International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 8, Issue 2, February 2017, pp. 558569 Article ID: IJCIET_08_02_058

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=2
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

STREAMLINING SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT OF

EXISTING BUILDINGS
A.K. Sinha
Professor and Centre Director,
Earthquake Safety Clinic and Centre, Department of Civil Engineering,
National Institute of Technology Patna, 800005, Patna-India

Anukriti Sinha
Intern, Earthquake Safety Clinic and Centre,
National Institute of Technology Patna, 800 005, Patna, Bihar, India

ABSTRACT
Seismic vulnerability assessment is starting point to any earthquake disaster mitigation
programme. With situation of limited resources available and huge investment in seismic risk
reduction exercise, prioritization is important. Again, all existing buildings are not weak to be
retrofitted or demolished. The reduction of seismic disaster cannot be achieved unless there is good
understanding of what is vulnerable to seismic hazards and to which extent.
In this paper, a critical study of analytical techniques used in seismic strength evaluation has
been presented. The social, economic, and political issues have been discussed with technical aspects,
as these are also important in disaster mitigation programmes. The main emphasis is on analytical
approaches used and propounded by researchers and practitioners in this field. Methods from linear
static procedures that yield in simplified equivalent static lateral load to nonlinear dynamic and
stochastic analyses have been used. Upgradation in computing facilities and tools has affected
evaluation process the most. The paper seeks for a balance between simplified methods, which yield
in overtly conservative results, and complex nonlinear analyses, which are cumbersome and more
expert-oriented.
Furthermore, seismic vulnerability assessment techniques have been categorized. Various aspects
like economic and socio-politico-legal environment, purposes, performance objectives, and other
factors have been considered and a strategy has been laid down for selection of analytical tools.
Key words: Seismic Vulnerability, Existing Buildings, Assessment Methodologies, Prioritization
Damage Index, Seismic Damage.
Cite This Article: A.K. Sinha and Anukriti Sinha, Streamlining Seismic Risk Assessment of Existing
Buildings. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 558569.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=2

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 558 editor@iaeme.com

 Streamlining Seismic Risk Assessment of Existing Buildings

1. INTRODUCTION
Seismic vulnerability assessment of existing buildings is a new trend, which has emerged as a crucial exercise
in earthquake engineering in recent times. World has seen fast growth of civilization due to rapid
development in science. Engineers, who deal with the applied part of science, share the greatest responsibility
in the rapid progress of the society, the nation, the world, and ultimately the humanity. Sustainability is
important and very relevant aspect in development, which has now been felt emphatically. All-round
problems to environment and related socio-economic conditions are now serious concern of the society.
These problems in all spheres of have been realised due to enormous losses, both in terms of lives and to
economy during past earthquakes. Hence, seismic resistant design and concepts became prime objective of
earthquake engineers to protect communities from natural disaster.
Earthquake is natural phenomenon and it is bound to occur. We cannot stop earthquakes. Correct
prediction of earthquake will surely be of great help in disaster mitigation programmes. But it should be
borne in mind that earthquakes do not cause losses, it is failure of man-made structures, which causes losses.
Hence the priority of a civil engineer is to construct earthquake-resistant structures in order to protect the
society against earthquake damage. This motivation caused research in the field of earthquake resistant design
and implementation thereof. But due to resource constraints, a building cannot be made to withstand
earthquake of all magnitude without any damage. This economy aspect led to earthquake-safe design in form
of multi-level earthquake resistant design. This philosophy permits minor damage in case of moderate-to-
severe earthquake while remaining undamaged under frequent earthquakes. Now-a-days performance based
design methodologies are often discussed
Seismic vulnerability assessment is comparison of capacity of the structure with seismic demand on the
structure, consistent with the performance objectives designed for the structure. Hence, any assessment
methodology, either qualitative or quantitative, will require capacity calculated with actual values (strength,
stiffness, geometry, and other mechanical properties); demand of earthquake determined (ground motion
characteristics assessed for a nonlinear structure); and performance objectives decided. For comparison
damage descriptors, (required structural response parameters), damage states and damage indices are also
very important parts of a vulnerability assessment scheme. The final step in vulnerability assessment scheme
is development of economic damage index, which is done to find out a common footing to evaluate damage
in different cases. This helps in taking retrofit decision especially non-technical one related to finances.

2. INCREASE IN KNOWLEDGE-BASE
There is rapid increase in the knowledgebase of earthquake engineering. Reasons of the integration and
upgradation in seismic knowledge can be enumerated as below:
Experimental studies: Simulated experimental studies on models performed on shake table, cyclic load tests
on different samples etc. enrich our knowledge regarding seismic behaviour of various materials, structural
and non-structural members, and structures as a whole. Validation of results and conceptual thoughts also help
in integrating seismic knowledge base.
Analysis: - Sophistication in analytical tools and hence their use in predicting seismic performance of structures
are other source of knowledge enhancement. Complexities involved in seismic behaviour get unraveled in the
process. Lacunae in simpler or previously used methods are removed by these new and sophisticated analyses
in the process of refinement.
Growth in the computational techniques and computers: - There has been much change at concept level. But
there is surely a tremendous increase in computational capabilities in recent times. Due to faster processors
and large memory, analysis not even thought of earlier due to almost impossible task are now possible. Cheaper
rates supported greater accessibility to these computational tools. Thus complexities and uncertainties of

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 559 editor@iaeme.com

 A.K. Sinha and Anukriti Sinha

greater extent involved in earthquake analyses are now easily addressed and solved. This aspect has resulted
in more efficient assessment schemes.
Seismic damage surveys:- Last but not the least, the true experiments, the damage surveys during past
earthquakes are the most important source of knowledge of seismic behaviour of similar type of structures and
materials. During earthquake actual structure are subjected to actual earthquake loads with actual site
conditions. Hence it can be treated as 1:1 model study. Earthquakes have tendency to concentrate damages at
weak points in a structure There is no better way of understanding potential weaknesses left and strengths
present in our previous design and construction methodologies than by systematic examination and
categorization of failures and damages that occur during earthquakes. Reviewing past earthquake damage data
leads to design deficiencies and potential problems. Seismic strengths are also identified in order to get
previous methods and data refined. It is rightly said that those who ignore the lessons of failures are doomed
to repeat mistakes. Learning from failures makes man wiser.

3. SEISMIC VULNERABILITY OF EXISTING BUILDINGS: CAUSES

Progress in the field of earthquake engineering has been very fast. This effect has been seen in the field of
seismic vulnerability assessment also. Structures safe earlier become vulnerable due to advances in this field.
There are several reasons for existing building becoming vulnerable. Authors have tried to track down some
of the causes, which alter seismic vulnerability as hereunder.
A lack of knowledge of seismic regulations to design earthquake resistant buildings in the past
Types of building construction that are more vulnerable to seismic forces.
Errors and omissions in the design and construction of structure.
Deterioration in seismic resistance due to strength degradation, fire damage, other environmental aggression,
foundation settlement etc.
Upgradation of seismic zone in which building is situated.
Modification in seismic regulations through revision of existing code.
Modification and alteration in original construction.
Deviation from initially designed maintenance programme.
Change in performance objectives.
Advancement in assessment techniques.
Building designed using old code or even not following any seismic resistant measures in the building.
Even if recent codal provisions are followed in seismic design of building, vulnerability will be different
in different conditions of load. Generally, codes prescribe average values for different parameter involved in
design exercise for same group of buildings. But the structural response differs from building to building and
on the basis of several local conditions. And hence, seismic vulnerability of similarly designed buildings may
not be same. Several complex behaviour of building which are difficult to depict in earlier analysis,
considered possibly in a refined analysis may result in changed vulnerability.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 560 editor@iaeme.com

 Streamlining Seismic Risk Assessment of Existing Buildings

4. SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS: NEED

Seismic vulnerability assessment of existing buildings may be of different levels and for different purposes.
Degree of sophistication required governs the level of seismic evaluation. Various objectives of seismic
vulnerability assessment may be:

For financial organisation: - Assessments are required in case of insurance to decide premium for risk covered
and property loans. Even property rates will get affected due to perceived seismic risk
For prioritization:- In case of limited resource, screening is resorted at preliminary stage to identify those
buildings which need urgent intervention
For retrofitting: - It is very important to assess what is vulnerable and to what extent for deciding what to
retrofit and how to retrofit. For economical and confident retrofitting, a realistic assessment is required.
For policy making and planning: - Seismic vulnerability assessment of existing buildings may yield in a general
policy or legislation regarding construction.
For disaster resilience assessment
Apart from other benefits, seismic vulnerability assessment of existing buildings raises seismic awareness
in community. The owner realizes the seismic risk to which he is subjected. Depending upon the options
available to him, he may decide to mitigate the risk then.

5 SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS:

METHODOLOGY
There have been numerous attempts to assess seismic vulnerability assessment of existing buildings all over
the world. Several methodologies have been adopted. All these methodologies can be broadly placed in two
categories viz. Qualitative and Quantitative methods. Qualitative methods use information gathered from
past earthquake and various laboratory tests. Visual inspection
Qualitative methodologies base on the seismic behaviour of structures, and different materials under
earthquake load. The knowledge base gets enhanced due to experimental results on shake table and in other
related laboratory tests, survey and investigation of damages of similar structures during past earthquakes.
Based on all these, there is always a refinement in knowledge base. And hence, qualitative
methodologies also get improved in pursuit to get itself still better. A better assessment will certainly lead
to higher confidence level in disaster mitigation exercises with more economic and reliable retrofit options.
Quantitative methods have made development in this usual way.
Another aspect with this type of methodology is about their sensitivity towards local conditions. Damage
is influenced by local site conditions the most. Other local aspects like level of seismic knowledge developed,
degree of this knowledge propagated in the society as a general awareness, seismic know-how impregnated
in local construction industry, architecture, local socio- -economic, political conditions and similar non-
technical aspects, which have influence on the vulnerability of buildings, affect assessment methodologies.
These methods try to identify weaknesses and strengths of a particular structure and material at element
as well as global levels and then assign a score to such findings in a way to find total score for the structure.
Finally a ranking system is devised to place structure in different predetermined damage classes. Hence local
considerations prevail in the scoring pattern. Again, scoring exercise depends on personal judgement also.
Hence these methods cannot be universally adopted with same scoring values. With refinement in
knowledge-base additional aspects came into consideration. Development of such methodology speaks the
story well. It is well evident from the various method adopted and propounded by several workers and
organizations in this field.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 561 editor@iaeme.com

 A.K. Sinha and Anukriti Sinha

In seismic analysis, analytical techniques may be broadly categorised as: -

Linear static,
Linear dynamic,
Nonlinear static, and
Nonlinear dynamic
The choice of analytical methods depends upon building type, performance objectives, geometry, and
degree of expected inelastic response. The linear procedures are displacement oriented analysis methods that
express displacement in terms of forces for the sole aim of ease of implementation. Most codal provisions
adopt this for the ease and simplicity. Modifications are there in various coefficients (and tier empirical
values) based on increase in knowledge and data to consider nonlinearity present in actual seismic behaviour
of structures.
The nonlinear static procedure (NSP) is a displacement- based procedure, which uses simplified nonlinear
techniques to estimate earthquake induced displacement. The nonlinear dynamic procedure (NDP), known
as nonlinear time-history analysis, is the most rigorous of the four procedures. The NDP requires considerable
judgement and experience to perform, and it is unlikely to be used widely.
Based on state-oftheart in analysis at least three procedures seem to be the right candidate for seismic
evaluation of reinforced concrete framed buildings (1) elastic analysis using Response modification factors,
(2) nonlinear static analysis, and (3) nonlinear dynamic analysis. Three analysis procedures, such as those
based on energy methods are future considerations, because these still being in development stage. Nonlinear
static analysis (pushover) is a preferred method of analysis for the evaluation of an existing building.
About 90-95% of Indian reinforced concrete framed buildings are low-rise to mid-rise and generally
elastic design is employed for these. Elastic analysis tools generally provide poor estimates of the nonlinear
response of buildings with plan and / or vertical irregularities. Further, reinforced concrete buildings tend
and go into nonlinear zone during earthquake shaking. Hence, although elastic procedures will continue to
be used for preliminary design of such buildings, nonlinear static analysis should be used to evaluate
performance of existing buildings. Nonlinear static analysis can be used to:-
(i) Identify weaknesses in structure,
(ii) Identify weak stories
(iii) Highlight excessive plastic hinge rotations
As the name suggests, dynamic forces imparted by earthquake are considered as static load on nonlinear
structure. To consider nonlinear response, a series of static analysis to collapse is performed. In other words,
this powerful equivalent seismic load analysis tool Quasi-static) is used primarily to determine the sequence
of inelastic actions, the formation of hinge, formation of local mechanism,, and the formation of a global
collapse mode. Hence, the other name of this method is Event scaling procedure. Since, this collapse
analysis is typically performed for lateral seismic forces, these analyses are often referred to as Pushover
analyses.
Equivalent earthquake force, Es = W a is lumped at centre of seismic mass, or distributed proportional to
the expected fundamental mode shape or any other simplified shape. This force and the distribution pattern
is then applied to the structure either as static monotonic force or in the form of a quasi-static stepwise
monotonic or cyclic force. Depending upon the ability of the analytical model to capture linear, nonlinear,
unloading, or cyclic response, different solution strategies are adopted.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 562 editor@iaeme.com

 Streamlining Seismic Risk Assessment of Existing Buildings

(I) Monotonic loading :- In linear zone , it is applied in one go while in nonlinear zone as incremental
way for nonlinear analyses, as iterative solution strategy to balance internal and external forces foe a given
deformation level is required. The most common nonlinear strategies are: -
Step by step solution with a tangent stiffness update at each step
Step-by-step solutions with equilibrium correction at beginning of each new step
Newton-Raphson iteration , which update the tangent stiffness rather for any imbalance in loads iteratively
during each load step
Constant stiffness iteration, which uses a constant stiffness, rather than updated tangent stiffness for unbalanced
load correction during each step.
In step-by-step solution strategies, the load is applied in small increments, with the correct force-
deformation path better approximated with a large number of small increments. Iteration analyses are
independent of step size as long as the applied load does not exceed the available capacity, and the iterations
are carried out until a specified accuracy or tolerance is reached. In case of higher nonlinearity, the third
solution strategy provides faster convergence. Constant stiffness iteration is applicable for low nonlinear
systems and when large inelastic deformations are expected at small load (almost zero stiffness).
(II) Cyclic load: - Quasi-static cyclic analyses can be performed (at least conceptually). The analytically
models and tools are based on iterative solution strategies similar to monotonic loads with increasing
complexities to follow any arbitrary cyclic response path. Full cyclic analysis is rarely used due to uncertainties
in the cyclic component characteristics, lack of reliable cyclic damage accumulation models, and cyclic load
patterns that may not realistically simulate the actual earthquake input.
Lot of research is being done, but use of cyclic load-deformation relationship in vulnerability assessment
will still negligible. NSP can be treated as an improvement over LSP. Linear elastic quasi-static analyses are
used to
Evaluate stiffness characteristics of elements.
Determine deformation and force response in the linear elastic response zone for equivalent static seismic load
input.
Determine structural displacements for the inelastic range under the static simulated seismic load taking help
of the equal displacement principle or equal energy principle.
The pushover analysis utilizes the same seismic force distribution as in LSP with an arbitrary or unit
magnitude, and all forces and deformations are scaled until the first specified event in the form of a nonlinear
action occurs i. e., cracking, yielding. Change of member stiffness due to cracking, formation of flexural
hinge, yielding etc. can form events. These events should be identified in nonlinear model. At each event, the
structural model is physically altered to reflect the event occurrence in form of changed member stiffness or
the introduction of a hinge mechanism. Adjustments in M- curve to describe dynamic rate effects and
stiffness/strength degradation are done.
Hence the pushover analysis consists of a sequence of linear static analyses with a stepwise changing
structural system and can be performed by hand or by any linear elastic structural analysis programme.
Requirements for a pushover analysis are-
A linear elastic structural model
Initial or conditioning loads (gravity load), and
Characterization of all important nonlinear actions or events, typically in bi- or tri- linear forcedeformation
relationships. Since some of the events, such as flexural hinge capacity, depend on changing axial force levels,
critical levels of axial load are either predetermined based on the expected collapse mode or iteratively adjusted

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 563 editor@iaeme.com

 A.K. Sinha and Anukriti Sinha

in each event increment. Such an iterative capacity adjustment and stiffness changes may be done by special
purpose programme.
The results of pushover analysis are ultimately deformation capacity of frames, as well as inelastic
deformation demands on local mechanisms, related to predetermined capacities if the section or members.
Nonlinear Static Procedures are the most preferred analytical approach for seismic vulnerability assessment
of existing structures. This preference is due to their better insight of the seismic behaviour of structure during
damaging earthquakes as compared to linear static methods and simplicity as compared with the complexities
involved in nonlinear dynamic methods.
To start with static (dead load) analysis is done on the frame and forces are calculated in the members.
These values are then taken as input in pushover analysis. Lateral load (base shear) on the frame is applied
in increments and lateral load is distributed over the frame using presumed load distribution shape. This
exercise is continued till the target roof displacement is achieved. Several authors have used pushover
analysis during last decade for evaluation of seismic performance. During this process capacity spectrum
method has been modified in its application to variety of situations when limitations of this approach hindered
true predictions.
Nonlinear static procedure (push over analysis) is not a design tool. It is not used for initial sizing of
components. Generally two approaches, (I) Co-efficient method, and (ii) Capacity Spectrum method are used
in pushover analysis to evaluate seismic capacity of structure. The end product of both the procedures is an
estimate of the maximum likely displacements at the roof level of the building for a given (or selected) level
of earthquake shaking. Mathematical models of building frames are pushed until the roof displacement equals
or exceeds the maximum calculated value (target roof displacement). The deformations and forces in the
structural and nonstructural components associated with the maximum roof displacement are then used to
check component behaviour.
In its original form, the CSM required the construction of a strength capacity curve expressed in the
standard spectral acceleration (Sa) versus period (T) format and compared it to the estimated site-specific
elastic response spectrum earthquake demands. The strength capacity curve was typically established from a
pushover analysis by the inverted triangular loading distribution or loading proportional tom the first mode
shape. Mahaney introduced the ADRS (Acceleration- Displacement Response Spectrum) format,
representing structural capacity and demand in terms of force and displacement on the same plot. But this
exercise is a bit cumbersome. Conversion of capacity spectrum format is needlessly complex. It is obvious
that despite NSP is a preferred analytical method due to greater insight of true behvaiour, there is lack of
consensus on the preferred format for the analysis.
The capacity spectrum method has been used for evaluation of low- to- midrise frames with great
confidence. The assumption regarding lateral load distribution also plays an important part in the variations
in the use of pushover analysis. High rise buildings behaviour is governed by higher modes also. Hence
modifications are required in pushover analysis to incorporate multi-mode effects. Miranda has suggested
Pull-Push analysis to consider higher modes. Modal and spatial combination rules are to be specifically used
on the merit exercise undertaken and of the rules to get true response. Even other suggestions to incorporate
higher mode contribution have been made but general acceptance is still eluding in the absence of consensus.
Failure of structures resulting from midstory mechanisms cannot be incorporated into a formulation that
uses a pre-determined lateral load distribution and considers only ht top story displacement versus base shear.
Reinhorn et. al. used Adaptive pushover analysis to perform a story- by story performance evaluation using
modal superposition and a stiffness dependent lateral load distribution derived from incremental story shear
demands. For a linear elastic structure, the relationship between global and local displacement indices
remains constant regardless of the level of lateral deformation. However, for a nonlinear structure, this
relationship depends on the level of inelastic deformation. For a structure forming softstory inelastic

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 564 editor@iaeme.com

 Streamlining Seismic Risk Assessment of Existing Buildings

deformation will concentrate at such stories. NSP derives relationship between global and local deformations
happens to be the function of inelastic deformation level, which makes this method superior to LSP. But, the
inherent limitation of the validity of this procedure for static loads and a particular distribution pattern of
lateral forces over the height of the building compels to make several assumptions for the analysis. And thus
it deviates from the representation of the true behaviour of the structures under seismic actions, which is the
ultimate demand from analytical approach. Hence, the pushover curves are generated using a series of static
analyses of a structural model, which incorporates incremental changes of element stiffness and strength to
represent behaviour of the structure from elastic state to the damage (collapse). Consideration of nonlinear
seismic behaviour of structures in generation of pushover curves produces better prediction of local element
displacement demands as well as maximum force demands.
As discussed above, the pushover procedure concept is based on static lateral load application, dynamic
strain rate effects, number of yield reversals, cumulative damage, and system degradation or deterioration is
not captured completely. This lacuna may be considered in approximate manner by determining equivalent
moment- curvature properties (adjustments in values by introducing correction factors) of the members [5].
But, this needs further study before arriving at proper confidence level.
As mentioned earlier that NSP in its present form is used for structures vibrating predominantly under
fundamental mode due to the basic assumption of a time-dependent lateral displacement shape of the
structure. Since influence of the higher modes is not primarily considered, both the absolute values as well
as the distribution of all the quantities determining seismic demand are influenced.
Discrepancy between results of dynamic and pushover analysis has occurred in exterior columns and
beams of the lower stories of tall and slender buildings where the effects of the tension in the columns are
important and in the gravity load dominated frames where the plastic hinges form in beams [6]. In such cases,
cumulative inelastic deformation under displacement reversals may be additive and the results of pushover
analysis, thus can be significantly underestimate the local cumulative plastic rotation [6].
A general observation in analysis based evaluation exercises about spectra is that these correspond to an
idealized force displacement envelope and to an idealized hysteretic behaviour . And neither of which fits
the actual structural behaviour exactly. A relatively large error can creep in the exercise due to this. However,
this error cannot be avoided because of uncertainties involved in the expected ground motion characteristics
and the inelastic structural behaviour. But extra care should be taken to desensitise the parameters
approximated or neglected in the analysis so that error is minimum and reliability of the vulnerability
assessment methodology is high.
To sum up, though an elastic analysis gives good indication of the elastic capacity and start of yielding,
but it cannot predict failure mechanism and is unable to incorporate redistribution of forces during
progressive yielding. NSP, simplified nonlinear analysis, demonstrates how buildings really behave by
identifying modes of failure and the potential for progressive collapse. The capacity spectrum method
provides a graphical representation of the global force-displacement capacity curve of the structure and
compares it to the response spectra reduced earthquake demands. The graphical user interface reduces data
management effort and facilitates visualization of behaviour. This compliments wider use objective. It
provides an immediate and clear picture of how various strategies will improve the buildings response to
earthquake demands.
Failure of linear static methods to predict structural behaviour during earthquakes has prompted many
countries to move towards nonlinear static approach for design of concrete structures in new seismic
guidelines. In Japan new codal provisions see a nonlinear static analysis as the main analysis procedure
obligatory for the buildings from 31 to 60 metre high. Eurocode 8 also hints at the use of NSP. The need of
a new seismic design methodology in codes is becoming focus of several major efforts in U.S.A., New
Zealand, Japan (e.g. SEAOC VISION 2000, ATC 33, ATC 34, BSSC, NEHRP etc.) [1]. Indian code

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 565 editor@iaeme.com

 A.K. Sinha and Anukriti Sinha

advocates use of seismic co-efficient and Response spectrum methods for simple structures. For buildings
above 10 story and some special structures it suggests dynamic analysis to be carried out. There are a lot of
complexities involved in seismic analysis of framed structures and the code does not give elaborate guidelines
in this respect. In absence of specific guidelines, vast variations will naturally figure in because of personal
bias in analysis process. These variations in design exercise processes will result in different vulnerabilities
in buildings that must be rationally and uniformly assessed. Hence, there is an urgent need of an analytical
methodology for seismic vulnerability assessment of concrete buildings normally build in India.
Approximately 90-95% of R.C. framed building are below 10 stories, and thus falling in low to mid-rise
category. Development of a general seismic vulnerability assessment methodology for existing reinforced
concrete framed buildings in India has been thought of. . NSP seems to be the right candidate for such
exercise. Various aspects of construction practices, design methodologies, materials, construction
management, quality control, awareness, and socio-economic issues need to be identified before coming to
the elaboration of the methodology to be proposed. General issues related to Indian conditions can be
summarised as below:
Codal provisions in use:IS456:- Code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete.
Pre- 1964 - Working stress method of design was predominant
After 1964 - Ultimate Load Method came into picture with WSM still being prevalent.
After 1978 - Limit State Method followed in Indian code after inclusions in code for design in other
countries. WSM preserved again.
After 2000 More durability considerations
In the last 20 years LSM has now almost replaced WSM in India. But majority of existing buildings, which
are supposed to come under present assessment study, falls under WSM category.
Construction practices used are very much varied under Indian conditions. Construction sector is not well
organized here, and major part of it falls under unorganized sector. Use of modern management and quality
control techniques are seen in only big constructions.
Emphasis is not on quality control to a great extent. Wide gap in demand and supply is one of the major reasons
for poor quality and low attention on such issues.
Low awareness and lack of good training are the two reasons amongst hoard of other issues for poor
workmanship.

6. SELECTION OF METHODS
The analytical tools provide the mathematical process to extract response quantification from the
approach models. Based on the expected response of the individual members, the form in which the seismic
load is simulated, and the consideration of geometrical effects, the various types of analysis can be
classified into tools that can provide solutions for
Linear(L) or nonlinear(N) materials responses
Static (S), Dynamic(D), spectral response(F)
Geometric effects such as P- (P) or full nonlinear or large deformation geometry(G)
Since the objective of analysis is the seismic response evaluation of building in the form of capacity
demand quantification, analytical tools can be selected by the way in which the seismic force input is
provided. Full geometrical nonlinear effects are neglected because within given performance objectives, r.c.
buildings do not exhibit large deformation compared structures dimensions. Only equilibrium considerations
in deformed shape (P-) may be considered in some cases. Linear dynamic analyses are also not suitable in

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 566 editor@iaeme.com

 Streamlining Seismic Risk Assessment of Existing Buildings

assessment exercises because the maximum response quantities can conveniently be obtained from much
simple response spectrum analysis
The choice of analytical methods depends upon building type, performance objectives, geometry, and
degree of expected inelastic response. The linear procedures are displacement oriented analysis methods that
express displacement in terms of forces for the sole aim of ease of implementation. Most codal provisions
adopt this for the ease and simplicity. Modifications are there in various coefficients (and tier empirical
values) based on increase in knowledge and data to consider nonlinearity present in actual seismic behaviour
of structures.
The nonlinear static procedure (NSP) is a displacement- based procedure, which uses simplified nonlinear
techniques to estimate earthquake induced displacement. The nonlinear dynamic procedure (NDP), known
as nonlinear time-history analysis, is the most rigorous of the four procedures. The NDP requires considerable
judgement and experience to perform, and it is unlikely to be used widely.
About 90-95% of Indian reinforced concrete framed buildings are low-rise to mid-rise and generally
elastic design is employed for these. Elastic analysis tools generally provide poor estimates of the nonlinear
response of buildings with plan and / or vertical irregularities. Further, reinforced concrete buildings tend
and go into nonlinear zone during earthquake shaking. Hence, although elastic procedures will continue to
be used for preliminary design of such buildings, nonlinear static analysis should be used to evaluate
performance of existing buildings. Nonlinear static analysis can be used to: -
Identify weaknesses in structure,
Identify weak stories
Highlight excessive plastic hinge rotations
Various analysis methods, both elastic (linear) and inelastic (nonlinear) are available for the analysis of
existing concrete buildings. Elastic methods include code static lateral force procedures, code dynamic lateral
force procedures and other elastic methods using demand capacity ratios. Available simplified nonlinear
analysis methods (NSP) include the Capacity Spectrum method (CSM) that uses the intersection of the
capacity (pushover) curve and a reduced response spectrum to establish maximum displacement, the
displacement co-efficient method, that uses pushover analysis and a modified version of the equal
displacement approximation to estimate maximum displacement: and that the secant method, that uses a
substitute structure and secant stiffness
Seismic damage during recent earthquakes in India and round the globe have created an urgent need of
seismic considerations in structural engineering as well as administration, management, and government
ranks. Now seismic vulnerability assessment and seismic disaster mitigation have become one of the end
goals of earthquake engineering. In past five decades seismic vulnerability assessment and retrofitting have
come a long way together with development in seismic resistant design and analysis of buildings. Earlier
seismic resistant design was the main aim in earthquake engineering.
Now-a-days, with rapid changes taking place in this field, seismic evaluation and retrofitting seems to
become more prominent. For developing country like India it may be debatable because at government level
more stress goes to immediate social, political, and economic problems. But, recent earthquakes in Bihar-
Nepal (1988), Uttarkaashi (1991), Latur-Osmanabad (1993), Bhopal (1996), Chamoli (1999), Bhuj (2001),
Andman (2004), J &K 92005), Sikkim (2011) and very recently Nepal (2015) have emphatically shown an
urgent need for vulnerability assessment of existing infrastructures and possible retrofitting. Indian condition
should be seen for increase in population, low per capita income, low literacy rate, infrastructural growth,
their role in economic activities, and rampant urban growth. If an earthquake hits one of its important urban
centers, the damage will surely be detrimental to the national development.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 567 editor@iaeme.com

 A.K. Sinha and Anukriti Sinha

Seismic regulations, limit state design methodology, quality control etc. have yet to make true impact in
Indian scene. A sincere effort has been made to see seismic vulnerability assessment of existing structures
come on Indian scene in the form of codal guidelines. This field of Civil engineering, particularly Structural
engineering is making big inroads at research and theoretical knowledge base. But there is an urgent need to
coordinate the efforts developing at different nodes to maximize the benefits of the developing knowledge
base. By saying so it is never meant to make such activities be isolated with the developments at international
levels. We cannot see our efforts complete in isolation in the present world order. Knowledge knows no
boundary should be the driving force in this important exercise. With enormity involved in seismic disaster
mitigation process and limited resources (in terms of time, money, equipment, literature, skill etc.) available,
sharing is the key of optimum benefit. In situation of scarce resources and diversity of problems in Indian
conditions, enhanced and reliable knowledge and database and a proper dissemination of results to
implementation levels is essential.
Seismic vulnerability assessment is a part of earthquake engineering which itself is a multidisciplinary,
multi-dimensional field. Seismic vulnerability assessment and retrofitting involves structural engineers (for
prediction of seismic response of structures analytically, design and maintenance retrofit design etc.),
construction agents, (for implementation of design and maintenance guidelines), builders, owners (for taking
decision regarding construction, performance levels, retrofit, accepted level of risk etc.), policy makers (local
administration and other government bodies), seismologists, regulatory authorities, economists, communities
, planners etc.. Every party is important for its role to play in successful seismic disaster mitigation
programme. Efforts of none can be seen as successful in isolation. Role of engineers in this exercise is very
important. The key role of an analyst is to develop a simplified assessment methodology for seismic
evaluation of existing structures. For wide applicability of the method it is essential that the method is simple
and easy to use. At the same time, the method should give reliable prediction for future seismic damage. To
avoid wild deviations, it is necessary that the methodology developed should not be sensitive to the
parameters simplified or ignored in analysis. From economy point of view total cost (analysis cost + retrofit
cost) should be minimum and not be more than the replacement cost. Finally, the methodology should depict
true seismic behaviour of the structure analysed in view of some complex but less prominent responses
ignored in the analysis. Another pertinent aspect in seismic disaster mitigation exercise for analyst is to
modify their perception according to requirements and roles of other parties involved in the process.

7. CONCLUSION
There is no doubt about the fact that every step is important in the exercise and greatly affects the final result.
Hence to have a more realistic evaluation, an in-depth study of various stages, for their role in assessment,
requirements to produce true predictions, their sensitivity to error (robustness), and complexities involved; is
a must. Various parameters should be undertaken one-by-one and finally clubbed together to attempt a
realistic assessment approach. Problem is to evaluate seismic performance of a given structure under given
seismic hazard for selected performance objectives. Structural identification is a crucial initial step.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 568 editor@iaeme.com

 Streamlining Seismic Risk Assessment of Existing Buildings

REFERENCES
[1] ATC34, A Critical Review of Current Approaches to Earthquake Resistant Design.
[2] ATC-40, Seismic Evaluation and retrofit of concrete Buildings.
[3] Miranda, E.(1996), Assessment of the Seismic Vulnerability Existing Buildings, XIth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Mexico
[4] Fafjar,P. And P.Gaspersic (1996). The N2 Method for Seismic Damage analysis of RC Buildings EESD
[5] Bracci, J.M., S.K.Kunnath and A.M.Reinhorn (1997), Seismic Performance and Retrofit Evaluation of
Reinforced Concrete Structures Jl. Of ASCE
[6] Lawson, R.S., V.Vance, and H. Krawinker (1994), Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis Why, When and
How ?, Proc. Vth U.S. Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Chicago.
[7] Holmes, W. T. (1996), Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings State of the Practice, XIth Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Mexico.
[8] Anees, S. U. M. and Bhat, M. S. Assessment of the Seismic Vulnerability of Residential Buildings of
Srinagar City Jammu and Kashmir. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and
Technology, 6(2), 2015, pp. 21-29.
[9] A.K. Sinha, Seismic Vulnerability of Eccentric Buildings. International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 528536
[10] K. Lucksiri, T. H. Miller , R. Gupta, S. Pei, and J. W. Van De Lindt (2013), Implementation of Plan
Irregularity Rapid Visual Screening Tool for Wood-Frame Single-Family Dwellings Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, 120,
[11] Atik Sarraz, Md. Khorshed Ali and Debesh Chandra Das (2015), Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of
Existing Building Stocks at Chandgaon in Chittagong City, Bangladesh. American Journal of Civil
Engineering. Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-8. doi: 10.11648/j.ajce.20150301.11
[12] Sudhir K. Jain, M.EERI, Keya Mitra, Manish Kumar, M.EERI, and Mehul Shah (2010), A Proposed
Rapid Visual Screening Procedure for Seismic Evaluation of RC-Frame Buildings in India Earthquake
Spectra, Volume 26, No. 3, pages 709729, August; Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 569 editor@iaeme.com