Development of building inventory for northern Pakistan for seismic risk reduction

Purpose This paper aims to present the studies which were carried out to determine building typology in Northern Pakistan, which is a seismically active region. Design/methodology/approach A total of 41 towns and cities were surveyed to collect the data of building types. Help was also taken from global positioning system and satellite imagery. Findings In total, 14 different types of buildings were identified in the region based on the structural system and combination of wall and roof materials; each of them was assigned an appropriate designation. The walls in these buildings were made of block, stone or brick, whereas the roof consisted of corrugated galvanised iron sheet, thatched roof, precast concrete planks or reinforced concrete (RC). Only 6 per cent buildings were found to be engineered RC buildings; this indicates a significance proportion of non-engineered building stock in Northern Pakistan. Research limitations/implications The surveys were conducted in some of the selected areas. Other areas are beyond the scope of this work. Practical implications The presence of a huge deficient building stock in Pakistan indicates a major seismic risk. The seismic losses are largely dependent on the earthquake resistance of existing buildings and building stock. An inventory of existing buildings and their types can help in assessing seismic vulnerability of the built environment, which may lead to the development of policies for seismic risk reduction. Originality/value Presently, housing encyclopaedia does not exist in Pakistan. As a result, housing typology in the country is not known. The presented study addresses this gap in part. Housing typology surveys were conducted to study the typical construction practices in the selected areas and to determine the proportions of different building types in the overall building stock.

[1]  J. Besse,et al.  Paleogeographic maps of the continents bordering the Indian Ocean since the Early Jurassic , 1988 .

[2]  C. Ventura,et al.  Effect of earthquake probability level on loss estimations , 2004 .

[3]  J. Ali,et al.  When and where did India and Asia collide , 2007 .

[4]  H. H. Korkmaz,et al.  Earthquake hazard and damage on traditional rural structures in Turkey , 2010 .

[5]  Mostafaei Hossein,et al.  Investigation and Analysis of Damage to Buildings during the 2003 Bam Earthquake , 2004 .

[6]  Hugo Bachmann,et al.  On the Seismic Vulnerability of Existing Buildings: A Case Study of the City of Basel , 2004 .

[7]  R. Spence,et al.  Earthquake Protection: Coburn/Earthquake Protection, Second Edition , 2006 .

[8]  Tobago Population and Housing Census. , 2011 .

[9]  Sarah J Halvorson,et al.  In the aftermath of the Qa'yamat: the Kashmir earthquake disaster in northern Pakistan. , 2010, Disasters.

[10]  Der-Shin Juang,et al.  Statistical analyses of relation between mortality and building type in the 1999 chi‐chi earthquake , 2002 .

[11]  C. V. Anderson,et al.  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) , 2002 .

[12]  A. Pomonis The Spitak (Armenia, USSR) Earthquake: Residential Building Typology and Seismic Behaviour. , 1990, Disasters.

[13]  D. Wald,et al.  Creating a Global Building Inventory for Earthquake Loss Assessment and Risk Management , 2008 .

[14]  T. Rossetto,et al.  Observations of damage due to the Kashmir earthquake of October 8, 2005 and study of current seismic provisions for buildings in Pakistan , 2009 .

[15]  Ali A. Nowroozi Seismo-tectonics of the Persian plateau, eastern Turkey, Caucasus, and Hindu-Kush regions , 1971 .

[16]  Judith C. Chow,et al.  Spatial and seasonal distributions of carbonaceous aerosols over China , 2007 .

[17]  B. Currie,et al.  Palaeo-altimetry of the late Eocene to Miocene Lunpola basin, central Tibet , 2006, Nature.

[18]  S. Giovinazzi The Vulnerability Assessment and the Damage Scenario in Seismic Risk Analysis , 2005 .