DELHI AFTER

PHASE-
PHASE-I: PHASE-I (NON-STRUCTURAL STRENGTHENING)
STRENGTHENING OF NON-
NON-
STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
47.19

52.81

PRESENT STAUS OF MASONRY BUILDING VULNERABILITY IN DELHI

16.19 VULNERABLE SAFE

83.81
STAUS OF MASONRY BUILDING VULNERABILITY IN DELHI
AFTER PHASE-II (STRUCTURAL STRENGTHENING)

VULNERABLE SAFE

36.81

63.19
PHASE-
PHASE-II:
STRENGTHENING OF
STRUCTURAL MEMBERS VULNERABLE SAFE

IMPACT OF STRUCTURAL MITIGATION OF RC BUILDINGS IN DELHI

STAUS OF RC BUILDING VULNERABILITY IN DELHI AFTER PHASE-I

PHASE-
PHASE-I: (NON-STRUCTURAL STRENGTHENING)
STRENGTHENING OF NON-
NON-
STRUCTURAL MEMBERS 14.87

PRESENT STAUS OF RC BUILDING VULNERABILITY IN DELHI 85.13

VULNERABLE SAFE
39.87

60.13

STAUS OF RC BUILDING VULNERABILITY IN DELHI AFTER

PHASE-II (STRUCTURAL STRENGTHENING)
VULNERABLE SAFE
9.37

PHASE-
PHASE-II:
STRENGTHENING OF 90.63

STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
VULNERABLE SAFE

21
 IMPACT OF STRUCTURAL MITIGATION ON BUILDINGS IN DELHI

STAUS OF RC BUILDING VULNERABILITY IN DELHI AFTER PHASE-I

PHASE-
PHASE-I: (NON-STRUCTURAL STRENGTHENING)
STRENGTHENING OF NON-
NON-
STRUCTURAL MEMBERS 29.17

70.83

PRESENT STAUS OF BUILDING VULNERABILITY IN DELHI

VULNERABLE SAFE

34.5

65.5
STAUS OF RC BUILDING VULNERABILITY IN DELHI AFTER
PHASE-II (STRUCTURAL STRENGTHENING)

VULNERABLE SAFE 11.42

PHASE-
PHASE-II:
STRENGTHENING OF 88.58
STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
VULNERABLE SAFE

‘Much is known about earthquakes and much is not.

Seismic hazard / vulnerability analysis is most
successful when it can effectively characterize this
state of knowledge in those different ways used while
society in which we live.’

22