Seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings of Patna by rapid visual screening

Full text

International Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Exploration, Vol 9(86)
ISSN (Print): 2394-5443 ISSN (Online): 2394-7454
http://dx.doi.org/10.19101/IJATEE.2021.874745
61
Seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings of Patna by rapid visual
screening
Siddharth1* and Ajay Kumar Sinha2
PhD. Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Patna, India1
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Patna, India2
Received: 07-September-2021; Revised: 23-January-2022; Accepted: 25-January-2022
©2022 Siddharth and Ajay Kumar Sinha. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC
BY) License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
1.Introduction
The seismic vulnerability of any structure is its
inability to withstand future earthquakes [1, 2].
Severe damages to the structure have occurred due to
past earthquakes, resulting in loss of life and money.
Buildings constructed in India before implementing
seismic codes are most vulnerable and have resulted
in a significant loss. India is a country that is very
seismically active due to its location and
demography. Around 80% population of India lives
in earthquake-prone seismic zones [3]. Bhuj
earthquake occurred in 2001, which resulted in the
collapse of reinforced concrete buildings in Bhuj and
Gandhidham [4, 5]. The earthquake in Kashmir in
2005 resulted in damage to stone masonry buildings
[6]. The occurrence of the Sikkim earthquake in the
year 2011 resulted in the deterioration of non-
engineered reinforced concrete buildings [7]. So,
because of these failures, a seismic vulnerability
assessment needs to be done. Seismic vulnerability
assessment is the process of evaluation to find out the
deficiencies of the structure.
*Author for correspondence
Much research has been done on seismic
vulnerability assessment methods by various
scientists around the world [8]. The casualty and
magnitude during occurred earthquakes are shown in
Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively. The Seismic
vulnerability assessment is a three-step process in
different codes namely, (1) Rapid visual screening
(RVS) (2) Preliminary assessment method or
simplified assessment (3) Detailed assessment
method.
Rapid visual screening (RVS)
This is a fast method of assessment. The screening is
usually done within 10-15 methods. In this, various
parameter is taken into account as per the RVS
forms. Trained surveyors carry out the RVS process.
The main aim of this procedure is to rank buildings
and also to filter out which buildings need further
evaluation. In this method grading is usually done.
Preliminary assessment method or simplified
assessment
In this method models of buildings are drawn along
with layout of columns and beams. This method
includes various type of strength checks and in-depth
evaluations of buildings are done.
Research Article
Abstract
Many damaging earthquakes have occurred in various regions of India in past few decades. It has affected large scale
loss to life and property. The city of Patna is located in seismic Zone IV, according to IS1893 making it substantially
vulnerable to earthquake. Such areas need proper study to decide preventive measures for avoiding any probable disaster.
Seismic vulnerability is one of the most crucial parameters for structural safety assessment. According to most of the
guidelines used worldwide, a three-stage process of evaluation is generally adopted. The first level of evaluation is rapid
visual screening (RVS). This paper summarizes the RVS carried out in 201 buildings of Patna. The buildings have been
ranked according to the number of storeys, grade of damage, and year built. The study shows poor maintenance history of
buildings. Also, the buildings were found to be constructed not as per codal provisions. The result shows the need for
retrofitting of buildings after further study.
Keywords
Seismic vulnerability, Rapid visual screening, Damageability, Non-engineered buildings.

Siddharth and Ajay Kumar Sinha
62
Figure 1 Death reported in India due to significant earthquakes
(Source: Indian Meteorological Department)
Figure 2 Magnitude of earthquakes in India
(Source: Indian Meteorological Department)
Detailed Evaluation
This is the third phase of evaluation. It requires linear
or nonlinear analyses of the building based on as-
built dimensions. This phase involves calculation of
moments and flexural capacity of buildings. Also,
storey drift calculation is done. The flowchart for the
three-step assessment procedure is shown in Figure
3. The main objective of current work is to find out
the current vulnerability status of buildings of this
area and identify which building needs further
evaluation. The motivation behind the correct work is
the number of damages due to recurring earthquakes
in this city in past 100 odd years and how to reduce
it. The limitation of the current study is RVS of
selected buildings of Patna.
2000 414 0 1500 0 0
10653 1530 1004 768
20023
74500
0 8790
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
No. of deaths reported
Casualities reported during occured earthquakes
8 7.7 7.4 8.1 7.6 7.1 8.2 8.7
6.6 6.4
7.7 7.6 6.8 7.8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Intensity of earthquakes,Mw
Magnitude of major earthquakes

International Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Exploration, Vol 9(86)
63
Figure 3 Flow chart of vulnerability assessment process
2.Literature review
Mulas et al. [9] studied vulnerability of torsionally
deformable reinforced concrete buildings of Italy. In
this study it was found that buildings were not built
as per seismic provision. The advantages of different
retrofitting methods were concluded.
Haryanto et al. [10] conducted RVS of buildings in
Indonesia. The conclusion from the study is that a
safety policy of educational buildings needs to be
made and the vulnerable buildings can be retrofitted.
Ruggieri et al. [11] did study on priority of most
vulnerable school buildings and proposed a
methodology for assessment of buildings. The result
showed that the proposed methodology can be used
for vulnerability assessment efficiently.
Reddy et al. [12] did study the risk vulnerability of
Chennai. A total number of 100 buildings from
Chennai were surveyed. Pushover analysis was done
on selected buildings. After the analysis, it was
concluded that detailed study for the city needs to be
done.
Parmar et al. [13] did vulnerability assessment of
buildings of Surat. In the study RVS of 690 buildings
were done It was concluded that almost 80 %
buildings were in good condition.
Calvi et al. [14] did review of various methodology
proposed in past 30 years. In the study it was
emphasized that for assessment of vulnerability in a
loss model, the main parameter is sound algorithm.
Ramly et al. [15] conducted a RVS of 1166 number
of buildings in Pahang, Malaysia. Out of which 308
number of buildings required detailed investigation.
Sarraz et al. [16] conducted RVS of 310 number of
buildings in Chandgaon, Bangladesh. In this study
the vulnerability was compared with the performance
score of the buildings. It was concluded that the
vulnerable buildings need to be repaired and restored.
Modi and Mohan [17] conducted RVS of 100 number
of reinforced concrete buildings in Rambaug,
Ahmedabad, after the Bhuj earthquake. In this study,
it was concluded that 88 % of the building had a soft
storey, 55 % of the building had heavy overhangs,
and 48% had vertical irregularity.

Siddharth and Ajay Kumar Sinha
64
Sadat et al. [18] studied 2007 number of buildings in
the Dhanmondi, Lalmatia, and Mohammadpur areas
of Dhaka. Out of which 1082 buildings were RCC,
and 975 numbers of the building were unreinforced
masonry buildings. Total 476 buildings out of 1082
buildings had a soft storey. It was concluded that the
majority of buildings did not follow codal provisions
and had no proper emergency exit.
Joshi and Kumar [19] conducted RVS of 3339
number of buildings in Mussoorie, Uttarakhand. Out
of which, around 20% of buildings (623 buildings)
were having grade 5 damage (G5) and grade 4 (G4)
damage. Also, about 19% of buildings (587
buildings) were having grade 4 (G4) damage and
grade 3 (G3) damage.
Dutta et al. [20] did a damage assessment of
buildings after the 2015 Gorkha earthquake. In this
study, it was decided to judge the earthquake
preparedness of buildings in the city of Patna. It was
concluded that many buildings need retrofitting
measures, especially for non-engineered buildings.
Sarmah and Das [21] conducted RVS of 100 number
of buildings of Guwahati. The buildings were
categorized according to nine different parameters.
The study provided details according to which
retrofitting and replacement may be decided further
by municipal authorities of Guwahati.
Rautela et al. [22] conducted a RVS of 6206 numbers
of buildings in Mussoorie and Nainital town of
Uttarakhand. In this study, it was concluded 14% of
buildings of Nainital and 18 % of buildings of
Mussoorie are of Grade 5(G5) damage category.
These buildings are hospital and lifeline buildings
that might be vulnerable in case of significant
earthquakes.
Shakya et al. [23] did damage assessment of
buildings of Bhaktapur city of Nepal after the 2015
Gorkha earthquake. In this study, the main causes of
building damage during the earthquake were
described. Also the remedial measures after
earthquake destruction were recommended.
Aldemir et al. [24] studied about the seismic risk
assessment of buildings. In this study, a method was
developed for the risk assessment of unreinforced
buildings.
Halder et al. [25] studied about damage of existing
buildings in North East. The result with the help of
fragility curve shows the unreinforced masonry
(URM) building present are most vulnerable ones and
detailed study is required for more accurate results
[26]. From the literature review it is clear that older
buildings are deficient and hence require further
detailed evaluation. After the evaluation of buildings,
retrofitting needs to be done.
3.Methodology
3.1RVS procedure
The RVS procedure followed in this research work
includes the following is shown in Figure 4. Firstly,
the data collection form is selected from existing
RVS methods. Then the area to be screened is chosen
and the secondary data such as soil data, plan etc. are
collected. A team of surveyors is formed. They are
trained and sent to field for data collection. The
primary data of the survey includes the sketch of the
building, no of storeys, plan irregularity, vertical
irregularity and photographs of the buildings etc.
Thereafter the collected data are stored in computer
and analysed.
Figure 4 Flowchart for the RVS procedure

International Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Exploration, Vol 9(86)
65
3.2Overview of the study area
The study was conducted in the city of Patna. Few
localities of Patna such as Bailey Road, Circular
Road, Deshratna Marg, Mangles Road, Polo Road,
Shastri Nagar, Strand Road, and Taylor Road were
selected for the survey work. The city of Patna lies in
seismic zone IV according to the classification of IS
1893: 2016. Patna is the capital city of Bihar, which
lies on the Indo-Nepal border. Bihar is located in
high seismic zones due to its location on a tectonic
plate in the Himalayas. Bihar has total no of 38
districts, out of which 8 district lies in Zone V and 24
district lies in zone IV. The state of Bihar has
witnessed major earthquakes in the year 1833, 1934
and 1988 with loss of life and money [27, 28]. The
typology of surveyed buildings are unreinforced
masonry buildings. Figure 5 is the location of study
area taken from the google map of Patna and roads
surveyed are highlighted in yellow.
3.3Data collection
Primary data was collected through RVS by field
visit and secondary data was collected from junior
engineers of building construction department,
Goverment of Bihar, Patna. RVS survey sheet as
developed in IS13935:2009[29] was used (Appendix
II). The RVS Survey sheet is an empirical method of
assessment. The details of locality of buildings are
tabulated in Table 1. Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8,
Figure 9 and Figure 10 are different photographs of
building no.-1, Deshratna Marg. This building used
to be the residence of Late Karpoori Thakur, former
chief minister of Bihar and currently used as
museum.
Figure 6 is the front view of the building. Figure 7
shows spalling in ceiling inside the buildings. These
are most common problems in URM buildings.
Figure 8 shows the dampness on the walls of the
buildings. This may have deteriorating effects on the
strength of the buildings. Figure 9 represents walls
with plaster damage. Figure 10 shows corrosion of
reinforcement of roofs.
Figure 5 Location of study area (Highlighted in yellow)

Siddharth and Ajay Kumar Sinha
66
Table 1 List of surveyed buildings
Name of the locality
Residential
Office
Total
Quaters of Bailey Road
03
03
06
Quarters of Circular Road
06
00
06
Quarters of Deshratna Marg
03
02
05
Quarters of Mangles Road
06
07
13
Quarters of Polo Road
08
00
08
Quarters of Shastri Nagar
131
00
131
Quarters of Strand Road
29
00
29
Quarters of Taylor Road
03
00
03
189
12
201
Figure 6 Front view of main buildings of 1, Desh Ratna Marg (Residence of Late CM Karpoori Thakur)
Figure 7 Spalling in ceiling
Figure 8 Dampness on walls

International Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Exploration, Vol 9(86)
67
Figure 9 Deterioration of walls
Figure 10 Corrosion reinforcement of the ceiling
3.4Factors affecting the damageability of
buildings
 Irregularity in plan as well as elevation could leads
to higher grade of damageability.
 Fire exits provided in the buildings were checked.
 Spalling and dampness were checked which had
influence on damage grades.
 Corrosion of reinforcement
4.Results
In this research study damages in buildings were hair
line cracks, major cracks and spalling of plasters for
different grades of damage. There was dampness in
building as well as cracks at roof and lintel level. The
buildings were checked for irregularities. The results
of the current study are classified based upon
damageability, height of the building and age of the
building.
Damageability grades
A total number of 201 buildings were surveyed and
the damageability grades for each of buildings were
found out using the RVS forms. Survey form as per
IS 13935:2019 were used for the classification of
grades. All the surveyed buildings were masonry type
buildings. The Table 2 below shows the grades of
different buildings
Table 2 Buildings in different damage grade
categories
Grade of damageability
No of buidings
Grade 1
00
Grade 2
01
Grade 3
152
Grade 4
46
Grade 5
02
Total
201
The Figure 11 shows the pie chart for comparison
between damageability grade and percentage no of
buildings. The percentage of grade 3 buildings were
more than grade 4 damage buildings. Also, there
were no grade 1damage buildings. The Table 3
shows the classification of surveyed buildings based
upon the height of the buildings. The height of the
building also affects the vulnerability of building.
The Figure 12 shows the pie chart for comparison
between storey height and percentage no of
buildings. The percentage of surveyed buildings
having height >1 was more than single story building.
Also, there were few buildings of single storey.
Table 3 Storey height of the surveyed buildings
Height of the buildings
No. of buildings
G
23
G+1
46
G+2
132
Total
201
The Figure 12 shows the pie chart for comparison
between storey height and percentage no of
buildings. The percentage of surveyed buildings
having height >1 was more than single story building.
Also, there were few buildings of single storey. The
Table 4 shows the classification of surveyed
buildings based upon the age of the buildings. The
age of the building also affects the vulnerability of
building. The topology of surveyed building which
were built in between 1927 and 1950 were made of
lime mortar and roof were flat roof. Also, some roofs
were made of timber which had impact on the
condition of building. The Figure 13 shows the pie
chart for comparison between age of building and
percentage no. of buildings.

Siddharth and Ajay Kumar Sinha
68
The percentage of surveyed buildings built between
1927 and 2000.The building where not complaint to
current Indian standard code and hence are more
vulnerable to seismic hazards.
A complete list of abbreviations is shown in
Appendix I.
Figure 11 Pie chart of classification based upon damageability grade
Figure 12 Pie chart of classification based upon Height of building
Grade 1, 0% Grade 2, 0.50%
Grade 3, 75.60%
Grade 4, 22.90%
Damageability grade vs. % no. of buildings
G, 11%
G+1, 23.00%
G+2, 66.00%
Height of buildings vs. % no. of buildings

International Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Exploration, Vol 9(86)
69
Table 4 Buildings in different damage grade
categories
Year built
No. of buildings
1927
02
1930
03
1934
03
1950
36
1956
01
1960
10
1962
20
1964
98
1965
03
1985
20
2000
05
Total
201
Figure 13 Classification of building based on Age of
building
5.Discussion
The vulnerability of existing buildings depends upon
the maintenance history, provision of fire exits and
implementation of codal provisions. The existing
URM buildings in the current research work are
vulnerable due to above factors. The scope of the
current research is limited to RVS of 201 number of
buildings located in Bailey Road, Circular Road,
Deshratna Marg, Mangles Road, Polo Road, Shastri
Nagar, Strand Road, and Taylor Road of Patna. The
surveyed buildings had no fire exits which may prove
to be fatal during fire hazards. Also, higher damage
grade 4 and grade 5 are due to age of buildings and
poor maintenance conditions. There were buildings
having timber roof which may be vulnerable due to
decay in course of time. There was corrosion in
reinforcement in roofs of few buildings which may
be disastrous for occupants in case of failure. The
result of current work will pave way for decision to
be taken for further study and action to be taken
thereof.
6.Conclusion and future work
During RVS survey it was observed that 11.4% of
buildings have a ground floor, 22.9% of buildings are
G+1, and 65.7% of buildings are G+2. The majority
of buildings surveyed are built between 1927 and
2000. Most of buildings had spalling and dampness
in walls. Vegetation growth in and around the
structure was seen which may have impact on
vulnerability. Also, there were many visible vertical
and diagonal cracks in the buildings. These factors
had impact of damage grades. From the study it has
been found that 1% of buildings are Grade 5, 23% of
buildings are Grade 4, 75.6% of buildings are Grade
3 and 0.04% of buildings are Grade 2. In future,
further detailed study of Grade 4 and Grade 5
buildings needs to be done after which retrofitting
measures can be decided.
Acknowledgment
None.
Conflicts of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Authors contribution statement
Siddharth: Conceptualization, data collection, analysis,
writing- review and editing. Ajay Kumar Sinha: Writing-
original draft, analysis and interpretation of results.
References
[1] Cockburn G, Tesfamariam S. Earthquake disaster risk
index for Canadian cities using bayesian belief
networks. Georisk: Assessment and Management of
Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards. 2012;
6(2):128-40.
[2] Hill M, Rossetto T. Comparison of building damage
scales and damage descriptions for use in earthquake
loss modelling in Europe. Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering. 2008; 6(2):335-65.
[3] Kumar RP, Murty CV. Earthquake safety of houses in
India: understanding the bottlenecks in
implementation. Indian Concrete Journal. 2014.
[4] https://sudhirjain.info/INL_005.pdf. Accessed 05
September 2021.
[5] CVR RMM, Goel RK, Goyal A, Jain SK, Sinha R,
Durgesh CR, et al. Reinforced concrete structures.
Earthquake Spectra. 2002; 18(S1):149–86.
[6] Naeem A, Ali Q, Javed M, Hussain Z, Naseer A, Ali
SM, et al. First report on the Kashmir earthquake of
October 8, 2005. EERI Special Earthquake Report.
2005.
[7] Murty CV, Raghukanth ST, Menon A, Goswami R,
Vijayanarayanan AR, Gandhi SR, et al. The Mw 6.9
sikkim-nepal border earthquake of September 18,
2011. EERI Newsletter, EERI Special Earthquake
Report. 2012:1-4.

Siddharth and Ajay Kumar Sinha
70
[8] Rai DC. Review of documents on seismic evaluation
of existing buildings. Department of Civil
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
India. 2005.
[9] Mulas MG, Stroffolini L, Martinelli P. Vulnerability
and retrofitting of torsionally deformable RC
buildings: a case study. In structures 2021 (pp. 861-
75). Elsevier.
[10] Haryanto Y, Hu HT, Han AL, Hidayat BA,
Widyaningrum A, Yulianita PE. Seismic vulnerability
assessment using rapid visual screening: case study of
educational facility buildings of jenderal soedirman
University, Indonesia. Civil Engineering Dimension.
2020; 22(1):13-21.
[11] Ruggieri S, Perrone D, Leone M, Uva G, Aiello MA.
A prioritization RVS methodology for the seismic risk
assessment of RC school buildings. International
Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2020; 51:101807.
[12] Reddy MD, Jeyashree TM, Reddy CD. A case study
on vulnerability risk assessment of buildings in
chennai using rapid visual screening. Annals of the
Romanian Society for Cell Biology. 2021:2183-92.
[13] Parmar A, Patel VM, Singh AP. Seismic vulnerability
assessment of buildings in surat City of western India.
International Journal of Innovative Technology and
Exploring Engineering (IJITEE). 2019; 8(10):719-23.
[14] Calvi GM, Pinho R, Magenes G, Bommer JJ,
Restrepo-vélez LF, Crowley H. Development of
seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over
the past 30 years. ISET Journal of Earthquake
Technology. 2006; 43(3):75-104.
[15] Ramly N, Ghafar M, Alel M, Adnan A. Rapid visual
screening method for seismic vulnerability assessment
of existing buildings in Bukit Tinggi, Pahang,
Malaysia. In international conference on advances in
Civil, structural and mechanical engineering,
birmingham 2014.
[16] Sarraz A, Ali MK, Das DC. Seismic vulnerability
assessment of existing building stocks at Chandgaon
in Chittagong city, Bangladesh. American Journal of
Civil Engineering. 2015; 3(1):1-8.
[17] Modi R, Mohan K. Rapid visual screening of RC
frame buildings in 2001 Bhuj earthquake affected
Rambaug area of Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Editorial
Office. 2019; 23(2):143-51.
[18] Sadat MR, Huq MS, Ansary MA. Seismic
vulnerability assessment of buildings of Dhaka city.
Journal of Civil Engineering. 2010; 38(2):159-72.
[19] Joshi GC, Kumar R. Preliminary seismic vulnerability
assessment of Mussoorie town, Uttarakhand (India).
Journal of Building Appraisal. 2010; 5(4):357-68.
[20] Dutta SC, Nayak S, Acharjee G, Panda SK, Das PK.
Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake of April 25, 2015: actual
damage, retrofitting measures and prediction by RVS
for a few typical structures. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering. 2016; 89:171-84.
[21] Sarmah T, Das S. Earthquake vulnerability assessment
for RCC buildings of Guwahati City using rapid visual
screening. Procedia Engineering. 2018; 212:214-21.
[22] Rautela P, Joshi GC, Bhaisora B, Dhyani C, Ghildiyal
S, Rawat A. Seismic vulnerability of nainital and
mussoorie, two major lesser himalayan tourist
destinations of India. International Journal of Disaster
Risk Reduction. 2015; 13:400-8.
[23] Shakya M, Kawan CK, Gaire AK, Duwal S. Post-
earthquake damage assessment of traditional masonry
buildings: a case study of Bhaktapur municipality
following 2015 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake.
Engineering Failure Analysis. 2021; 123:105277.
[24] Aldemir A, Guvenir E, Sahmaran M. Rapid screening
method for the determination of regional risk
distribution of masonry structures. Structural Safety.
2020; 85:101959.
[25] Halder L, Dutta SC, Sharma RP. Damage study and
seismic vulnerability assessment of existing masonry
buildings in Northeast India. Journal of Building
Engineering. 2020; 29:101190.
[26] Sobaih ME, Nazif MA. A proposed methodology for
seismic risk evaluation of existing reinforced school
buildings. HBRC Journal. 2012; 8(3):204-11.
[27] Dasgupta S, Mukhopadhyay B. Historiography and
commentary from archives on the Kathmandu
(Nepal)–India earthquake of 26 August 1833. Indian
Journal of History of Science. 2015; 50:491-513.
[28] http://bsdma.org/Publication-Reports.aspx. Accessed
05 September 2021.
[29] http://bsdma.org/Publication-Reports.aspx. Accessed
05 September 2021.
Siddharth has done his B.E in Civil
Engineering from RV College of
Engineering,Bengaluru.He completed
his M.E with specialization in
structural Engineering from BIT
Mesra.Presently he is pursuing his Ph.D
from NIT Patna He is a member of
earthquake safety clinic and centre at
NIT Patna. His research area includes Vulnerability
Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings.
Email: siddharth.phd18.ce@nitp.ac.in
Ajay Kumar Sinha is presently
Professor, Civil Engineering
Department, National Institute of
Technology Patna. He has 35 years of
teaching and research experience. He
obtained his B.Tech degree from IIT
BHU in 1986, M.E. in Earthquake
Engineering from IIT Roorkee in 1989.
He completed his PhD from Delhi College of Engineering,
University of Delhi. His research interests include Seismic
resistant structures, Vulnerability Assessment and
Retrofitting of structures, Structural Health Monitoring,
Reliability Engineering. He is centre Director cum Nodal
Officer of Earthquake safety clinic and centre at NIT Patna.
He is a member of the Earthquake Committee of BSDMA,
GoB, Patna. He has published over 150 research Paper

International Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Exploration, Vol 9(86)
71
International journals and conferences. He has supervised 5
PhD and 55 ME students with 10 PhDs undergoing.
Email: aks@nitp.ac.in
Appendix I
S. No.
Abbreviation
Description
1
RVS
Average Recurrent Interval
2
URM
Unreinforced Masonry
Appendix II
The data collection form utilized for field survey (IS 13935:2009)