Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Engineering
Durgesh C. Rai
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
Kanpur 208 016
1
Overview
Basic Elements
Seismic hazard
Earthquake effects
Introduction
Ground shaking as a result of complex processes
Ridges
Near-fields &
Rock outcrop
Slopes
Spatial variations
Fault
t
c
e
f
Ef
h
t
Pa
Valleys
FOE 2005
Rupture
Introduction
Uncertainties loom large for earthquakes!
Earthquakes can
neither be prevented
nor predicted reliably
as yet!
FOE 2005
At most, probabilities
of their occurrence
and location are
known
Introduction
Preparedness as a key to disaster mitigation
Earthquake Risk
Exposure
Faulting, Shaking
Built environment
Earthquake risk
can be mitigated
by reducing
structural
vulnerability
Vulnerability
Fragility
FOE 2005
Hazard
Effectiveness of Schemes
Seismic Energy Balance Equation
Single Degree of Freedom System
Equation
of motion
mug
Energy
Equation
1 2
mu
2
WE
Absorb
energy
in
structure
cu 2 dt
WD
(W S
Fsu dt
WH )
WD WH
( mug ) u dt
I
Reduce
energy
input
Viscous
Hysteretic
FOE 2005
mu cu ku
135
cracks
cracks
Big
crack
Absorb earthquake
energy through
inelastic deformation in
structural members and
prevent collapse and
loss of lives
FOE 2005
Big
crack
Yielding
Damper
Viscous
Damper
FOE 2005
Friction
Damper
Small Movement
Fixed
Base
Flexible
Pads
FOE 2005
Friction Pendulum
FOE 2005
Adaptive Systems
Building Earthquake Resistance
Actuator
MASS
Active Tuned
Mass Damper
Adjustment of strength,
stiffness and dynamic
properties of structure during
the earthquake motion
New smart materials
Active
Braces
MEMS
Sensors
Controller
Active
Variable
Stiffness
FOE 2005
Actuator
tM
tD
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
FOE 2005
10
FOE 2005
Geographical Layout
Himalayas
Narmada
Plains
IndoGangetic
Plains
Mahanadi
Plains
Deccan Shield
Arabian
Sea
14
Godavari
Plains
Peninsular
India
Bay
of
Bengal
Eurasian Plate
Micro-Burmese
Plate
IndoAustralian
Plate
Pacific
Plate
African
Plate
South
American
Plate
Antarctic Plate
15
Narmada
Plains
IndoGangetic
Plains
Mahanadi
Plains
Deccan Shield
Arabian
Sea
16
Godavari
Plains
Peninsular
India
Indo-Australian Plate
Bay
of
Bengal
17
10 years of GPS
Minor intra-plate
earthquakes
Major Himalayan
earthquakes
Tibetan plateau
Indian plate
Minor Gangetic
plains earthquake
18
Seismic Hazard
Seismic zones
largely based
on shaking
experienced in
past
earthquakes
Zone Factor, Z
19
II
0.10
III
0.16
IV
0.24
0.36
20
Fatalities in Earthquakes
Fatalities have
significantly
increased in the
last century
Greater
population at
risk
21
[Bilham, 2005]
Andaman
1000/year
100/year
Global Scenario
Industrialized Nations
Early 1900s :: High human fatalities
& high economic loss
Early 2000s
:: High economic loss
Role of Engineers
India
Early 1900s :: High human fatalities
& high economic loss
Early 2000s
:: High human fatalities
& high economic loss
22
23
Observations
Indian Earthquakes
2005 Pakistan
1905 Kangra
1897 Assam
2011 Sikkim
1950 Assam
1934 Bihar-Nepal
2001 Bhuj
Magnitude
<5
5<6
6<7
7<8
>8
26
2004 Sumatra
Magnitude
Near
Bright
(100 lumens)
Normal
(50 lumens)
Dull
(20 lumens)
27
Intensity
Far
Intensity
MSK Scale
V
VI
Richter Scale
6.0
7.0
8.0
28
Structural
Damage
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
Seismic Performance of
Structures
Magnitude 8.7
Mean radius of perception : 900 miles
Mean radius of area of serious damage: 300 miles
Longest dimension of meizoseismal area: 160 miles
Chendarang fault
30
31
32
Upthrow of Boulders
33
34
Manshai Bridge
35
36
37
38
39
Ekra-built Buildings
Wooden framework with walls of san grass covered in
plaster
About half the buildings leveled to ground
Significant damage due to stone chimneys
Plank Buildings
Wooden framework covered with planks
No damages
Led to development of Assam-Type houses
Current housing status
40
41
Deaths
7253 in India and 3400 in Nepal
Magnitude 8.4
42
43
44
Looking Closely
Effect of River Basin
More pronounced for structures with natural
periods close to that of soil deposits
BBSR City
River Basin
45
Ridge Area
Aftershocks M 7.0
More property loss in Assam than in 1897 earthquake
Massive landslides
Blockade of rivers
Later, led to floods as dams burst one by one
46
Earthquakes
47
1967
1988
1991
1993
1997
1999
2011
Koyna
Bihar-Nepal
Uttarkashi
Killari
Jabalpur
Chamoli
Sikkim
49
[Chopra, 2008]
50
[Chopra, 2008]
51
[Chopra, 2008]
Shaking induced
52
Damage in Darjeeling
and Sikkim
53
54
Killari
Location of Killari
Earthquake and
the prevalent
Seismic Zone Map
55
56
The experience of
2001 Bhuj EQ
58
59
X
IX
VIII
VII
60
Liquefaction
61
Liquefaction
62
Slope failures
63
Earth dams
64
65
66
The Damage
@ cities
67
The Damage
stark contrasts
68
69
Floating Columns
70
71
Lack of Connection
72
Indian railways
73
Schools
75
76
77
Tsunami
Earthquake Shaking
Landscape changes
78
Damage Level
Severe
Moderate
Less
New
Delhi
Andhra
Pradesh
Ichchhapuram
Machilipatnam
Kerala
Kochi
Allapuzha
Kollam
Thiruvananthapuram
Kanyakumari
Tirunelveli
Tuticorin
Ramanathpuram
79
Tamil
Nadu
Chennai
Kanchipuram
Pondicherry
Cuddalore
Nagapattinam
Thanjavur
Puddukottai
Moderately
affected
Little
Andaman
Car
Nicobar
Severely affected
Great
Nicobar
Andaman
& Nicobar
Islands
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
88
89
www.bbc.co.uk
90
www.bbc.co.uk
91
88 00
88 15
88 30
88 45
89 00
CHINA
2011 Sikkim
Earthquake
M6.9 India-Nepal
Border
18, Sept. 2011 at 6:10 pm
68 km NW of Gangtok at
a depth of 19.7 km
(USGS)
Tremor lasted for 30-40
seconds
3 Aftershock- M5.7,
M5.1 and M4.6
28 00
NEPAL
SIKKIM
USGS
27 45
IMD
Mangan
956 m
27 30
Gangtok
1437 m
Geyzing
823 m
27 15
Namchi
1315 m
Darjeeling
2045 m
WEST BENGAL
27 00
Statistics
88 00
88 15
88 30
88 45
89 00
CHINA
28 00
VII
Shaking
Intensity on
MSK Scale
NEPAL
SIKKIM
USGS
27 45
IMD
NEPAL
VI
Mangan
956 m
27 30
Gangtok
1437 m
Geyzing
823 m
V
Namchi
1315 m
27 15
NEPAL
Darjeeling
(V) 2045 m
27 00
A Distant View
A Closer View
Performance of Buildings
Failure of
column
reinforcement
Performance of Buildings
Performance of Buildings
Retrofitting of Buildings
Retrofitting of Buildings
Gangtok, Balwakhani
Performance of Buildings
Secretariat building
constructed in 1979
Performance of Buildings
Splicing Near
Beam-Column
Joint
Performance of Buildings
Offset in Beam
Performance of Buildings
Mild steel bar as main
reinforcement
Poor quality of concrete
Performance of Buildings
Poor quality
hollow concrete
blocks for infill
walls
Performance of Buildings
Performance of Buildings
Performance of Buildings
Performance of Buildings
Performance of Buildings
Performance of Buildings
Performance of Buildings
Performance of Buildings
Out-of-Plane
Failure of Infill
Severe damage
in column of
ground floor
Performance of Buildings
Performance of Buildings
Performance of Buildings
Performance of Buildings
Inadequate
confining
reinforcement
Cold Joint
Performance of Buildings
Performance of Buildings
Opening of
Stirrup; 90 hook
Performance of Buildings
Performance of Buildings
Performance of Buildings
Performance of Buildings
Performance of Buildings
Ikra infill
RC frame
Negligible damage
Performance of Buildings
Timber wall
Brick on edge
In-situ concrete
Performance of Buildings
Absence of column
at corners
Performance of Buildings
Materials in Practice
Fresh concrete
Concrete Blocks
Aggregate
Sand
Seismic Configuration
Shape
Simple Plan
::good
Seismic Configuration
Slopy Ground
Setbacks
Unusually
Tall Storey
RC Wall
Discontinued in
Ground Storey
Building Configuration
Lower Floor
Plan
Importance of Configuration
Henry Degenkolb,
a noted Earthquake Engineer of USA
Gravity
Load
Earthquake
Load
Gap
Cracks
H
Good
Strength
Actual
Behaviour
Medium
Poor
0
Elastic Behaviour
Deformability
Large displacement
at collapse
Damage
All damage
in one
storey
Poor
Damage
distributed in
all storeys
Good
Confinement of Concrete
Hydrostatic
Pressure
(a)
fc
fck
(b)
Initiation
(b)
Initiation
(a)
Unconfined
plain concrete
strain
'
f cc
f c'
4.1 f1
Prevalent Practices
No Confinement
90 hook
135
135
The ends of stirrups are
bent at 135 . Such stirrups
do not open during strong
earthquake shaking.
Preferred:
135 hooks in
adjacent stirrups on
alternate sides
90 hooks
135 hooks
Improper Splicing
Lack of Confinement
5mm bars
90 degree hooks
Large spacing
Lack of Confinement !!
Column Reinforcement
Spacing of ties not more than
D/2
Special confining
reinforcement at column ends
Spacing < D/4, not more than
100 mm
IS 13920-1993
IS 13920-1993
Beam-Column Joint
Absence of confining
reinforcement
Special confining
reinforcement to be
provided over full length
of the column.
Prone to Damage
Vulnerable corner
of Partition walls
Identical Vertical
Members
Earthquake
Ground
Movement
Earthquake
Ground
Movement
These columns are more vulnerable
Weak
Direction
Strong
Direction
Direction of
earthquake
shaking
Toppling
Pushed perpendicular
to the plane of the wall
Direction of
earthquake
shaking
Soil Investigations
Sequence of Design
Practiced in India
Sequence of Design
Sequence of Construction
Soil Investigations
Engineers Role
Preparedness as a key to disaster mitigation
171
172
Violent
Strong
Weak
Rare
173
174
175
1970
1975
1984
1966
176
2002
Zone Factor, Z
II
0.10
III
0.16
IV
0.24
0.36
177
GSHAP
Probabilistic map
178
NDMA
Probabilistic map
179
181
182
230mm Columns
230mm
183
184
185
Kanpur City :
Earthquake Risk Scenario
186
The Truth!!
The Truth!!
Multi-storied buildings
[Jain, 2005]
188
The Truth!!
Multi-storied buildings
[Jain, 2005]
189
The Truth!!
Multi-storied buildings
[Jain, 2005]
190
The Truth!!
Multi-storied buildings
[Jain, 2005]
191
The Truth!!
For 30 multi-storied buildings
No building passed the preliminary check of
seismic strength evaluation as per BIS code
75% had serious configuration related problems
82%
64%
61%
50%
43%
[Jain, 2005]
192
194
195
The frenzy
197
The frenzy
198
The frenzy
199
The frenzy
Band Aid??
200
Masonry Infills
201
Seismic Strengthening
202
seismic Upgradation
Reasons for Deficiency
203
Restoration of Buildings
Restoration
Retrofitting
(Seismic Capacity)
Strengthen
Restore
Repair
Remodel
204
Rehabilitation
(Functional Use)
Seismic retrofitting
THREE Levels of Improvement
Repair (Cosmetic modifications)
Restore (Original performance)
Strengthen (Higher performance)
Strengthen
Original
Repair
Damaged
205
H,
seismic retrofitting
Increase Seismic
Capacity
Seismic
Retrofitting
Structural
Enhancements
Reduce Seismic
Response
206
Reduce irregularity
Use supplemental damping
Reduce masses
Isolate existing structure
Repair Methods
Surface Coating
Cosmetic Repairs
Repointing
Spall repair
Rebar replacement
Wall replacement
207
Cosmetic repairs only improve the visual appearance of component damage and may
restore non-structural properties (weather protection) but any structural benefit is
negligible.
Structural repairs intends to restore structural properties.
Seismic
Strengthening
Increase
strength &
ductility
Increase
ductility
208
Backup
structure
Peripheral frames
Buttresses
Infill
existing
frames
Cast-in-situ concrete
Precast concrete panels
Brick/block infills
Brace
Frames &
Walls
Install
Shear
Walls
Cast-in-situ concrete
Precast concrete panel
Jacket
existing
members
Steel encasement
Steel straps
Concrete or mortar
Carbon fibre
Examples
University of California
@ Berkeley
209
Steel Bracing
210
Steel Bracing
211
Masonry Infills
212
Steel Bracing
213
Example Building
214
Building
215
Building
216
Building
217
Building
218
Building
219
Seismic Evaluation:
Allowable seismic drifts (FEMA 356):
2.0% for the concrete frame
0.5% for unreinforced masonry
Stress (MPa)
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
Strain (mm/mm)
S8, (105.34)
100
S12, (89.73)
S11, (83.89)
80
Load (kN)
120
S3, (76.35)
S9, (74.50)
S2, (70.88)
S16, (67.29)
S10, (63.94)
S15, (69.24)
S18,
(63.29)
S13, (65.97)
60
S19, (55.75)
S1, (51.35)
S14, (51.50)
40
S7, (27.10)
S6, (24.19)
S17, (22.61)
20
0
0
Displacement (mm)
/222
Out-of-plane retrofit
223
implementation
224
implementation
225
implementation
226
implementation
227
implementation
228
Earthquakes
in Andaman & Nicobar Islands
2004 Sumatra earthquake repeats
lessons not learnt from
2002 Diglipur earthquake
229
230
Seismic Zone V
All Islands
231
DIGLIPUR
DIGLIPUR
Intensity VII
Magnitude M6.5
Andaman
Islands
PORTBLAIR
232
Intensity V
Diglipur
Intensity VII
Mayabunder
Middle
Andaman
Rangat
Andaman
sea
Long
Havelock
South
Andaman
Neil
Port Blair
Andaman
Islands
Little
Andaman
Andaman&
Nicobar
Islands
10o
Car Nicobar
Great Nicobar
92o
Indira point
233
100 Km
Magnitude M9.2
Study Region
N
ATR
North
Andaman
Islands
Smith Island
Aerial Bay Jetty
Diglipur
Diglipur
Keralapuram
Shibpur
Kalipur
Kishorinagar
ATR
Saddle Peak
Nabagram
Kalighat
Ramnagar
North Andaman
Island
Stewart Island
ATR
Sound Island
Mayabunder Jetty
Chengappa Bridge
at Austen Strait
ATR
234
Middle Andaman
Island
Modern Constructions:
Load bearing brick and
Reinforced Concrete
235
2002
236
2004
237
2002
238
2002
239
2004
240
2002
2004
241
2004
242
2002
243
2004
244
2004
245
246
247
248
Austen-Creek Bridge
On ATR connecting two
major population centres:
Diglipur and Portblair
249
2002
250
2002
251
2002
252
2002
253
2004
254
2004
255
Bridges
256
BRIDGES
257
bridges
258
BRIDGES
BRIDGES
260
Performance of
Traditional Housing Typology
261
262
Closed
contour
263
Solid
foundation
Harmony
of proportions
Traditional Masonry
264
Traditional Masonry
Building Earthquake Resistance
Traditional masonry
for proven earthquake
resistance
Colombage-France
Widely used
throughout the world
in seismically
threatened regions
Gaiola-Portugal
265
Fatchwerk-Germany
Traditional Masonry
Building Earthquake Resistance
Institutes new building for Medical Research at Naggar
Built in 1932
266
Confined Masonry
267
Present Status
Confined Masonry
Building Earthquake Resistance
Traditional masonry
for proven earthquake
resistance
Mixed construction
involving dhajji-dewari
and
dressed/undressed
stone masonry and
brick masonry
Reinforced Masonry
Building Earthquake Resistance
Code provisions
Verification studies
Reinforcement in masonry
Reinforced Masonry
Building Earthquake Resistance
Masonry can be earthquake
resistant by using proper amount
of reinforcement
Reinforced masonry is most
suitable for low-rise structures.
[Quinn, Peru]
Confined Masonry
Confined Masonry
Experimental Earthquake
Engineering
Earthquake Response
Single Degree of Freedom System
Equation
of motion
mu cu ku
mug
Equivalent
Force
mug
pe
m
k
m
k
ug
Ground
Acceleratio
n
Moving Base
Fixed Base
Experimental Simulation
Validation of design
Monotonic
Cyclic
Low-cost experiment
techniques
FOE 2005
FOE 2005
Servo-hydraulic
Actuator
Accumulators
Reaction
Block
Linear Guide
Shake Table
Platform
Bearing Pillow
Anchor points
Reaction Mass/
Strong Floor
10
Bare Table
1
0.1
Full Payload
0.01
0.1
1.0
10.0
Frequency (Hz)
100.0
FOE 2005
200
150
Acceleration (cm/s )
100
-50
-100
-150
-200
10
20
30
40
50
60
Time
(a)
200
150
Acceleration (cm/s )
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
10
12
Time
(b)
0.6
Spectral acceleration(g)
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.5
12
10
12
1.5
Time period(s)
2.5
0
0
Event 2
10
6
4
2
0
0.1
6
Event 1
0
0.1
OCBF
SLBF
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
1
PGA(g)
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.5
1.3
1.4
PGA(g)
1.5
1.6
1.7
6
4
2
6
Orginal
Scaled
0
0
0.2
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Time Period
(c)
2.5
2.5
Taft 0.2g
0.6
Spectral accln.
2
(m/s )
Design
0.7
Spectral accln.(g)
0.8
1.5
1.5
1
200
0.5
0.5
150
OCBF
SLBF
100
0
0.1
Acceleration (cm/s 2)
0.8
0
0.1 50 0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
PGA(g) 1
PGA(g)
0.6
-50
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.7
-100
Increasing Severity
-150
-200
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
12
150
100
-50
-100-100
-150-150
-200-200 0
0
-50
200
150
100
50
50
0
-50
-100
10
10
20
20
30
30
Time
(a)
Time
Taft Motion
40
40
50
50
60
60
-150
-200
Time
(b)
Orginal
Scaled
FOE 2005
200
Acceleration (cm/s 2)
Acceleration (cm/s 2)
200200
0 150
150
100100
5050
00
(cm/s 2)
Accln.(cm/s2)
Time
(a)
FOE 2005
Taft
1.6g
0
-0.1
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
-0.2
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
0
Time(s)
2
Time Period (s)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Original
Scaled
2
Time Period(s)
FOE 2005
0.1
1.6
Spectral Accl(g)
Acceleration(g)
0.2
Out-of-plane
loading
White Noise
Level-1
White Noise
Level-II
.
.
Level-V
White Noise
White Noise
Level-V
White Noise
In-plane
loading
0.75 %
Drift
1.00 %
Drift
1.40 %
Drift
Till Failure
FOE 2005
0.20 % Drift
0.25 % Drift
0.35 % Drift
0.50 % Drift
50
0.75
0.375
0
0
1
2
Average acceleration (g)
+
+
0
-3
--
-2
-1
0
-50
Drift (%)
FOE 2005
1.125
Load (kN)
1.5
In-plane
Hysteresis
Ht.of Specimen(m)
Out-of-plane
Acceleration
FOE 2005
Substructure
Shake table
FOE 2005
Utilizes low-cost
experimental set-up and
higher resolution
analytical simulation
Analytical
Simulation
E1
E2
Internet latency
15 s ground motion
completed in 5 hr
with 1500 cycles of
data exchange
NEES
Grid
FOE 2005
Synchronization of
remote controllers
Concluding Remarks
Earthquake need not be deadly & destructive!
Earthquake-resistant structures
are key elements
Need to develop novel techniques
for enhanced seismic performance
FOE 2005
Success of Design!
FOE 2005
PEER, Richmond, CA
Ductile
Column
Non-Ductile
Column
Ductile
Column
Implementation of codes
Enforcement mechanisms for codes
Demand for safety
Awareness generation
Higher priority for safety
293
Code of ethics
Responsibility and liability
294
Construction Industry
Several internationally-competitive
construction companies
Yet, decay of small-scale construction
industry
295
Seismic Codes
IS:1893 (Main code; design seismic force)
1962,1966, 1970, 1975, 1984, and 2002
IS:4326 (Seismic design of buildings)
1967, 1975, 1993
296
297
Stress (MPa)
600
B
B
A
E
400
200
YS
UTS/YS
421
1.17
455
1.29
583
1.16
476
1.38
354
1.33
0
0.00
298
0.02
0.04
0.06
Strain (mm/mm)
0.08
0.10
Competence of engineers
Engineering curriculum did not cover
earthquake engineering
299
Recent Initiatives
300
Agenda on Codes
A number of studies on codes started at IITK around
1986
Numerous papers in Indian journals
A number of draft codes and commentaries
301
302
303
Training of Engineers
A series of one-week trainings for professional
engineers started in 1992.
Philosophy:
To share everything and hold back nothing
Trainees should not have to come back to resource
persons for consultancy
Compensate resource persons adequately
Training not an opportunity for business
development by the resource persons
Only 2 to 3 resource persons
Detailed notes
Copy of every transparency to each participant
before the lecture
304
Training of Engineers
Unprecedented successes
Class size
~ 100 persons (before 2001 earthquake)
~ 200 persons (after 2001 earthquake)
Conducted in numerous places in India, and in Nepal and
Bhutan
About 30 courses since 1992
Both ways learning experience
305
Discussion Workshops
Round-Table Discussion Workshops at IITK
Earthquake Resistant Construction in Civil Engineering
Curriculum, 1996
Development of Earthquake Engineering Industry in
India, 1998
Confined Masonry as alternative building typology, 2006
306
NICEE ACTIVITIES
Acquisition of Publications
Supply of Literature
Literature Review Workshops
Publication and Distribution of Publications
E-Conferences
Short Course
Web Site
Electronic Newsletter
Email Listing
308
309
Publications
310
n
n ii cc ee ee
Short Course on
Resource Faculty :
Anil K Chopra
University of California
Berkeley, USA
Resource Persons :
Larry K Nuss
Bureau of Reclamation
Denver, Colorado , USA
n
n ii cc ee ee
www.nicee.org
311
Larry K Nuss
Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, USA
Anil K Chopra
University of California, Berkeley, USA
312
313
314
315
EERI Monographs
316
Under Construction
Extension of existing
structural engineering lab
317
In the end
A lot is happening in India, but it is still too
little for needs of a large and diverse country
318
Yes
TRIES TO
FOLLOW?
Yes
KNOWS WHAT
IS TO BE DONE?
RECOGNISES
DOES NOT
KNOW?
No
Yes
ERROR OF
INTENTION
No
ERROR OF
EXECUTION
SUCCESSFUL
COMPLETION
OF TASK
319
Yes
Yes
No
ERROR OF
CONCEPT
TRIES TO
DETERMINE?
SUCCEEDS?
Yes
No
No
ERROR OF
INTENTION
SUCCEEDS?
No
Alternate Paths
with regard to
acceptable practices
(Nowak and Arafah, 1994)
Stage
Time
Reaction
Event
Positive
Negative
Major
Earthquake
Panic
1 minute 1 week
Fear
1 week 1 month
Diminishing
aftershocks
0-1 minute
1 month 1 year
1 year 10 years
Diminishing interest
10 years
320
Major
Earthquake
Key, 1988
In Closure
Risk
= Hazard Vulnerability
Moderate
322
NO Seismic Design
Implications
Recurrence of Earthquakes
World average:
For every event of M>8.0, ~ 100 M>6.0
events
India:
High frequency of great earthquakes
Low frequency of moderate earthquakes
Moderate earthquake create awareness and lead
to improvements in construction at low human
cost
Performance of buildings and infrastructure not
satisfactory in recent Indian earthquakes
323
Implications
324
Implications
325
Urgent Need
to reduce Vulnerability of Structures
for Seismic Risk Mitigation
Knowledge of hazards
Earthquake Resistant Friendly
Architecture
Quality Materials
www.nicee.org
[nicee@iitk]
329
Acknowledgements
Prof. C V R Murty
Thank you
331