Skip to main content

Geo-spatial Approach for Likelihood Damage Assessment of Buildings Due to Seismic Hazard in Urbanized Areas

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
An Interdisciplinary Approach for Disaster Resilience and Sustainability (MRDRRE 2017)

Abstract

Earthquake damage assessment studies in urban cities are one of the leading problems because dense population is located in a small area. So, the study of damage probability of the buildings due to earthquakes particularly in urban cities have main focus, since it may end up brutal economic damage. The Chennai city, which is head quarters of Tamil Nadu state in Southern part of India, is an urbanized area, and it is categorized as fourth densely populated city in the country. The Chennai city is classified under moderate Seismic Hazard Zone (Zone III) by Bureau of Indian Standard. In this connection, a study has been carried out to understand the seismic vulnerability of the buildings in the Chennai city using geo-spatial techniques. FEMA 154 rapid visual screening methodology, which is modified suiting to Indian conditions, is used for the present study to assess the vulnerability in the built-up areas of the Chennai city, India. A foot print map was prepared for the part of Chennai city by visual interpretation and limited ground truth verification. Visual survey also carried out for sample buildings in the study area. Based on the survey, database is created in GIS platform for the different parameters, viz. age of the building, soil type, year of construction, number of stories, irregularities in the building, etc., for 2585 buildings. Based on the damage, probability for Magnitude 6.9 Score values was derived and the buildings in the areas classified from Grade 5 (high-probability damage) to Grade 1 (low-probability damage). Based on the study, totally 93% of buildings in the study area meet the earthquake resistance capability, and 7% of the buildings need further detailed structural evaluation for earthquake resistance. This study can be used as first-hand information for the researchers and administrators involved in earthquake emergency planning and decision making for Chennai city.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • AGU/FEMA (2012) Buildings and earthquakes-which stands? which falls? Support document for teachable moment resources for Haiti produced by IRIS and the University of Portland: 16

    Google Scholar 

  • Alam JM, Rahman Khan AM, Paul A (2008) Seismic vulnerability assessment of existing RC buildings in GIS environment. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China

    Google Scholar 

  • BIS: 1893 Part-1. Indian Standard (2005) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Part 1—general provisions and buildings (fifth revision), ICS 91.120.25, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, Edition 6.1 (2005 – 01): 40

    Google Scholar 

  • Census (2011) Provisional population totals, Tamil Nadu, Data Product No. 33-001-2011-Cen-E-Book (E), Paper 1 of 2011; p 67

    Google Scholar 

  • CGWB Report (1993) Groundwater resources and development prospects in Madras District, Tamil Nadu. Internal report, Central Ground Water Board, Southern Region, Hyderabad, p 165

    Google Scholar 

  • CMDA (2008) Second master plan for Chennai metropolitan area, 2026, vol I, II &III, Sept 2008. Chennai Metropolitan Authority, p 303

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennen R (2011) Damage tops $90 million, Fredericksburg Free Lance Star, Sept 2011. http://fredericksburg.com/News?FLS/2011/092011/09292011/655155. Accessed on June 2013

  • FEMA (1998) Recommended rapid visual screening procedure. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • FEMA 154 (2002) Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards. A handbook, 2nd edn. NEHRP

    Google Scholar 

  • Feriche M, Vidal F, Garcia R, Navarro M, Vidal MD, Montilla P, Pinero L (2009) Earthquake damage scenarios in Velez-malaga urban area (Southern Spain) applicable to local emergency planning. In: Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on seismic microzoning and risk reduction. 15–18 Mar 2009, Almeria, Spain, pp 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganapathy GP (2011) First level seismic microzonation map of Chennai city—a GIS approach. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:549–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giovinazzi S, Lagomarsino SA (2004) Macroseismic method for the vulnerability assessment of buildings. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, pp 896–897

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunthal G (ed) (1998) European macroseismic scale. http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/pb1/pg2/ems_new/INDEX.HTM. Accessed on 14 Jan 2013

  • GSI (2005) District resource map of Chennai. Geological Survey of India (GSI), Hyederabad

    Google Scholar 

  • Guragain J (2004) GIS for seismic building loss estimation: a case study from Lalitpur sub-metropolitan city area, Kathmandu, Nepal. Ph.D. dissertation, International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation Enschede, The Netherlands, p 95

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton JW, Williams RA (2013) The 2012 Virginia earthquake: what are scientists learning? EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 93(33):317–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inel M, Senel SM, Toprak S, Manav Y (2008) Seismic risk assessment of buildings in urban areas: a case study for Denizli, Turkey. Nat Hazards. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-007-9187-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irizarry J, Lantada N, Pujades LG, Barbat AH, Goula X, Susanga T, Roca A (2011) Ground-shaking scenarios and urban risk evaluation of Barcelona using risk-UE capacity spectrum based method. Bull Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9222-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamatchi P, Balaji Rao K, Arunchalam S, Iyer Nagesh R (2011) Methodologies for vulnerability assessment of built environment subjected to earthquakes. Int J Earth Sci Eng 4(6):183–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang K (2002) Seismic vulnerability of exiting buildings. Ph.D. dissertation, ETH no. 14446, pp 190–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantada N, Pujades LG, Barbar AH (2008) Urban seismic risk evaluation through GIS techniques—application to Barcelona City, Spain. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, 12–17 Oct 2008, Beijing, China

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouroux P, Brun BL (2006) Presentation of risk UE project. Bull Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9020-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pittore M, Wieland M (2012) Towards a rapid probabilistic seismic vulnerability assessment using satellite and ground based remote sensing. Nat Hazards. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0475-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rueda J, Mezcua J, Garcia Blanco RM (2011) Directivity effects of the May 11, 2011 Lorca (Spain) Mw = 5.1 earthquake, seismology source posters S 53-B, 2277, AGU fall meeting-2011, San Francisco, California, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarris A, Loupasakis C, Soupios P, Trigkas V, Valliantos F (2009) Earthquake vulnerability and seismic risk assessment of urban areas in high seismic regions: application to Chania City, Crete Island, Greece. Nat Hazards. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9475z

  • Sinha R, Goyal A (2001) A national policy for seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings and procedure for rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic vulnerability, Special report, IIT Bombay, pp 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Trendafiloski G, Wyss M, Rosset P (2009) Loss estimation module in the second generation software QLARM. In: Proceedings of the second international workshop on disaster casualties, 15–16 June 2009, University of Cambridge, UK, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieland M, Pittore M, Parolai S, Zschau J, Moldobekov B, Begaliev U (2012) Estimating building inventory for rapid seismic vulnerability assessment: towards an integrated approach based on multi-source imaging. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 36:70–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is done as a part of ISRO project-ISRO/RES/4/548/09-10. The authors are thankful to Space Application Centre (SAC), Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), Government of India for funding under RESPOND program and thanks to Dr. A. S. Rajawat, Focal Person for this Project. The authors acknowledge all the facilities provided by Dr. G. Viswanathan, Chancellor, VIT University, Vellore, India for conducting this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ganapathy Pattukandan Ganapathy .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ganapathy, G.P., Manoharan, S.G. (2020). Geo-spatial Approach for Likelihood Damage Assessment of Buildings Due to Seismic Hazard in Urbanized Areas. In: Pal, I., von Meding, J., Shrestha, S., Ahmed, I., Gajendran, T. (eds) An Interdisciplinary Approach for Disaster Resilience and Sustainability. MRDRRE 2017. Disaster Risk Reduction. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9527-8_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics