Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Mid-rise Reinforced Concrete Building in Ahmedabad

  • Ronak MotianiEmail author
  • Dharmil Joshi
  • Sandip A. Vasanwala
  • Kavan Bhatt
  • Jaimin Korat
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 757)


The city of Ahmedabad is one of the most urbanized and crowded cities in the western part of India. The vulnerability associated with this city has increased due to haphazard development, owing to rapid urbanization and industrial development. This article focuses on evaluating the performance of an existing mid-rise RC frame building in a densely populated area of the city. The selected stock building is precisely modeled in SAP2000 for carrying out its pushover analysis from which the capacity spectrum is obtained as per the recommendations of ATC-40. Finally, the Fragility curve is produced as per the guidelines of HAZUS and the damageability function of the building is calculated. From the results of fragility curve and damage probability function, it is deduced that the building will suffer extensive damage during a seismic event.


Fragility Seismic vulnerability Reinforced concrete Capacity spectrum Extensive damage 


  1. 1.
    Tesfamaraim, S., Saatcioglu, M.: Seismic risk assessment of RC buildings using fuzzy synthetic evaluation. J. Earthq. Eng. 12(7), 1157–1184 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Singh, Y., Lang, D.H., Prasad, J., Deoliya, R.: An analytical study on the seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings in India. J. Earthq. Eng. 17(3), 399–422 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ATC: Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, vol. 1. ATC-40 Report, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    FEMA: Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. FEMA-356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nath, S., Adhikari, M., Devaraj, N., Maiti, S.: Seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of Kolkata City, India. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 2, 3015–3063 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barbat, A.H., Carreño, M.L., Pujades, L.G., Lantada, N., Cardona, O.D., Marulanda, M.C.: Seismic vulnerability and risk evaluation methods for urban areas. a review with application to a pilot area. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 6(1–2), 17–38 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kamatchi, P., Raju, K.R., Ravisankar, K., Iyer, N.R.: Design of visco-elastic dampers for RC frame for site-specific earthquake. J. Inst. Eng. (India): Ser. A 97(4), 359–366 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Trivedi, S.: Soil amplification studies for ahmedabad region. In: International Conference on Current Trends in Technology, pp. 1–6. Nirma Uuiversity, Ahmedabad (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lang, K., Bachmann, H.: On the seismic vulnerability of existing unreinforced masonry buildings. J. Earthq. Eng. 7(03), 407–426 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Disaster Management Authority Government of India: Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Building Types in India. National Disaster Management Authority Government of India (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Applied Technology Council: Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City (1985)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mai, C., Konakli, K., Sudret, B.: Seismic fragility curves for structures using non-parametric representations. Front. Struct. Civil Eng. 11(2), 169–186 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fan, L.: Life cycle and performance based seismic design of major bridges in china. Front. Archit. Civil Eng. China 1(3), 261–266 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xu, Y., Hu, S.: Seismic design of high-rise towers for cable-stayed bridges under strong earthquakes. Front. Archit. Civil Eng. China 5(4), 451–457 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Indian Standard: Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures (1987)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Indian Standard: Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures: Part I, 5th revision. Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Indian Standard: Non-destructive Testing of Concrete, Part 1: Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity. Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi (1992)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Indian Standard: Non-destructive Testing of Concrete, Part 2: Rebound Hammer. Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi (1992)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    TCS No.: Guidebook on Non-destructive Testing of Concrete Structures (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Naik, P., Annigeri, S.: Performance evaluation of 9 storey RC building located in North Goa. Proc. Eng. 173, 1841–1846 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    FEMA: Earthquake loss estimation methodology Hazus-MH 2.1. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronak Motiani
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dharmil Joshi
    • 1
  • Sandip A. Vasanwala
    • 2
  • Kavan Bhatt
    • 1
  • Jaimin Korat
    • 1
  1. 1.Pandit Deendayal Petroleum UniversityGandhinagarIndia
  2. 2.S.V National Institute of TechnologySuratIndia

Personalised recommendations