Seismic vulnerability of the health infrastructure in the Himalayan township of Mussoorie, Uttarakhand, India

Rautela, P; Chandra Joshi, G and Bhaisora, B (2011) Seismic vulnerability of the health infrastructure in the Himalayan township of Mussoorie, Uttarakhand, India. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 2(3), pp. 200-209. ISSN 1759-5916

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to attempt to assess the seismic vulnerability of the built environment in the Himalayan township of Mussoorie in the state of Uttarakhand (India), paying specific attention to hospitals. Also an attempt is made to assess the magnitude of minimum economic losses, so as to design and undertake measures for reducing human misery in the event of a major disaster. Design/methodology/approach – Seismic vulnerability of the building stock is evaluated using FEMA technique rapid visual screening and the likely earthquake induced damage is depicted as a function of the damage grades of the European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98). In total, 3,344 buildings, including 14 hospitals, are surveyed. In the field the structures are mapped using IKONOS satellite imagery while the collected data are analysed under geographic information system environment. Findings – It was found that 18 percent of surveyed structures fall in high probability of Grade 5 damage and very high probability of Grade 4 damage class. This is estimated to result in economic loss of US$52.47 million. Almost, 80 percent of the hospitals of Mussoorie are thus likely to be non-functional in the post-earthquake phase due to varying degrees of structural and non-structural damage. Research limitations/implications – The study does not account for the cost of demolition or ground clearance cost for reconstruction, or losses likely to be incurred by public infrastructure. Thus, it is implied that retrofitting and replacement of vulnerable healthcare infrastructure should be facilitated on a priority basis along with development of suitable plans for mitigating losses in an earthquake event. Practical implications – The study brings forth the importance of corrective actions (retrofitting/replacement) and detailed vulnerability assessment of all lifeline structures on priority basis. Social implications – The results are intended to reduce seismic vulnerability and human toll in the event of any earthquake in the area. Originality/value – The work is based upon the original data generated by the authors through rigorous fieldwork in the area and the results are totally based on these.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: building performance; damageability; earthquakes; hazard prevention in buildings; hospitals; India; seismic vulnerability; seismicity; seismology; vulnerability analysis
Index terms: replacement, retrofitting, satellite, vulnerability, methodology, toll, building stock, building performance, prevention, India, geographic information system, built environment, earthquake, screening, public infrastructure, reconstruction
Subjects: research methods, renovation and retrofit, management, financial risk, Geography, asset management, building construction, geographical techniques and analysis, networking, transportation engineering, quality assurance, environmental hazards, infrastructure and transport systems, materials science
Topics: Quality Management, Human Resources, Urban Studies, Sustainability, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Cost Management
Descriptive scope: 3 PCT

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here