Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 95, Issue 3, pp 769–781 | Cite as

Seismic loss estimation tool as rapid survey for prioritizing buildings for disaster preparedness: case study to hospital buildings

  • Radhikesh Prasad NandaEmail author
  • Nilendu Krishna Paul
  • Ningthoujam Monika Chanu
Original Paper
  • 80 Downloads

Abstract

Hospital buildings must be fully operational after the earthquake to protect the lives of patients as well as to provide emergency care and medical treatment to the victims. Prioritization and justification of founding of such hospital buildings is an effective step under earthquake disaster preparedness. In this work, a seismic loss estimation tool (SRAI.SA) is used considering hazard on regional ground motion attenuation relation at micro-seismic level. The proposed tool is used to prioritize different hospital buildings of a metropolitan city of India during walk down survey. Rapid visual screening given by FEMA and structural vulnerability index by NORSAR questionnaires are also used for prioritization based on scoring during same walk down survey. It is found that prioritization graphs by all the three methods are almost at parity. Since rapid visual screening and structural vulnerability index methods are qualitative method and need experience and judgment of the expert, the loss estimation tool ensures effective tools for prioritizing buildings through which decision makers can be guided in prioritizing buildings and identifying buildings that require immediate attention for detailed investigation.

Keywords

Rapid visual screening Seismic loss estimation tool Prioritization Structural vulnerability index 

References

  1. Crowley H, Pinho R, Bommer JJ (2004) A probabilistic displacement-based vulnerability assessment procedure for earthquake loss estimation. Bull Earthq Eng 2:173–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. FEMA P-424 (2010) Risk management series: design guide for improving school safety in earthquakes, floods, and high winds, 2nd edn. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. FEMA-154 (2002) Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a handbook, 2nd edn. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. FEMA-310 (1998) Handbook for the seismic evaluation of buildings—a pre-standard. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Haldar P, Singh Y, Lang DH, Paul DK (2010) IVARA—a tool for seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of Indian housing. 14 SEE, IIT Roorkee, UttarakhandGoogle Scholar
  6. Haldar P, Singh Y, Lang DH, Paul DK (2013) Comparison of seismic risk assessment based on macroseismic intensity and spectrum approaches using SeisVARA. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 48:267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. HAZUS-MH MR2 (2006) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology. Earthquake model. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Jain SK, Mitra K, Shah M (2010) A proposed rapid visual screening procedure for seismic evaluation of RC frame buildings in India. Earthq Spectra 26(3):709–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lang DH, Verbicaro MI, Singh Y (2009) Seismic vulnerability assessment of hospitals and schools based on questionnaire survey. NORSAR, KjellerGoogle Scholar
  10. Lang DH, Singh Y, Prasad JSR (2012) Comparing empirical and analytical estimates of earthquake loss assessment studies for the city of Dehradun, India. Earthq Spectra 28:595–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marulanda MC, Carreño ML, Cardona OD, Ordaz MG, Barbat AH (2013) Probabilistic earthquake risk assessment using CAPRA: application to the city of Barcelona, Spain. Nat Hazards 69(1):59–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Molina S, Lang DH, Lindholm CD (2010) SELENA—an open-source tool for seismic risk and loss assessment using a logic tree computation procedure. Comput Geosci 36:257–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nanda RP, Majhi DR (2013) Review on rapid seismic vulnerability assessment for bulk of buildings. J Inst Eng (India) Ser A 94(3):187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nanda RP, Majhi DR (2014) Rapid seismic vulnerability assessment of building stocks for developing countries. Korean Soc Civil Eng 18(7):2218–2226Google Scholar
  15. Nanda RP, Paul NK, Chanu NM, Rout S (2015) Seismic risk assessment of building stocks in Indian context. Nat Hazards.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1818-3 Google Scholar
  16. RADIUS (1999) Risk assessment tools for diagnosis of urban areas against seismic disasters. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  17. Rai DC (2005) Review of documents on seismic evaluation of existing buildings, Document No. IITK-GSDMA-EQ03-V1.0, IITGSDMA Project on Building Codes, IIT Kanpur, India, downloaded from www.nicee.org/IITK-GSDMA_Codes.php. Accessed 1 April 2015
  18. Scordilis EM (2006) Empirical global relations converting Ms and Mb to moment magnitude. J Seismolog 10:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sinha R, Goyal A (2007) A national policy for seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings and procedure for rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic vulnerability. Published in online, http://www.civil.iitb.ac.in/~rsinha/Vulnerability_Assessment.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2018
  20. Sinha R, Aditya KSP, Gupta A (2008) GIS-based urban seismic risk assessment using RISK.iitb. ISET J Earthq Eng 45:41–63Google Scholar
  21. Vamvarsikos D, Cornell C (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Radhikesh Prasad Nanda
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nilendu Krishna Paul
    • 1
  • Ningthoujam Monika Chanu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringNIT DurgapurDurgapurIndia

Personalised recommendations