Pre-Earthquake Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) & Earthquake Safety Assessment of RCC and Masonry buildings located in Chandigarh Area (India)

Pre-Earthquake Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) & Earthquake Safety Assessment of RCC and Masonry buildings located in Chandigarh Area (India) | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Pre-Earthquake Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) & Earthquake Safety Assessment of RCC and Masonry buildings located in Chandigarh Area (India) Poonam Poonam, Anil Kumar, Rajesh Kumar This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3969703/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The northern part of India, situated along the Himalayan fault line, faces heightened earthquake risk due to the convergent boundary between the Indian and Eurasian Plates, resulting in frequent seismic activity and potential large earthquakes. Rapid urbanization of this region called for rampant construction and a quick seismic assessment of these buildings may save human sufferings and economic losses. Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) of buildings is such a method which can be used to quickly assess the seismic vulnerability of buildings based on their visual characteristics. In the work presented here, RVS of 179 reinforced cement concrete (RCC) and 120 masonry buildings located in the Chandigarh (India) region was carried out. It is found 102 (57.3%) are deemed unusable for earthquake safety, while 40 (22.5%) are tagged as yellow, indicating that they can be made usable through temporary interventions or seismic retrofitting techniques. Additionally, 36 (20.2%) buildings have been classified as green and are deemed safe for use. Moreover, among the 120 masonry buildings, 91 (75.8%) have received a red tag or are deemed unusable, 14 (11.7%) require temporary intervention, and 15 (12.5%) are usable. These findings are pivotal for making critical decisions, such as determining whether buildings require further investigation, retrofitting, or reconstruction. This risk and vulnerability assessment holds the potential to safeguard human lives and mitigate the economic losses stemming from future earthquake events. As only a few (12 to 20%) of the assessed buildings are found usable, urgent steps are needed for seismic intervention to prevent the occurrence of cascading disasters and damage thereof. Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 1. Need of Study Himalaya has evolved because of the convergence and eventual collision of the Indian and Eurasian plates. An ongoing tectonic activity is responsible for the high seismic hazard and vulnerability of the Chandigarh area. The nearby region has been jolted by four Great Earthquakes (magnitude > 8.0 on the Richter scale): 1897 Shillong Earthquake, 1905 Kangara Earthquake, 1934 Bihar-Nepal Earthquake and 1950 Assam earthquake. This region has been identified as a potential site for a future catastrophic earthquake and has already witnessed seismic events of lesser magnitude (Uttarkashi earthquake, 1999 and Chamoli earthquake, 1991, Gorkha earthquake, 2005) in the recent past 1 . These earthquakes have demonstrated that the seismic vulnerability of the building stocks in the region was primarily responsible for a large number of human casualties 2 . Most of the buildings in the region are non-engineered and awareness and knowledge among the masses is lacking regarding earthquake-resistant construction techniques in areas of high seismic vulnerability. Hence, there is a need to assess the vulnerability of buildings in such a seismically active area. 2. Introduction to RVS2 A significant portion of India is at risk of moderate to severe earthquake shaking (65% of total area) and many houses in India are susceptible to damage even during small earthquakes because there is a prevalent self-styled approach to construction, without any inputs from structural engineers which prioritizes owner convenience over structural integrity. This has resulted in poor building performances in past earthquakes. As most of residential buildings are constructed using self-driven approach, there is an urgent need to evaluate the earthquake safety and vulnerability to damage of existing structures. Four levels of assessment can be undertaken to estimate the vulnerability of buildings to strong earthquake shaking (NDMA, 2020) : Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) : Pre-earthquake and post-earthquake Detailed Visual Study (DVS), Simplified Quantitative Assessment (SQA), and Detailed Quantitative Assessment (DQA) In the work presented here, only the pre-earthquake RVS is carried out for Chandigarh and its surrounding region. RVS before an Earthquake aims to quickly estimate earthquake risks by visually observing buildings without technical calculations. This method is based purely on visual observations; hence, it provides a good overall idea of safety, but does not guarantee high accuracy. It involves visual observation and evaluation of various structural and non-structural components of a building to estimate its potential performance during an earthquake. This assessment typically considers factors such as building materials, construction type, architectural features, and signs of structural distress or deterioration. RVS helps prioritize buildings for further detailed evaluation or retrofitting efforts to enhance seismic resilience and reduce earthquake risk. Clearly, detailed assessments are necessary to ascertain accurately the earthquake safety of the building. Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) quickly assesses earthquake risks for existing buildings, prioritizing them for further evaluations based on obtained data. RVS can also help in making the following decisions : Assessing a community's earthquake retrofit requirements. Formulating earthquake disaster mitigation initiatives tailored to a community's needs. Creating building inventories essential for regional earthquake damage and loss impact evaluations. Strategizing post-earthquake building safety evaluation initiatives. Generating building-specific earthquake vulnerability data for applications like insurance rating, decision-making during property transfers, and potential remodeling mandates during the permitting process. The enthusiasm in using Rapid Visual Screening methods is driven by its efficiency in building assessment, particularly in identifying critical conditions, reduces time and manpower invested in Earthquake mitigation. 3. RVS in other countries FEMA guidelines, including FEMA 178 (1992), FEMA 310 (1998), and FEMA 154 (2005, 2015), address seismic risk assessment and building rehabilitation, particularly in FEMA's handbook on rapid visual screening for seismically hazardous buildings, which involves expert opinions, ground motion maps, and performance modification factors. The revised FEMA 154 handbook incorporates significant changes, including new basic structural hazard scores based on HAZUS methodology, fragility curves, and updated Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) seismic design values, along with proposed Score Modifiers for various building types, offering valuable information on RVS methodology 6 , 7 . The Istanbul Earthquake Master Plan employs a three-stage building assessment, including rapid visual assessment, access-based evaluation, and detailed computational assessment. The Middle East Technical University (METU) method, revised in 2007, utilizes data from 454 reinforced concrete framed buildings after the 1999 Duzce earthquake, assigning Basic Scores and modifiers based on seismic zones and statistical studies. Greece developed a Fuzzy Logic-based Rapid Visual Screening procedure categorizing buildings into five damage grades for earthquake events, incorporating data from the 1999 Athens earthquake and adapting FEMA 154 methodology with adjustments for Greek structural properties. 4. RVS in India IIT Bombay (2004) proposed a seismic risk vulnerability scoring (RVS) method aligning with FEMA 2002, tailored for Indian conditions, incorporating dominant building types, seismic hazard, and soil conditions based on IS 1893, with common base score values for similar construction types, and an additional component for estimating damage levels with identified limiting values. In 2004, IS 13935 introduced an RVS method for RCC and Masonry buildings in India, assessing seismic vulnerability based on code seismic intensity, building type, damageability grade, and inherent structural characteristics, with a focus on building materials and construction technology, while not assigning score values, but recommending detailed evaluation for identified irregularities. IIT Gandhinagar proposed an RVS method for RC frame buildings in India, based on the METU Method from Turkey, part of the Istanbul Earthquake Master Plan Project. Unlike FEMA, it relies on statistical analysis of past earthquake damages, particularly after the 2001 Bhuj earthquake, involving a survey of nearly 6,500 buildings in Ahmedabad and its surroundings, assigning damage grades from G0 (no damage) to G5 (collapse), with a focus on RC and load-bearing masonry buildings. BMTPC [Prof. CVR Murthy et al] developed a seismic safety methodology for Indian housing typologies through intensive field surveys in high seismic regions, offering a base-level technical evaluation based on Site and Soil Features, Architectural Form, Structural System, Construction Details, and Maintenance Quality. The method provides a Seismic Safety Index and Performance Rating using the Delphi Method, with score values assigned by experts for Life Threatening and Economic Loss-Inducing Factors, further categorized into Structural and Non-Structural Elements. This method is recommended by NDMA Primer on RVS, for its relatively detailed nature and conceptual clarity. 6. Study Area taken for RVS, Tricity (Chandigarh, Mohali and Panchkula) Chandigarh is one of the important cities in India and is famous for its infrastructure, industries and tourism. The city is always under a threat from earthquakes due to its proximity to Himalayan frontal fault. The Himalayan thrust system, consisting of (from north to south) the Main Central Thrust (MCT), the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) and the Himalayan Frontal Thrust (HFT), are considered one of the most seismically active tectonic zones in the world 3 . This has been demonstrated by the occurrence of several large magnitude earthquakes in the area. The geographical location of the Chandigarh city, which is located in the Himalayan foothills to the south of HFT, makes it susceptible to huge damage due to earthquakes in the Himalayan thrust system (MCT, MBT and HFT). Moreover, the alluvial land cover also makes it prone to hazards due to wave amplification and soil liquefaction. The gradual increase in population density has also increased vulnerability of the city to seismic damage. This calls for an immediate site-specific seismic hazard analysis and identification of buildings with risk of poor performance during earthquake. Chandigarh city is located at the foothills of Himalayas, occupying an area of 120 km 2 . The geographical coordinates of Chandigarh are approximately 30.7333° N latitude and 76.7794° E longitude. It is situated near the border of the states of Haryana and Punjab. It is a Union Territory and common capital of the both the states. It is adjoined by Panchkula and Mohali, the two major cities of Punjab and Haryana (Fig. 1 ). The city falls under Seismic Zone IV (the second most severe after zone V) as per IS 1893 Part-1 (2016) 5 . It is located along Himalayan Thrust System and is considered to be highly prone to earthquakes. Paleoseismic investigations across the Chandigarh fault in the frontal Himalayan region reveal that two major earthquakes occurred during the 15th − 16th century 4 . The earthquake hazard map of Chandigarh and adjoining area is shown in Fig. 2, depicting its high vulnerability to earthquake damage. 7. The Field Work A total of 299 buildings (179 RCC and 120 masonry) were surveyed over a span of six months. The type of building occupancy and their respective numbers are shown in Fig. 3 . Most of the buildings are residential followed by educational and commercial buildings. There are fewer industrial or commercial buildings made in masonry construction. National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) of India has given the following questionnaire for conducting pre-earthquake rapid visual screening of RCC and masonry construction as shown in Figs. 4 and 5 . The surveyor has spent nearly 30 minutes per buildings and filled earnestly all the three sections, namely: General Information of the building (like street address of the building, owner’s name, contact details, and year of construction), Basic Structural Information of the building (as per Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 ), and Vulnerable Structural Factors and tag (red, yellow or green) assigned to each of them NDMA says that even if one parameter with the RED tag is present in the building then the Building is declared as RED i.e unusable. Building can be used with temporary intervention (yellow) if there is no red parameter and at least one yellow parameter is present and Building is usable as it is if there is no red and no yellow parameters are present. 2 8. Results and Discussion Figures 6,7 and 8 present detailed findings on life-threatening parameters outlined in Fig. 4 for all 179 RCC buildings. Among them, Fig. 6 highlights that 14 buildings are situated on a creeping riverbed, 30 possess heavy upper storeys, 20 feature large unanchored projections, and 21 have open stories with slender columns. Additionally, Fig. 7 reveals that 12 buildings exhibit floating columns, 28 have slender columns with stiff beams, and 24 have flat slabs lacking structural walls, classifying them as high-risk structures warranting red tagging and rendering them unusable. Furthermore, Fig. 7 illustrates that 48 buildings lack gaps with adjoining structures, while 19 have heavy parapet walls susceptible to earthquake damage. Moreover, Fig. 8 indicates that 30 buildings boast heavy balconies, 63 have large story heights or expansive room sizes, 69 feature sizable window openings comprising over 50% of the wall area, and 45 possess unanchored water tanks. These structures fall under the yellow-tag category as per NDMA guidelines, necessitating structural interventions to enhance their seismic resilience. Figures 9 through 12 provide detailed insights into the life-threatening parameters outlined in Fig. 5 for all 120 masonry buildings. Among these structures, Fig. 9 reveals that 9 are adjacent to deteriorated buildings, 15 feature heavier upper storeys, 19 possess large unanchored overhangs, and 11 exhibit a plan aspect ratio exceeding 4.0. Furthermore, Fig. 10 illustrates that out of the 120 buildings, 49 lack continuous lintel bands, 50 have door/window openings positioned close to wall corners, 19 boast thick walls or traverse stones, and 18 have stiff upper storeys with walls that are not interconnected at corners. In addition, Fig. 11 highlights that 10 masonry buildings have heavy cantilever balconies, 15 showcase separations in walls and roofs, and 28 display cracks in the walls. Notably, from the same figure, it is evident that 58 masonry buildings lack gaps, 13 feature heavy parapet walls, 11 rest on sloped ground, and 12 lack connections to the sloped ground they occupy. Lastly, Fig. 12 underscores that 50 masonry buildings have unanchored water tanks on the roof, 27 exhibit vertical cracks in the walls, 29 possess poor-quality construction materials, and 23 boast large room sizes and expansive window openings covering more than 50% of the wall area. Out of a total of 179 RCC buildings, 102 (57.3%) have been labeled as red or deemed unusable owing to extent of vulnerability to earthquakes, while 40 (22.5%) are tagged as yellow, indicating that they can be made usable through temporary interventions or seismic retrofitting techniques. Additionally, 36 (20.2%) buildings have been classified as green and are deemed safe for use. Additionally, among the 120 masonry buildings, 91 (75.8%) have received a red tag or are deemed unusable, 14 (11.7%) require temporary intervention, and 15 (12.5%) have been found to be usable in terms of earthquake safety. These details are depicted in Fig. 13 provided below. Analysis of Figs. 4 and 14 reveals that the predominant cause of red tags is attributed to factors such as heavier upper storeys (resulting in mass irregularities), slender columns with stiff beams (representing a soft or weak storey), and flat slabs lacking structural walls, which signify a deficiency in strength within that particular storey. Previous earthquake findings have highlighted these factors as key contributors to building failures during seismic events 11 . Similarly, Figs. 4 and 15 indicate that the primary reasons for yellow tags include large room sizes and expansive windows covering more than 50% of the wall area. Other significant contributors to yellow tagging are the absence of gaps between adjacent buildings and unanchored water tanks at the roof level. These factors have been identified as significant causes of structural damage during past earthquakes. 10, 11 Based on the analysis of Figs. 5 and 16, it is evident that the primary cause of red tags among masonry buildings is the absence of continuous lintel bands and the positioning of door and window openings close to wall corners. These factors were identified as significant contributors to the extensive damage witnessed during the Bhuj earthquake of 2001 in India. Furthermore, Figs. 5 and 17 highlight that the majority of yellow tags are attributed to insufficient gaps between buildings and unanchored water tanks at the roof level. Additional factors leading to yellow tagging include vertical cracks in the walls and the use of poor-quality construction materials. These factors have been implicated in structural damage during earthquakes in Nepal and Bhuj, where similar building typology, construction practices, and similar construction materials were observed. 10, 11 9. Conclusions From the work presented above, the following can be concluded: The Rapid Visual Screening offers a swift and efficient method for roughly evaluating the seismic vulnerability of buildings situated in high seismic zones. Among the total of 179 RCC buildings assessed, 102 (57.3%) have been designated as red or unusable for earthquake safety, while 40 (22.5%) are categorized as yellow, suggesting the potential for usability with temporary interventions or seismic retrofitting techniques. Additionally, 36 (20.2%) buildings have been classified as green and are considered safe for occupancy. Out of the 120 masonry buildings evaluated, 91 (75.8%) have received red tags or are deemed unusable, 14 (11.7%) require temporary intervention, and 15 (12.5%) have been deemed usable in terms of earthquake safety. Seventeen percent of the red tags for RCC buildings are attributed to heavier upper storeys, indicative of mass irregularity, while 15% are linked to slender columns and stiff beams, representing a weak column-strong beam design. Forty-one percent of the red tags in masonry buildings stem from discontinuous lintel bands, while 42% are due to doors and windows located too close to wall corners. Thirty-five percent of the yellow tags for RCC buildings are associated with large room sizes, possibly due to missing columns or floating columns, while 38% are attributed to oversized window and door openings. Forty-four percent of the yellow tags in masonry buildings are attributed to unanchored water tanks on rooftops, and 40% are due to insufficient gaps between adjacent buildings. Only 20% of all RCC buildings assessed have been deemed safe and usable, indicating a relatively small proportion. As far as masonry buildings’ assessment is concerned, only 12% have been found to be usable in the existing conditions. This raises a concern over the performance of a large proportion of the buildings during any moderate or large earthquake in this region. Lack of coordination between architects, structural engineers and the builders is clearly evident. The recent past earthquakes in the Himalayan region (Nepal 2005 and Bhuj 2001) have seen immense structural damage to the buildings with life threatening parameters as mentioned by NDMA. Hence immediate structural intervention is needed for structural safety and to avoid economic losses. Declarations Author Contribution Poonam : Data Collection, writing of manuscript, Literature survey, drawing conclusionsAnil Kumar : Data Processing and plotting of all graphs, drawing conclusionsRajesh Kumar : Analysis of data, drawing conclusions References Active fault and paleoseismic investigation: evidence of a historic earthquake along Chandigarh Fault in the Frontal Himalayan zone , MALIK, NAKATA , G. PHILIP , N. SURESH , N.S. VIRDI, Himalayan Geology, Vol. 29 (2), 2008, pp.109-117 A Primer on Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) Consolidating Earthquake Safety Assessment Efforts in India , NDMA, Oct 2020. Preliminary seismic vulnerability assessment of Mussoorie Town, Uttarakhand (India) , Joshi & Kumar, Journal of Building Appraisal, March 2010 Possible seismic hazards in Chandigarh city of North-western India due to its proximity to Himalayan frontal thrust , Puri and Jain, Geophysics Union, Sept 2018, v.22, no.5, pp: 485-506. Indian Standard: IS 1893, Part 1 . (2016 ) Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures - General Provisions and Buildings . New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards . FEMA 154 . ( 2002 ) Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards, A Handbook , 2nd edn. Redwood City, CA: FEMA 154 Applied Technology Council . ( 1988 ) Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook ATC-21 . Washington DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency Congestion free analysis for emergency vehicles response in tri-city (Panchkula-Chandigarh-Mohali) using LTE-A , Pal & Pali, June 2018 Modeling Measurement and Control A 91(2):66-72 www.asc-india.org The Structural Damages After Nepal Earthquakes İbrahim Baran, Dursun, Mustafa, Ali, IOSR Journal of Engineering (IOSRJEN) Vol. 07, Issue 06 (June. 2017), PP 45-54 . Seismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings during Bhuj earthquake of January 26, 2001 , Aggarwal, Thakkar, Dubey, ISET journal of Earthquake Technology, sept 2002, pp 195-217. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3969703","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":273771446,"identity":"1f121ba4-43c6-466d-ab87-8d83e2796d02","order_by":0,"name":"Poonam Poonam","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Panjab University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Poonam","middleName":"","lastName":"Poonam","suffix":""},{"id":273771447,"identity":"9e2d6536-b8ed-4500-987b-f71ce69b748c","order_by":1,"name":"Anil Kumar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Panjab University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anil","middleName":"","lastName":"Kumar","suffix":""},{"id":273771448,"identity":"208fbeaf-0aa7-41f7-a15d-93ac3c2570a9","order_by":2,"name":"Rajesh Kumar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Panjab University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rajesh","middleName":"","lastName":"Kumar","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-02-19 10:14:28","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3969703/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3969703/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":51433807,"identity":"53a1737e-55e7-499a-be7e-dba7105a1828","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 14:31:00","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":110800,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMap of Tricity\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969703/v1/8af561cbcc11b9223dc052f9.jpg"},{"id":51433686,"identity":"86a3b26a-dbb9-4708-803e-3dbc764a31f1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 14:23:00","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":41811,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSeismic Hazard potential of Area\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969703/v1/5bd41ca0d2ac177f83211999.jpg"},{"id":51433689,"identity":"7302d7da-b3d6-46af-81a5-37ecf7570bae","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 14:23:00","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":86441,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTypes and numbers of buildings surveyed\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969703/v1/9d875aea37d06b73e77616bc.jpg"},{"id":51433687,"identity":"c6b3862c-ff94-4680-898c-45487839601f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 14:23:00","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":209363,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRVS survey questionnaire for RCC buildings\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969703/v1/d3f46af1e4f766b901e58c02.jpg"},{"id":51433690,"identity":"849f0bfc-6c43-446a-b326-98589339e013","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 14:23:00","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":281982,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRVS survey questionnaire for masonry buildings\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969703/v1/17d7c1006e4a8e600e945aa4.jpg"},{"id":51433699,"identity":"991cf918-3e9c-4683-8a9e-46f664862817","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 14:23:01","extension":"jpg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":151337,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResults for parameter 1.1 to 3.4 for reinforced concrete buildings\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969703/v1/8ece84b3cb4dd9267809b9a5.jpg"},{"id":51433694,"identity":"91e45843-0b8b-411d-b4a9-7e76ebdd686d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 14:23:00","extension":"jpg","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":157236,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResults for parameter 3.5 to 7.2 for reinforced concrete buildings\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969703/v1/ecf49e5fcd58dd1a00142e25.jpg"},{"id":51433808,"identity":"55f9a620-ca3a-4ff9-8dce-99b607de1579","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 14:31:00","extension":"jpg","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":160726,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResults for parameter 7.3 to 9.2 for reinforced concrete buildings\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"8.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969703/v1/fc3b4796a98816cbcefbaf86.jpg"},{"id":51433696,"identity":"49ffbf4b-7444-43d3-a03d-758547a8d390","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 14:23:01","extension":"jpg","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":147353,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResults for parameter 2.1 to 3.4 for masonry buildings\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"9.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969703/v1/2943627ccb9f966be0736915.jpg"},{"id":51433700,"identity":"7b6f84c6-082e-410e-af8f-c59b6fd519d5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 14:23:01","extension":"jpg","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":146356,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResults for parameter 3.5 to 4.6 for masonry buildings\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"10.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969703/v1/cd47adc3e66771242cc48dc7.jpg"},{"id":51433695,"identity":"738347b5-773c-49e8-aa65-c133d9d8b168","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 14:23:01","extension":"jpg","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":149967,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResults for parameter 4.7 to 8.1 for masonry buildings\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"11.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969703/v1/9af5096c3098988e4216dbde.jpg"},{"id":51433811,"identity":"e625c347-4225-48c4-b7ac-a181cf8cec49","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 14:31:01","extension":"jpg","order_by":12,"title":"Figure 12","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":144504,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResults for parameter 8.3 to 10.2 for masonry buildings\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"12.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969703/v1/e80338a25865f689a9974706.jpg"},{"id":51433702,"identity":"491f342f-a42f-4580-99a5-f12d5700be9a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 14:23:01","extension":"jpg","order_by":13,"title":"Figure 13","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":57902,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFinal rating/tagging of RCC and Masonry buildings\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"13.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969703/v1/9f872a5ed253a850c5c94fd9.jpg"},{"id":51433810,"identity":"8f9174a3-fa46-40b5-b7b6-5c5f197820db","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 14:31:01","extension":"jpg","order_by":14,"title":"Figure 14","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":85703,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRed tag parameters for RCC buildings\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"14.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969703/v1/849fef1e339c5a69cc064ac8.jpg"},{"id":51434433,"identity":"cb9106b9-8dd3-45f1-9b26-7cb1d92c2b5b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 14:39:00","extension":"jpg","order_by":15,"title":"Figure 15","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":97676,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eYellow tag parameters for RCC buildings\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"15.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969703/v1/138c21a87725c1debaca05ee.jpg"},{"id":51433703,"identity":"185acb3a-49c7-4fd9-9489-9612a4fad63e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 14:23:01","extension":"jpg","order_by":16,"title":"Figure 16","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":97618,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRed tag parameters for masonry buildings\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"16.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969703/v1/dd76a428455403acae20c2ff.jpg"},{"id":51433697,"identity":"d295c3ce-5885-4e0b-a2d7-37bcf2121d7b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 14:23:01","extension":"jpg","order_by":17,"title":"Figure 17","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":94911,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eYellow tag parameters for masonry buildings\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"17.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969703/v1/b076d6d22752e86bf1a26f4a.jpg"},{"id":52061514,"identity":"7371ceb0-61b4-4aee-8733-c5c1153aa12d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-06 05:29:54","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1771738,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3969703/v1/36102ef1-c90f-42d7-8e66-be3ce5900eb4.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Pre-Earthquake Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) \u0026 Earthquake Safety Assessment of RCC and Masonry buildings located in Chandigarh Area (India)","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Need of Study","content":"\u003cp\u003eHimalaya has evolved because of the convergence and eventual collision of the Indian and Eurasian plates. An ongoing tectonic activity is responsible for the high seismic hazard and vulnerability of the Chandigarh area. The nearby region has been jolted by four Great Earthquakes (magnitude \u0026gt; 8.0 on the Richter scale): 1897 Shillong Earthquake, 1905 Kangara Earthquake, 1934 Bihar-Nepal Earthquake and 1950 Assam earthquake. This region has been identified as a potential site for a future catastrophic earthquake and has already witnessed seismic events of lesser magnitude (Uttarkashi earthquake, 1999 and Chamoli earthquake, 1991, Gorkha earthquake, 2005) in the recent past\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e. These earthquakes have demonstrated that the seismic vulnerability of the building stocks in the region was primarily responsible for a large number of human casualties\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. Most of the buildings in the region are non-engineered and awareness and knowledge among the masses is lacking regarding earthquake-resistant construction techniques in areas of high seismic vulnerability. Hence, there is a need to assess the vulnerability of buildings in such a seismically active area.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2.\tIntroduction to RVS2","content":"\u003cp\u003eA significant portion of India is at risk of moderate to severe earthquake shaking (65% of total area) and many houses in India are susceptible to damage even during small earthquakes because there is a prevalent self-styled approach to construction, without any inputs from structural engineers which prioritizes owner convenience over structural integrity. \u0026nbsp;This has resulted in poor building performances in past earthquakes. As most of residential \u0026nbsp;buildings are constructed using self-driven approach, there is an urgent need to evaluate the earthquake safety and vulnerability to damage of existing structures. Four levels of assessment can be undertaken to estimate the vulnerability of buildings to strong earthquake shaking (NDMA, 2020) :\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRapid Visual Screening (RVS) : Pre-earthquake and post-earthquake\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDetailed Visual Study (DVS),\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSimplified Quantitative Assessment (SQA), and\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDetailed Quantitative Assessment (DQA)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the work presented here, only the pre-earthquake RVS is carried out for Chandigarh and its surrounding region. RVS before an Earthquake\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eaims to quickly estimate earthquake risks by visually observing buildings without technical calculations. This method is based purely on visual observations; hence, it provides a good overall idea of safety, but does not guarantee high accuracy. It involves visual observation and evaluation of various structural and non-structural components of a building to estimate its potential performance during an earthquake. This assessment typically considers factors such as building materials, construction type, architectural features, and signs of structural distress or deterioration. RVS helps prioritize buildings for further detailed evaluation or retrofitting efforts to enhance seismic resilience and reduce earthquake risk. Clearly, detailed assessments are necessary to ascertain accurately the earthquake safety of the building. Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) quickly assesses earthquake risks for existing buildings, prioritizing them for further evaluations based on obtained data. RVS can also help in making the following decisions : \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAssessing a community\u0026apos;s earthquake retrofit requirements.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFormulating earthquake disaster mitigation initiatives tailored to a community\u0026apos;s needs.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCreating building inventories essential for regional earthquake damage and loss impact evaluations.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStrategizing post-earthquake building safety evaluation initiatives.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGenerating building-specific earthquake vulnerability data for applications like insurance rating, decision-making during property transfers, and potential remodeling mandates during the permitting process.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe enthusiasm in using Rapid Visual Screening methods is driven by its efficiency in building assessment, particularly in identifying critical conditions, reduces time and manpower invested in Earthquake mitigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. RVS in other countries","content":"\u003cp\u003eFEMA guidelines, including FEMA 178 (1992), FEMA 310 (1998), and FEMA 154 (2005, 2015), address seismic risk assessment and building rehabilitation, particularly in FEMA's handbook on rapid visual screening for seismically hazardous buildings, which involves expert opinions, ground motion maps, and performance modification factors. The revised FEMA 154 handbook incorporates significant changes, including new basic structural hazard scores based on HAZUS methodology, fragility curves, and updated Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) seismic design values, along with proposed Score Modifiers for various building types, offering valuable information on RVS methodology\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The Istanbul Earthquake Master Plan employs a three-stage building assessment, including rapid visual assessment, access-based evaluation, and detailed computational assessment. The Middle East Technical University (METU) method, revised in 2007, utilizes data from 454 reinforced concrete framed buildings after the 1999 Duzce earthquake, assigning Basic Scores and modifiers based on seismic zones and statistical studies. Greece developed a Fuzzy Logic-based Rapid Visual Screening procedure categorizing buildings into five damage grades for earthquake events, incorporating data from the 1999 Athens earthquake and adapting FEMA 154 methodology with adjustments for Greek structural properties.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"4. RVS in India","content":"\u003cp\u003eIIT Bombay (2004) proposed a seismic risk vulnerability scoring (RVS) method aligning with FEMA 2002, tailored for Indian conditions, incorporating dominant building types, seismic hazard, and soil conditions based on IS 1893, with common base score values for similar construction types, and an additional component for estimating damage levels with identified limiting values. In 2004, IS 13935 introduced an RVS method for RCC and Masonry buildings in India, assessing seismic vulnerability based on code seismic intensity, building type, damageability grade, and inherent structural characteristics, with a focus on building materials and construction technology, while not assigning score values, but recommending detailed evaluation for identified irregularities. IIT Gandhinagar proposed an RVS method for RC frame buildings in India, based on the METU Method from Turkey, part of the Istanbul Earthquake Master Plan Project. Unlike FEMA, it relies on statistical analysis of past earthquake damages, particularly after the 2001 Bhuj earthquake, involving a survey of nearly 6,500 buildings in Ahmedabad and its surroundings, assigning damage grades from G0 (no damage) to G5 (collapse), with a focus on RC and load-bearing masonry buildings. BMTPC [Prof. CVR Murthy et al] developed a seismic safety methodology for Indian housing typologies through intensive field surveys in high seismic regions, offering a base-level technical evaluation based on Site and Soil Features, Architectural Form, Structural System, Construction Details, and Maintenance Quality. The method provides a Seismic Safety Index and Performance Rating using the Delphi Method, with score values assigned by experts for Life Threatening and Economic Loss-Inducing Factors, further categorized into Structural and Non-Structural Elements. This method is recommended by NDMA Primer on RVS, for its relatively detailed nature and conceptual clarity.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Study Area taken for RVS, Tricity (Chandigarh, Mohali and Panchkula)","content":"\u003cp\u003eChandigarh is one of the important cities in India and is famous for its infrastructure, industries and tourism. The city is always under a threat from earthquakes due to its proximity to Himalayan frontal fault. The Himalayan thrust system, consisting of (from north to south) the Main Central Thrust (MCT), the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) and the Himalayan Frontal Thrust (HFT), are considered one of the most seismically active tectonic zones in the world\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. This has been demonstrated by the occurrence of several large magnitude earthquakes in the area. The geographical location of the Chandigarh city, which is located in the Himalayan foothills to the south of HFT, makes it susceptible to huge damage due to earthquakes in the Himalayan thrust system (MCT, MBT and HFT). Moreover, the alluvial land cover also makes it prone to hazards due to wave amplification and soil liquefaction. The gradual increase in population density has also increased vulnerability of the city to seismic damage. This calls for an immediate site-specific seismic hazard analysis and identification of buildings with risk of poor performance during earthquake.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eChandigarh city is located at the foothills of Himalayas, occupying an area of 120 km\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The geographical coordinates of Chandigarh are approximately 30.7333\u0026deg; N latitude and 76.7794\u0026deg; E longitude. It is situated near the border of the states of Haryana and Punjab. It is a Union Territory and common capital of the both the states. It is adjoined by Panchkula and Mohali, the two major cities of Punjab and Haryana (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The city falls under Seismic Zone IV (the second most severe after zone V) as per IS 1893 Part-1 (2016)\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. It is located along Himalayan Thrust System and is considered to be highly prone to earthquakes. Paleoseismic investigations across the Chandigarh fault in the frontal Himalayan region reveal that two major earthquakes occurred during the 15th \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;16th century\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The earthquake hazard map of Chandigarh and adjoining area is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;2, depicting its high vulnerability to earthquake damage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7. The Field Work","content":"\u003cp\u003eA total of 299 buildings (179 RCC and 120 masonry) were surveyed over a span of six months. The type of building occupancy and their respective numbers are shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. Most of the buildings are residential followed by educational and commercial buildings. There are fewer industrial or commercial buildings made in masonry construction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) of India has given the following questionnaire for conducting pre-earthquake rapid visual screening of RCC and masonry construction as shown in Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e. The surveyor has spent nearly 30 minutes per buildings and filled earnestly all the three sections, namely:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeneral Information of the building (like street address of the building, owner\u0026rsquo;s name, contact details, and year of construction),\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eBasic Structural Information of the building (as per Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e and Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e), and\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eVulnerable Structural Factors and tag (red, yellow or green) assigned to each of them\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNDMA says that even if one parameter with the RED tag is present in the building then the Building is declared as RED i.e unusable. Building can be used with temporary intervention (yellow) if there is no red parameter and at least one yellow parameter is present and Building is usable as it is if there is no red and no yellow parameters are present.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"8. Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFigures 6,7 and 8 present detailed findings on life-threatening parameters outlined in Fig.\u0026nbsp;4 for all 179 RCC buildings. Among them, Fig.\u0026nbsp;6 highlights that 14 buildings are situated on a creeping riverbed, 30 possess heavy upper storeys, 20 feature large unanchored projections, and 21 have open stories with slender columns. Additionally, Fig.\u0026nbsp;7 reveals that 12 buildings exhibit floating columns, 28 have slender columns with stiff beams, and 24 have flat slabs lacking structural walls, classifying them as high-risk structures warranting red tagging and rendering them unusable. Furthermore, Fig.\u0026nbsp;7 illustrates that 48 buildings lack gaps with adjoining structures, while 19 have heavy parapet walls susceptible to earthquake damage. Moreover, Fig.\u0026nbsp;8 indicates that 30 buildings boast heavy balconies, 63 have large story heights or expansive room sizes, 69 feature sizable window openings comprising over 50% of the wall area, and 45 possess unanchored water tanks. These structures fall under the yellow-tag category as per NDMA guidelines, necessitating structural interventions to enhance their seismic resilience.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFigures 9 through 12 provide detailed insights into the life-threatening parameters outlined in Fig.\u0026nbsp;5 for all 120 masonry buildings. Among these structures, Fig.\u0026nbsp;9 reveals that 9 are adjacent to deteriorated buildings, 15 feature heavier upper storeys, 19 possess large unanchored overhangs, and 11 exhibit a plan aspect ratio exceeding 4.0. Furthermore, Fig.\u0026nbsp;10 illustrates that out of the 120 buildings, 49 lack continuous lintel bands, 50 have door/window openings positioned close to wall corners, 19 boast thick walls or traverse stones, and 18 have stiff upper storeys with walls that are not interconnected at corners. In addition, Fig.\u0026nbsp;11 highlights that 10 masonry buildings have heavy cantilever balconies, 15 showcase separations in walls and roofs, and 28 display cracks in the walls. Notably, from the same figure, it is evident that 58 masonry buildings lack gaps, 13 feature heavy parapet walls, 11 rest on sloped ground, and 12 lack connections to the sloped ground they occupy. Lastly, Fig.\u0026nbsp;12 underscores that 50 masonry buildings have unanchored water tanks on the roof, 27 exhibit vertical cracks in the walls, 29 possess poor-quality construction materials, and 23 boast large room sizes and expansive window openings covering more than 50% of the wall area.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOut of a total of 179 RCC buildings, 102 (57.3%) have been labeled as red or deemed unusable owing to extent of vulnerability to earthquakes, while 40 (22.5%) are tagged as yellow, indicating that they can be made usable through temporary interventions or seismic retrofitting techniques. Additionally, 36 (20.2%) buildings have been classified as green and are deemed safe for use. Additionally, among the 120 masonry buildings, 91 (75.8%) have received a red tag or are deemed unusable, 14 (11.7%) require temporary intervention, and 15 (12.5%) have been found to be usable in terms of earthquake safety. These details are depicted in Fig. 13 provided below.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnalysis of Figs.\u0026nbsp;4 and 14 reveals that the predominant cause of red tags is attributed to factors such as heavier upper storeys (resulting in mass irregularities), slender columns with stiff beams (representing a soft or weak storey), and flat slabs lacking structural walls, which signify a deficiency in strength within that particular storey. Previous earthquake findings have highlighted these factors as key contributors to building failures during seismic events\u003csup\u003e11\u003c/sup\u003e. Similarly, Figs. 4 and 15 indicate that the primary reasons for yellow tags include large room sizes and expansive windows covering more than 50% of the wall area. Other significant contributors to yellow tagging are the absence of gaps between adjacent buildings and unanchored water tanks at the roof level. These factors have been identified as significant causes of structural damage during past earthquakes. \u003csup\u003e10, 11\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the analysis of Figs. 5 and 16, it is evident that the primary cause of red tags among masonry buildings is the absence of continuous lintel bands and the positioning of door and window openings close to wall corners. These factors were identified as significant contributors to the extensive damage witnessed during the Bhuj earthquake of 2001 in India. Furthermore, Figs. 5 and 17 highlight that the majority of yellow tags are attributed to insufficient gaps between buildings and unanchored water tanks at the roof level. Additional factors leading to yellow tagging include vertical cracks in the walls and the use of poor-quality construction materials. These factors have been implicated in structural damage during earthquakes in Nepal and Bhuj, where similar building typology, construction practices, and similar construction materials were observed. \u003csup\u003e10, 11\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"9. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eFrom the work presented above, the following can be concluded:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col class=\"decimal_type\" style=\"list-style-type: lower-roman;\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe Rapid Visual Screening offers a swift and efficient method for roughly evaluating the seismic vulnerability of buildings situated in high seismic zones.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAmong the total of 179 RCC buildings assessed, 102 (57.3%) have been designated as red or unusable for earthquake safety, while 40 (22.5%) are categorized as yellow, suggesting the potential for usability with temporary interventions or seismic retrofitting techniques. Additionally, 36 (20.2%) buildings have been classified as green and are considered safe for occupancy.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOut of the 120 masonry buildings evaluated, 91 (75.8%) have received red tags or are deemed unusable, 14 (11.7%) require temporary intervention, and 15 (12.5%) have been deemed usable in terms of earthquake safety.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSeventeen percent of the red tags for RCC buildings are attributed to heavier upper storeys, indicative of mass irregularity, while 15% are linked to slender columns and stiff beams, representing a weak column-strong beam design.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eForty-one percent of the red tags in masonry buildings stem from discontinuous lintel bands, while 42% are due to doors and windows located too close to wall corners.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThirty-five percent of the yellow tags for RCC buildings are associated with large room sizes, possibly due to missing columns or floating columns, while 38% are attributed to oversized window and door openings.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eForty-four percent of the yellow tags in masonry buildings are attributed to unanchored water tanks on rooftops, and 40% are due to insufficient gaps between adjacent buildings.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOnly 20% of all RCC buildings assessed have been deemed safe and usable, indicating a relatively small proportion. As far as masonry buildings\u0026rsquo; assessment is concerned, only 12% have been found to be usable in the existing conditions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis raises a concern over the performance of a large proportion of the buildings during any moderate or large earthquake in this region. Lack of coordination between architects, structural engineers and the builders is clearly evident. The recent past earthquakes in the Himalayan region (Nepal 2005 and Bhuj 2001) have seen immense structural damage to the buildings with life threatening parameters as mentioned by NDMA. Hence immediate structural intervention is needed for structural safety and to avoid economic losses.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePoonam : Data Collection, writing of manuscript, Literature survey, drawing conclusionsAnil Kumar : Data Processing and plotting of all graphs, drawing conclusionsRajesh Kumar : Analysis of data, drawing conclusions\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eActive fault and paleoseismic investigation: evidence of a historic earthquake along Chandigarh Fault in the Frontal Himalayan zone\u003c/em\u003e, MALIK, NAKATA , G. PHILIP , N. SURESH , N.S. VIRDI, Himalayan Geology, Vol. 29 (2), 2008, pp.109-117 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eA Primer on Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) Consolidating Earthquake Safety Assessment Efforts in India\u003c/em\u003e, NDMA, Oct 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003ePreliminary seismic vulnerability assessment of Mussoorie Town, Uttarakhand (India)\u003c/em\u003e, Joshi \u0026amp; Kumar, Journal of Building Appraisal, March 2010\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003ePossible seismic hazards in Chandigarh city of North-western India due to its proximity to Himalayan frontal thrust\u003c/em\u003e, Puri and Jain, Geophysics Union, Sept 2018, v.22, no.5, pp: 485-506. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIndian Standard: IS 1893, Part 1 . (2016 ) \u003cem\u003eCriteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures - General Provisions and Buildings\u003c/em\u003e . New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards .\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFEMA 154 . ( 2002 ) Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards, A Handbook , 2nd edn. Redwood City, CA: FEMA 154\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApplied Technology Council . ( 1988 ) \u003cem\u003eRapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook\u003c/em\u003e ATC-21 . Washington DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eCongestion free analysis for emergency vehicles response in tri-city (Panchkula-Chandigarh-Mohali) using LTE-A\u003c/em\u003e, Pal \u0026amp; Pali, June 2018 Modeling Measurement and Control A 91(2):66-72\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ewww.asc-india.org\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Structural Damages After Nepal Earthquakes \u003c/em\u003eİbrahim Baran, Dursun, Mustafa, Ali, IOSR Journal of Engineering (IOSRJEN) Vol. 07, Issue 06 (June. 2017), PP 45-54 .\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings during Bhuj earthquake of January 26, 2001\u003c/em\u003e, Aggarwal, Thakkar, Dubey, ISET journal of Earthquake Technology, sept 2002, pp 195-217. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3969703/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3969703/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe northern part of India, situated along the Himalayan fault line, faces heightened earthquake risk due to the convergent boundary between the Indian and Eurasian Plates, resulting in frequent seismic activity and potential large earthquakes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRapid urbanization of this region called for rampant construction and a quick seismic assessment of these buildings may save human sufferings and economic losses. Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) of buildings is such a method which can be used to quickly assess the seismic vulnerability of buildings based on their visual characteristics. In the work presented here, RVS of 179 reinforced cement concrete (RCC) and 120 masonry buildings located in the Chandigarh (India) region was carried out. It is found 102 (57.3%) are deemed unusable for earthquake safety, while 40 (22.5%) are tagged as yellow, indicating that they can be made usable through temporary interventions or seismic retrofitting techniques. Additionally, 36 (20.2%) buildings have been classified as green and are deemed safe for use. Moreover, among the 120 masonry buildings, 91 (75.8%) have received a red tag or are deemed unusable, 14 (11.7%) require temporary intervention, and 15 (12.5%) are usable. These findings are pivotal for making critical decisions, such as determining whether buildings require further investigation, retrofitting, or reconstruction. This risk and vulnerability assessment holds the potential to safeguard human lives and mitigate the economic losses stemming from future earthquake events. As only a few (12 to 20%) of the assessed buildings are found usable, urgent steps are needed for seismic intervention to prevent the occurrence of cascading disasters and damage thereof.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Pre-Earthquake Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) \u0026amp; Earthquake Safety Assessment of RCC and Masonry buildings located in Chandigarh Area (India)","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-02-21 14:22:56","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3969703/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"89d78173-3a0b-4658-9c52-f870d8f4e7c8","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 21st, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-03-06T05:29:43+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-02-21 14:22:56","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3969703","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3969703","identity":"rs-3969703","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}