The Need to Upgrade Buildings of 2002 Vintage and Older

www.taylordevicesindia.com www.taylordesign.in

This may come as a rude shock to many, but the reality is that buildings designed and constructed before 2002 do not even meet the minimum earthquake safety standards prescribed by the Government. The Indian Seismic uilding !ode "as last revised in the year 2002 after many valuable lessons "ere learnt in the aftermath of the devastating Gu#arat earthquake of 2$%an200&. There "ere many a committee set up to inquire into the lapses and suggest remedial measures' many international agencies pledged their support and the (nited )ations contributed both monetarily and by providing technical guidance. The Indian Seismic !ode under"ent a stringent upgrade so that future catastrophes could be averted. The loss of life and property "as colossal and for some time the vast media coverage made one to believe that this "as the *final "ake up call+. ,s time passed the memories once again proved to be short lived and the *chatpatta+ olly"ood ne"s sold more and the mundane *-arthquake Safety+ "hich "as easily ignored especially "hen it "as asking the people to do some thing "hich they have never done before, *protect themselves+. The Government after great deliberations benchmarked *.ife Safety+ as the minimum safety standard that all buildings mandatorily adhere to. .ife safety implies that in case of a ma#or earthquake the total collapse of the building should be prevented. This "ould help in minimi/ing casualties. ,fter the earthquake, in case the damage to the building "as above a threshold level it could be demolished and rebuilt. ,ppro0imately 123 of the country is vulnerable to earthquakes. The recent seismic activity in the Indian Sub4!ontinent, including the 5igh4Intensity Indonesia and 6u/affarabad quakes, has rekindled fears at the highest echelons and many initiatives are being revived. The 7rime 6inister, 8r. 6anmohan Singh himself, chairs the )ational 8isaster 6anagement ,uthority. 7resident, 8r. ,7% ,bdul 9alam, raised the issue of *the need to accelerate research for forecasting earthquakes+ to *prevent heavy damage to the people and property+ in his recent Independence 8ay speech. This is testimony enough as to the seriousness "ith "hich the Government is assessing the threat perception of increased seismic activity. :ith gro"ing economic might, comes greater vulnerability and therefore the need for stringent safeguards. 5o"ever mere lip service on "hat should be done and follo"ed "ould do little for the country to achieve greater earthquake resilience. ,ccountability should be the order of the day. Stringent legal provisions to enforce that at least the minimum safeguards must be follo"ed. 7ublic a"areness is required to be created through mass advertising so that they can then take the necessary steps to upgrade their buildings. The present day reality makes this a necessity. Today the responsibility of the uilder;8eveloper finishes once the possession is handed over. The occupants "ho are struggling to pay their housing installments are many times in no position to incur further e0penditure on structural analysis;evaluation and seismic retrofit. -ven if the actual retrofit costs are to be paid by the occupants the builders should provide their e0isting engineering infrastructure for seismic evaluation of the buildings constructed by them. <nce the analysis is done the occupants "ould then kno" the e0penditure required for upgrading the building to the present earthquake standards. In many developed and developing countries "hich lie in the seismically active regions, uilding Insurance is mandatory especially high4rise construction. The insurance companies pitch in "ith quality control and ensure stringent safeguards before they provide the required insurance cover. ,s an incentive, in case, higher than the minimum safety standards are follo"ed, the insurance premium becomes less, and in cases "here even the minimum safeguards are not adhered to, the building simply does not get insured. Today there e0ist many earthquake protection technologies "hich efficiently and effectively protect structures against earthquakes i.e. dampers or energy dissipaters. These devices are also the most efficient and cost effective "ay of

protecting buildings and have been used on many thousands of buildings around the "orld. <ne or the other building "hich incorporates this technology "itnesses an earthquake each day. 6inistry of Science and Technology is pitching in its bit by funding a research pro#ect for evaluating the effectiveness of such devices. These time tested earthquake protection technologies can be brought to India for manufacturing such devices, in case the Government facilitates funding.