Rapid Visual Survey (RVS) Study of Important Buildings, Transportation and Communication
System for Shimla City
FINAL REPORT
Submitted to
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY HAMIRPUR
HAMIRPUR - 177 005
DEC 2015
NATIONAL INSITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY HAMIRPUR
PROJECT INVESTIGATOR'S DECLARATION
I hereby certify that the work being presented in the Research Project entitled "Rapid Visual Survey
(RVS) Study of Important Buildings, Transportation and Communication System for Shimla City" is
work carried out during the period from April 2014 to July 2015. The project was sponsored by Shimla
Municipal Corporation, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
Principal Investigator Dr. Hemant Kumar Vinayak
Civil Engg. Dept.
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The principal investigator is obliged to former Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Shimla, Himachal
Pradesh for giving the opportunity to work for Conducting the Study on "Rapid Visual Survey (RVS)
Study of Important Buildings, Transportation and Communication System for Shimla City" which would
be beneficial for the safe and efficient construction in the city.
I am thankful to Sh. Prashant Shirke, Commissioner MC Shimla, H.P. for his support for the project. I
am grateful to Ms. Komal Kantariya, Shimla City Project Coordinator, UNDP India, for her efficient
coordination between Project Investigator and Shimla Municipal Corporation. I am also thankful to Sh.
Devender Kumar, PA to Commissioner MC Shimla for his administrative assistance.
I appreciate the efforts of Aakash Dubey, Project Assistant for conducting the survey of building in
Shimla City, Arun Guleria, Project Assistant for developing the webpages of the surveyed buildings,
maps and the management of the database of the survey carried out.
I am also glad that Shubam Sharma, Gaurav Sharma, Munish Kumar and Abhihnav Markandey,
students of Bachelor of Technology of Himalayan Group of Professional Institution Kala Amb, Sirmour
got involved in conducting the survey of buildings, showed high interest and delivered their best.
Finally I am thankful to the Department of Civil Engineering and National Institute of Technology
Hamirpur for giving me the approval to work with Shimla Municipal Corporation.
Dr. Hemant Kumar Vinayak Principal Investigator
ii
CONTENTSPage No.
Project Investigator Declaration i
Acknowledgement ii
Content iii
1. Introduction 1
2. Objective and Scope 2
3. Methodology 8
3.1 Sample Selection 8
3.2 Instrument used 8
3.3 Data Collection 8
3.4 Parameters Considered for the Format 9
4. Format taken up for Study 11
5. Parametric Study of Functional, Structural and Non-structural Components 15
5.1 Important Buildings and Rehabilitation Centres 15
5.2 Buildings along the main roads 23
5.3 Community Shelters 29
6. Bibliography 38
7. Maps 40
8. Present Status, Recommendations and Actions required 44
9. Summary of Safe and Unsafe Buildings 68
Appendix
Photographs of the buildings surveyed
iii
1. Introduction
Himachal Pradesh is vulnerable to various natural hazards such as earthquake, flash flood, cold wave,
wildfire, landslide etc. With the possibility of experiencing more severe events in upcoming days, it
becomes necessary to adopt an integrated disaster management approach for proper functioning of
important buildings during and after hazards. The integrated approach could include important
buildings, transportation and communication system. The important buildings comprise of hospitals,
fire stations, radio stations, administrative offices, schools, water supply stations, telecommunication
centres which must be serviceable after disasters. Therefore these buildings have been surveyed
against probable earthquake hazards in future.
Local level disaster management policies can set paradigm for sustainable and efficient approach
during and after earthquake. For that, state level departments need to be supportive in adopting and
incorporating risk reduction strategy. Some of the major devastating earthquake that have rocked the
state during the last century are as per Table 1 :
Table 1: Most severe earthquakes in Himachal Pradesh during the last decade
Date Locationsaffected
Magnitude Damage
4th April 1905 Kangra 7.8 20,000 people died , 53,000 domestic animals perished , 1,00,000 houses destroyed Economic cost of recovery ?2.9 million
1st June 1945 Chamba 6.5 N.A.
19th January 1975
Kinnaur 6.8 60 people died, 100 badly injured, 2000 dwellings devastated, 2500 people rendered homeless
26th April 1986 Dharamshala5.5
6 people died, Extensive damage to buildings Loss estimated at ?65 crore
1st April 1994 Chamba 4.5 N.A.
24th March 1995
Chamba 4.9 Fearsome shakingMore than 70% houses developed cracks
29th July 1997 Sundernagar 5.0 Damage to about 1000 houses
Since the Shimla city is the main administrative centre that controls the functioning of the state
government. Further, Shimla city also houses important communication system, medical facility in the
form of television station and state level emergency hospitals. Hence the condition assessment of the
infrastructure of the buildings is of utmost importance. It is the functioning of the important building
and infrastructure after the disaster like earthquake that would determine the sustenance of the
administrative control. Non-functioning of the infrastructure and the buildings would lead to total
chaos and helplessness of the state level departments. Thus with this concept the objectives and the
scope of the project was worked out.
2. Objective and Scope
I. Objective: The main objective of this project work will be to depict through Rapid
Visual Survey on the issues of:
a. Damageability grade of the important buildings.
b. Transportation system interruption in case of earthquake/ Landslide/ Snow in the study area.
c. Communication system disorder following earthquake related to networked area.
d. Framing guidelines to assist in drafting the policy framework for future construction /
expansion to mitigate the effect of disaster.
II. Background:a. The existing systems are presently constructed with large issues that need to be addressed
such as:
• Building Block - Unplanned construction leading to progressive failure in case of earthquake,
unsafe construction due to negligence in respect of codal provision, unplanned obstructions with
evacuation issues neglecting guidelines, inappropriate electrical installations leading to hazardous
environment (Fig 2.1 to Fig. 2.2).
• Water supply and storage - Unplanned and insecure (Fig. 2.3).
• Transportation - Interruption due to fragile slope and inappropriate construction (Fig. 2.4).
• Communication - Disruption due to communication tower and equipment failure (Fig. 2.5).
Fig. 2.1 : Unplanned construction along the hill slope
Fig. 2.2 : Improper load transfer
2
Fig. 2.3 : Unplanned water supply and insure storage tank
Fig. 2.4 : Traffic interrupted due to slope failure and retaining wall failure
Fig. 2.5 : Probable disruption of communication due to tower failure
3. Scope of the study: The study criteria and code of practice of various codes related to following
aspects shall be considered:
3
a. Building related aspects
Earthquake
• IS 1893 (Part 1):2002 - Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structure, general provisions
and buildings.
• IS 13920:1993 - Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structure subjected to seismic forces -
Code of practice
• IS 4326:1993 - Earthquake resistant design and construction of buildings - Code of practice.
• IS 1905:1987 - Code of practice for structural use of unreinforced masonry.
• IS 13828:1993 - Improving earthquake resistance of low strength masonry buildings - guidelines.
Landslide
• IS 14680:1999 - Landslide control - guidelines
• IS: 14458: Guideline for retaining wall for hill areas
■ Part 1 : Selection of type of walls
■ Part 2: Design of retaining / Breast walls
■ Part 3: Construction of Dry stone walls
Fire
• IS: 1641:1988 - Code of practice for fire safety of buildings (general): General principles and fire
grading and classification.
• IS: 1642:1989 - Code of practice for fire safety of buildings (general): Details of construction.
• IS: 1643:1988 - Code of practice for fire safety of buildings (general): Exposure hazard.
• IS: 1644:1982 - Code of practice for fire safety of buildings (general): Exit requirement and
personal hazard.
• IS: 1646:1982 - Code of practice for fire safety of buildings (general): Electrical installations.
• IS: 14435:1997 - Fire safety in educational institutions - Code of Practice.
Stampede
• Document No. : IITK-GSDMA-Fire03-V3.0 Final Report :: C - Fire Codes
Functional
Spaces allocation
• Building Bye Law - Shimla city.
Road set back
• Planning regulation and standard norms - Dept. of Town & Planning, Govt. of H.P.
4
b. Transportation-related aspect
• IRC:32-1969 - Standard for Vertical and Horizontal Clearances of Overhead Electric Power and
Telecommunication Lines as Related to Roads.
• IRC:46-1972 - A Policy on Roadside Advertisements (First Revision).
• IRC:52-2001 - Recommendations About the Alignment Survey and Geometric Design of Hill
Roads (Second Revision).
• IRC:56-2011 - Recommended Practices for Treatment of Embankment and Roadside Slopes for
Erosion Control (First Revision).
• IRC:SP-48-1998 - Hill Road Manual.
• IRC:SP-88-2010 - Road Safety Audit Manual.
c. Communication related aspect
• Himachal Pradesh proposed policy for setting up mobile communication towers. Annexure C
dated: Oct. 2013. http://himachaldit.gov.in/page/Mobile-Com-Towers.aspx
• Himachal Pradesh Existing policy for setting up mobile communication towers. (DIT. Dev- (IT)
2005 (Misc.)) dated: 22nd August 2006.
http://himachaldit.gov.in/page/Mobile-Com-Towers.aspx
• Department of telecommunications Advisory Guidelines for State governments to issue of
clearance for installation of mobile towers (effective from 01.08.2013)
http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Advisory%20Guidelines%20For%20State%20Govts%20effective%20from%2001-08-13.pdf
Rapid Visual Survey shall be carried out for the existing important buildings, their transportation
connectivity, water supply system and the communication network of the study area in Shimla city.
The various objectivity associated with this project has different reason to work for. Accordingly the
methodology has been defined as following :
RVS for buildings - Shimla city being the capital of Himachal Pradesh contains many important
buildings that have immediate occupancy importance. These buildings require to be operational even
if these buildings sustain damages converting the building to non-functional a bit, since it is considered
that administration of state disaster management authority will have to start their operation with
immediate effect in response to disasters such as earthquake / landslide / snow. Hence the RVS of
specific buildings will be carried out and accordingly the suggestion shall be drafted for upgradation
of the buildings.
5
RVS for transportation - A virtually universal phenomenon following disasters is the mass movement
of people, messages, and supplies towards the disaster-struck area. This "convergence action" has
been documented and verified in nearly every study of disaster. The city of Shimla has a serious
problem related to transportation issues. Traffic congestion is one of the prominent issues in this case.
Due to the typical geography and age old construction in the city, its magnitude becomes manifold at
the time of disasters like earthquake, landslide or snow. The road infrastructure in the town was
created in very old times to cater to the needs of that time population and little progress was made in
this regards subsequently. With the passage of time the population and inflow of the tourist resulted
in increased traffic congestion. The urbanization also lead to the haphazard laying of power and
telecommunication lines and roadside advertisements. The geometric designs of some of the roads
section does not seem to be as per codal guidelines. Also the roadside slopes and embankment are
susceptible to erosion. Educational institution particularly the schools are the places of traffic
bottlenecks which are characterized by regular traffic jam. Lack of proper parking place is another
reason which is enhancing the problem of traffic jams. It causes huge loss to business as it reduces
number of trips of heavy vehicles coming for commercial purposes. Traffic within the city causes
pollution and loss of productivity of local people. Around 200 vehicles are registered in the city every
day. During the busy tourist season around 3,000 tourist vehicles also fight for space on Shimla's
narrow roads.
Accessibility within the city sometimes becomes extremely poor. 72% of all buildings are not accessible
by trafficable roads. Out of that, 38% are accessible through pedestrian paths and stair ways with less
than one meter in width. Certain areas are built on such steep slopes and with such poor accessibility
that in case of a building collapse there will be no escape routes. Many of the trafficable roads too are
in such locations that in case of earthquake induced landslides or building collapse on the slopes above
the roads, they will get blocked. This can lead to the cutting off of critical rescue and relief routes.
These issues will be studied with visual screening of the study area and possible measures will be
suggested.
In all the possibility of such disaster the transportation / water supply and communication (TWS&C)
network are essential system that are required to remain functional along with the building space.
However with the present existing TWS&C systems, there are many issues that need to be addressed
so that these systems are functional to their best of the possibility even after disaster. The study will
thus involve finding out locations of disruption in road network / water supply and communication for
the selected building /area.
This study of presenting deficiencies and irregularity in the system will help in developing / modify the
selected area in the Shimla city with reduced vulnerability and risk to disaster. The surveys that will be
6
carried out will help in studying the requirements for various locations as per their deficiency. The
study will further lead to critical evaluation of the existing norms vis-a-vis the practices being followed
and assess the necessity to evolve specific guidelines.
RVS for Communication - The requirement of the communication for today's fast growing economy
like Shimla has result in mushroomed installation of mobile across the city. Although such tower are
highly desired for better communication after the disaster but towers if are erected on faulty building/
unauthorized roof tops / without necessary permission / competent approvals will itself result in
catastrophe in the area. To add to the problem of such unauthorized installation, the towers are even
being put up near educational institution and hospital. Such erection of towers near hospitals will
further add to the challenging of controlling radiation after disaster due uneven power supply.
7
3. Methodology
All the buildings on which Rapid Visual Survey has been carried out have been categorized under 3
categories: Immediate Occupancy, Rehabilitation Centres & Community Shelters (This list was
generated in May 2015). All the above mentioned categories are expected to be in usable condition
after earthquake. However, the Immediate occupancy buildings to be used by the respective owner
department, rehabilitation centres to be used by residents/immigrants of Shimla city after earthquake
whose houses have got damaged.
• The buildings considered under Immediate Occupancy consist of all important structures
including Administrative buildings (13 no.s), Hospitals (7 no.s), Electrical substations (3 no.s),
Telecommunication centres (10 no.s), Information dissemination centres (2 no.s), Transportation
structures (4 no.s), Bridges (2 no.s), Bus stand (2 no.s), Water supply (3 no.s), Food and civil
supplies (3 no.s), police stations (8 no.s) and fire stations (3 no.s).
• The buildings considered under Rehabilitation Centre majorly comprise of educational buildings
(Govt. 21 no.s, Pvt. 42 no.s), special institutions (3 no.s), community halls (2 no.s), parking (4 no.s)
and religious structure (1 no.).
• The buildings considered under Community shelter contains of 3 types: Training Venue, Main
Shelter and Contingency Shelter. Each component consists of 25 buildings.
However, it is to be noted that the above mentioned categories have some buildings in common.
The rapid visual survey has been done on the following basis:
3.1 Sample selection
The survey samples are those buildings which are considered as important to be used after earthquake
for administrative purpose and are not of residential nature. These buildings do not represent any
specific area and are distributed as per their existing location.
3.2 Instrument Used
The GPS device has been used for identifying the geographical location of the building. Additionally,
measuring tape have been used to measure the plan dimensions of the buildings and camera have
been used for capturing images of the buildings.
3.3 Data Collection
Visits were made to each of the selected buildings. The information was collected by filling rapid visual
survey format and photographs taken. The data collection process and further analysis of the collected
data was carried out.
8
The format used for the survey is prepared on the basis of Indian Standard codal provisions and with
the reference of existing RVS formats as given by BIS, NDMA, NIDM, IIT Roorkee, NIT Hamirpur to
check the present condition of the buildings. Separate forms have been used for masonry and
reinforced cement concrete (RCC) type buildings.
In the case of masonry construction, the parameters considered for the survey are layout of
masonry, mortar used, earthquake resistant features such as bands, vertical reinforcement, wall
bracings, through stone for random rubble masonry, sloping roof component such as ties, bracings,
wall opening percentage, wall thickness, roof type, roofing material.
Further the irregularities in the building are considered in the form of re-entrant corner,
diaphragm discontinuity, out of plane offsets (floating walls), non-parallel system, irregularity in
stiffness, mass & vertical geometry, staircase connectivity to building, bracing in roof, open ground
floor, floating wall, mezzanine floor, heavy mass at roof and partially filled panels.
The present status of the buildings surveyed are in terms of wall length/thickness ratio, wall
length and cracks in column, beam, floor & roof. The cracks were further categorized as fine (F),
moderate (M) and severe (S).
The anchorage condition regarding stabilization against earthquake of the following non
structural components are determined: partition wall, facade elements, false ceilings, brick
parapets/pillars/planters, water tank on roof, signs/display boards, almirah/racks, fire extinguisher.
Whereas, for the case of reinforced cement concrete (RCC) construction, the parameters
considered are whether the structural frame is of ordinary design without Earthquake Resistant
Design (ERD), Ordinary ERD with ordinary infill walls, ERD with ductile detailing provision or ERD
Ductile detailing provision with infill wall shear walls and braces.
The additional features surveyed from the earthquake disaster point of view are whether the
building is with soft storey, provision of fire safety devices, probability of land slide, non-anchorage
of heavy mass to the structural system, infill half-brick masonry walls or brick on edge walls, un
symmetrical placement of stair cases and elevators, plan aspect ratio, short column effect, floating
columns or floating structural walls, main load bearing columns along the length of the building plan,
beam-column supports/junctions centrally positioned in all floors or separation between adjacent
buildings less than 2% of building height.
The following structural irregularities are checked in the form of re-entrant corners,
diaphragm discontinuity, out of plane offsets, non-parallel system, vertical (stiffness) irregularity,
staircase connectivity and dampness.
3.4 Parameters considered for the format
9
The present status of the buildings were checked and presence of reinforcement corrosion
and thorough inspection of cracks in slab, beam and column are done. The cracks are further
categorized as fine (F), moderate (M) and severe (S).
The anchorage condition regarding stabilization against earthquake of the following non
structural components are determined: partition wall, facade elements, false ceilings, brick
parapets/pillars/planters, water tank on roof, signs/display boards, almirah/racks, fire extinguisher.
10
4. Format taken up for the study
RVS OF MASONRY BUILDINGS IN SHIMLA CITY
Date of inspection:
Name of the building
Building Type:_____
No. of floors:______
Location:________
Nearest Landmark:
Year Built:_______
1. Layout of masonry: Random rubble (Y / N) (b) Half-dressed stone (Y / N) (c) Brick masonry (Y / N)
2. Mortar used: (a)Mud mortar (b) Cement mortar (c) Lime mortar
3. Earthquake resistant features provided in the building:
(i) Bands: (a) Plinth (Y / N) (b) Sill (Y / N) (c) Lintel (Y / N) (d) Roof (Y / N) (e) Cannot say________
(ii) Vertical reinforcement at: (a) Corners (Y / N) (b) Junctions (Y / N) (c) Jambs of Openings (Y / N)
(iii) Wall Bracings (Y /N)
(iv) Through stone (Tick in case of Stone masonry): (a) Provided (Y / N)
(v) For Sloping roof: (a) Ties (Y / N) (b) Bracing (Y / N) (c) Roof and Gable band (Y / N)
4. Percentage openings in main w alls:_______________________________________
5. Thickness of: (a) Exterior w a ll_______ mm, (b) Interior w a ll_____________ mm
6. Roof type: (a) Flat roof (b) Sloping roof (c) Hipped roof (d) Others specify__________________
7. Roofing material: (a) RCC slab (b) Corrugated iron sheet (c) Stone Slates (d) Others___________
8. Irregularities in structure:-
S.No Description Yes No
i Re-entrant corner
ii Diaphragm discontinuity
iii Out of plane offsets (Floating walls)
iv Non parallel system
v Stiffness irregularity
vi Mass irregularity
vii Vertical geometry irregularity
viii Staircase connectivity to building
ix Bracing in roof
x Open ground floor
xi Floating wall
11
xii Mezzanine Floor
xiii Heavy mass at roof
xiv Partially filled panels
9. Present status of the building (Number of cracks to be entered)
S. No Description GF FF SF
i Whether Wall length/thickness Ratio <35 or Wall length>8m
ii Wall cracks F/M/S
iii Masonry Column F/M/S
iv Wooden Column F/M/S
v Wooden Beam F/M/S
vi R.C.C Beam F/M/S
vii Wooden Floor F/M/S
viii R.C.C. Roof
ix R.C.C. floors
10. Nonstructural Components
S. Item if provided and stabilized against Earthquake. Yes No N/A
I Partition (brick wall/wooden partitions)
ii Facade elements (cladding/decorative elements)
iii False Ceilings
iv Brick parapets / pillars / planters etc.v RC / Masonry/ plastic Water Tank on roofvi Signs/display boards etc.vii Almirah/Racks
viii Fire extinguisher
12
RVS OF R.C.C. BUILDINGS IN SHIMLA CITY
Date of inspection:Name of the building:____
Building Type:___________
No. of floors and height (m)
1.0 Structural frame Types:-
S.No. Description: Whether moment resistant frame - (RCF/SF) with :- YES NO
i Ordinary design without Earthquake Resistant Design(ERD)
ii Ordinary ERD and with ordinary in fill walls
iii ERD ductile detailing provision
iv ERD Ductile detailing provision, in fill wall shear walls and braces
2. 0. Description:
S .No. Whether the Building has :- YES NO
I Soft storey
ii Fire safety devices as per NBC-2005 in place
iii Land slide prone site
iv Any heavy mass not anchored to the structural system of Building
v Infill masonry wall made with half brick walls or brick on edge walls
vi Stair cases and elevators un-symmetrically placed in plan
vii Plan aspect ratio of the building more than 2.5
viii Situations to develop short column effect
ix Floating columns or floating structural walls
x Main load bearing columns are along the length of the building plan
xi Beam-column supports/junctions centrally positioned in all floors
xii Separation between the adjacent buildings is less than 2% height of building
Location:_________
Nearest Landmark: _
Year of construction:
13
3.0 Irregularities in structure:-
S.No Description YES NO
i Re-entrant corners
ii Diaphragm discontinuity
iii Out of plane offsets
iv Non parallel system
v Vertical (Stiffness) irregularity
vi Staircase connectivity
vii Dampness
4.0 Present status of Building (cracks to be entered):
S.No. Description GF FF SF
i Reinforcement corrosion
ii RCC Column F/M/S
iii RCC Beam F/M/S
iv RCC Slab F/M/S
5.0. Non-structural Building Components:
S.No. Items If provided and Stabilized against earthquake: YES NO N/AI Partition(brick wall/wooden partitions)
ii Facade-elements(cladding/decorative-elements)
iii False Ceilings
iv Brick parapets/pillars/ planters etc.
v RC/Masonry/Plastic Water Tank on roof
vi Signs/display boards etc.
vii Almirah/Racks
viii Fire extinguisher
14
5. Parametric Study of Functional, Structural and Non-structural Components
5.1 Important Buildings & Rehabilitation Centres
The important buildings and rehabilitation centres have been considered together for the parametric
analysis since both the categories of buildings are of immediate occupancy nature. Further, the
parametric study has been carried out for masonry and RCC typology separately.
5.1.1 Important Buildings and Rehabilitation Centres of Masonry typology
The parameters studied for masonry typology are layout of masonry, mortar used, bands, vertical
reinforcement if present at corners, junctions or jambs of opening, sloping roof features, roof type,
roofing material, irregularities in structure and anchorage of non-structural components.
vP0 s -
ClOC
DCD
CD_QED
6050403020100
& *9 * f
Fig. 5.1 : Layout of Masonry
Comments: The buildings were surveyed for the elements used in masonry. From the survey, about
90% of buildings came out to be using either half-dressed stone or brick masonry, which is a good
practice.
Recommendations: Random rubble should not be used in masonry.
Fig. 5.2 : Mortar Used
Comments: From the survey, about 15% buildings were found to be using mud mortar. However, for
rest of the case, either cement mortar or lime mortar has been used.
Recommendations: Mud mortar should not be used in earthquake-prone areas.
70
VPONtoClO_c
igD
CDM—Oi_Q)
_QED
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
* < ?/
/ cf
Fig. 5.3 : Bands
Comments: From the survey, it was found that about 60% of buildings have lintel bands, which is a
very good practice; but only 30% buildings were found having sill bands.
Recommendations: Sill bands should be introduced in buildings.
35NO
30 aa
25
5 20 4—
15(D
10 E
5 0
o0<
Fig. 5.4 : Vertical Reinforcement at several locations
Comments: It was found from the survey that only one-third of the buildings have vertical
reinforcement at jambs of opening, whereas only a few buildings were found having vertical
reinforcement at corners and junctions.
Recommendations: Vertical reinforcement should be provided both at corners, junctions and jambs
of opening.
16
g. 40to
3530252015
_Q1050
45
7?
Fig. 5.5 : Earthquake Resistant Features
Comments: Buildings with sloping roof were surveyed for provision of ties, bracings and roof and gable
band and it was found that about 40% of buildings are with bracings; whereas only 15-20% buildings
were found having ties and roof and gable bands.
Recommendations: Ties, bracings and roof and gable bands should be provided to improve
performance of buildings under effect of earthquake.
Fig. 5.6 : Roof Type
Comments: The buildings were checked for roof type. From the survey, it was found that very few
buildings have flat roof, which leads to more weight, thus more earthquake effect. Hence avoiding flat
roof in earthquake prone areas is a good practice.
Recommendations: NIL.
17
VP90to8070605040
-S33020100
100
Fig. 5.7 : Roofing Material
Comments: The buildings were surveyed for roofing material. From the survey, it was found that
corrugated iron sheets are used widely as roofing material, hence it is a good practice.
Recommendations: NIL.
Fig. 5.8 : Irregularities in Structures
Comments: The irregularities in the buildings were surveyed. The major issues found were partially
filled panels and re-entrant corners.
Recommendations: Irregularities in structures should be avoided to improve performance of
buildings.
18
■nO
60C
3CO
6050403020100
Fig. 5.9 : Irregularities in Structures
Comments: With continuation to fig. 5.8, staircase connectivity to buildings and inadequate bracing
in roof were major issues found as structural irregularity.
Recommendations: These structural irregularities should be avoided.
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 100 —
NOON
CuOCD
_Q
0>_QED
/ / /
&
oT
Fig. 5.10 : Non Structural Components
Comments: The buildings were surveyed against anchorage of non-structural components. The major
issues found were related to display boards, fire extinguisher, false ceilings, facade elements and
partition.
Recommendations: All the non-structural components should be properly anchored.
19
The param eters considered for study are structural fram e type, aspect of soft storey, provision
of fire safety devices, land slide prone site issue, non-anchorage of heavy mass to the structural
system, infill half-brick masonry walls or brick on edge walls, un-symmetrical placement of stair cases
and elevators, plan aspect ratio, short column effect, floating columns or floating structural walls, main
load bearing columns along the length of the building plan, beam-column supports/junctions centrally
positioned in all floors or separation between adjacent buildings less than 2% of building height, re
entrant corners, diaphragm discontinuity, out of plane offsets, non-parallel system, vertical (stiffness)
irregularity, staircase connectivity and dampness, reinforcement corrosion, cracks in slab, beam and
column, stabilization against earthquake of the non-structural components such as partition wall,
facade elements, false ceilings, brick parapets/pillars/planters, water tank on roof, signs/display
boards, almirah /racks, fire extinguisher.
5.1.2 Important Buildings and Rehabilitation Centres of RCC typology
V O rdinary design w ithout ERD
O O rdinary ERD and with ordinary in fillw alls
= ERD ductile detailing provision
11 ERD ductile detailing provision,in fill wall shear w alls and braces
Fig. 5.11 : Structural Frame Type
Comments: The building structural frame type was surveyed against earthquake resistant design (ERD)
provisions. From the survey it was found that only half of the buildings possess the ERD provisions.
Recommendations: ERD provisions should be implemented to all buildings.
20
II Soft story
^ Land Slide Prone site
= Fire safety devices as per NBC-2005 in place
O Any heavy m ass not anchored to structural system of building
= Separation between adjacent building <2% height of building
II Plan aspect ratio of the building more than 2.5
Fig. 5.12 : Structural and Locational Deficiency
Comments: The buildings were surveyed against the above-mentioned criteria. Most of the buildings
(70%) were found having fire safety devices and about one-third buildings are too close to
neighborhood buildings.
Recommendations: Buildings should have enough free space between each other.
100
50
V77A
E3 Infill m asonry wall made with half brick w alls or brick on edge walls
H Stair cases and elevators un-sym m etrically placed in plan
■ situation to develop short colum n effect
H Floating colum ns or floating structural walls
m Main load bearing colum ns are along the length of the building plan
B Beam colum n supports/junctions centrally positioned in all floors
01
Fig. 5.13 : Wall and Column
Comments: The major issue located in this section is unsymmetrical placement of staircase in plan;
whereas rest seems to be OK.
Recommendations: Staircase is placed near the entrance and/or exit of a building. Hence the entrance
and/or exit points should be placed symmetrically in plan.
21
80
70xp~
60toaa50
40CO
o 30l—<v
20E■g 10
0
CDCouc
cCDCDor
0
ClOTOO uCO
Q T3
Q.TO
OCDC_roQ.
3O
m
ECD
co
TOQ.
>
COTO
7 CO
I
toto0)cQ.EtcQ
Fig. 5.14 : Irregularities in Structure
Comments: From the survey carried out on buildings, staircase connectivity and dampness were found
to be major problems related to irregularities in structure.
Recommendations: Irregularities in structure should be avoided in structures.
90
80c?
70COClO 60
50_Q
40O(D 30
_Q20
10
0
= COro c<: .2
c cO (D '43 -O '43 O
(Dco > ■—
QJ "OCD ClO "O Cs ^CO “Ou_ ro
u
CO"Oc_CO
ClO >*in _2
CD1=3ClOC
CD
Fig. 5.15 : Non Structural Building Components
Comments: The anchorage of non-structural building components were surveyed. From the survey,
anchorage of sign/display board were came out to be major issue. Apart from that, fire extinguisher,
facade elements and false ceilings too were found to be non-anchored in most cases.
Recommendations: All the non-structural components should be properly anchored.
22
The survey of the ordinary buildings along the roads were carried out. These buildings mostly comprise
of hotels, restaurants and residential. Hence these buildings being of ordinary importance factor are
always susceptible to moderate to severe damage during earthquake of high intensity. Hence their
failure during earthquake would result in highly decreased traffic mobility, thus posing difficulty for
post-disaster management.
5.2.1 Buildings along the main roads of Masonry typology
The parameters studied for masonry typology are layout of masonry, mortar used, bands, vertical
reinforcement if present at corners, junctions or jambs of opening, sloping roof features, roof type,
roofing material, irregularities in structure and anchorage of non-structural components.
5.2 Buildings along the main roads
Xpo x120100
CuOc
DCO
0J-S 3ED
806040200
\g>XV5ST
Fig. 5.16 : Layout of Masonry
Comments: The layout of masonry were surveyed in the buildings. In the result, most of the buildings
found out to be using brick masonry.
Recommendations: Use of brick masonry itself is a good practice.
Fig. 5.17 : Mortar Used
Comments: The buildings were surveyed and the type of mortar used were noted. It was noted that
in most of the buildings cement mortar has been used, whereas a few buildings (10%) were found to
be using lime mortar. Hence it is a good practice.
Recommendations: NIL.
23
VPOV
QlOC
DCO
OJ-S3ED
9080706050403020100
< // °<<?
Fig. 5.18 : Roof Type
Comments: A part of the survey was carried out to check the roof types used. Flat roof seems to be
avoided, hence it is a good practice.
Recommendations: NIL.
vPON'XnClOc
DCQ
O)_QED
120100806040200 I
/ A** ° v
4d“
Fig. 5.19 : Roofing Material
Comments: The result obtained from the survey clearly shows that there is wide use of corrugated
iron sheet as roofing material, hence it is a good practice.
Recommendations: NIL.
Fig. 5.20 : Irregularities in Structure
24
Comments: This part of the survey was carried out to find out the irregularities in structure. From the
survey it was found that the major irregularity issues were stiffness irregularity, floating wall and
partially filled panels.
Recommendations: Structural irregularities should be avoided.
Xpo x
QlOC
D-S3
OJ-S3
ED
12 10 8 6 4 2 0
& «S> s ? &
aP& £
&<y
«c?&
$ <? xS'£ &
Fig. 5.21 : Non Structural Components
Comments: From the survey carried out on the buildings it is clear that only few buildings (10%) have
fulfilled the anchorage provisions of non-structural components.
Recommendations: All non-structural components should be properly anchored.
25
5.2.2 Buildings along the main roads of RCC typology
The parameters considered for study are structural frame type, aspect of soft storey, provision of fire
safety devices, land slide prone site issue, non-anchorage of heavy mass to the structural system, infill
half-brick masonry walls or brick on edge walls, un-symmetrical placement of stair cases and elevators,
plan aspect ratio, short column effect, floating columns or floating structural walls, main load bearing
columns along the length of the building plan, beam-column supports/junctions centrally positioned
in all floors or separation between adjacent buildings less than 2% of building height, re-entrant
corners, diaphragm discontinuity, out of plane offsets, non-parallel system, vertical (stiffness)
irregularity, staircase connectivity and dampness, reinforcement corrosion, cracks in slab, beam and
column, stabilization against earthquake of the non-structural components such as partition wall,
facade elements, false ceilings, brick parapets/pillars/planters, water tank on roof, signs/display
boards, almirah/racks, fire extinguisher.
® Ordinary design with out ERD
® ERD ductile detailing provision
ERD ductile detaining provision,in fill shear wall and braces
® Ordinary ERD and with ordinary in fill walls
Fig. 5.22 : Structural Frame Type
Comments: The buildings were surveyed against provision of ERD. From the survey, it was found that
about one-third of the buildings does not have ERD provisions.
Recommendations: ERD provisions should be implemented in all buildings.
26
■ Infill masonry wall made with half brick walls or brick on edge walls
$8 Situations to develop short column effect
H Floating column or Floating structural walls
Main load bearing columns are along the length of the building plan
H Beam column /junctions centrally positioned in all floors
Fig. 5.23 : Wall and Column
Comments: A part of the survey was carried out for the above-said features. From the survey, no
major issue was found.
Recommendations: NIL.
0 Soft storey
Land slide prone site
Any heavy mass not anchored to the structural system of building
plan aspect ratio of the building more than 2.5
§ separation between the adjacent buildings is less than 2% height of building
■ Infill masonry wall made with half brick walls or brick on edge walls
M Situations to develop short column effect
H Floating column or Floating structural walls
Main load bearing columns are along the length of the building plan
S Beam column supports /junctions centrally positioned in all floors
Fig. 5.24 : Structural and Locational Deficiency
27
Comments: The above-mentioned features in the buildings were surveyed. In result, plan aspect ratio
and inadequate separation between buildings were came out to be major issues. However, some
buildings were found to be constructed on landslide prone site.
Recommendations: Buildings should not be constructed on landslide prone site. Aspect ratio of
buildings should not be too large (>2.5). Buildings should have adequate space in between them.
Fig. 5.25 : Irregularities in Structure
Comments: The buildings were surveyed for irregularities in structure. From the survey, it was found
that very few buildings have structural irregularities. Hence the buildings can be termed as safe from
this particular context.
Recommendations: NIL.
20
18
16CO
14
12
10
0)_Q
E
co
O CDCO t/)
5 "2
Lo
Fig. 5.26 : Non Structural Building Components
Comments: Anchorage of non-structural building components were surveyed and as per the result
obtained, about 20% buildings do not have proper anchorage of non-structural building components.
Recommendations: All non-structural building components should be properly anchored.
28
5.3 Community Shelters
Shim la M unicipal Corporation decided to have a list of buildings that can be used as shelter
for the com m on people of the com m unity. These shelters have been selected as one per
ward.
5.3.1 Community Shelters of Masonry typology
The param eters studied for m asonry typology are layout of m asonry, m ortar used, bands,
vertical reinforcem ent if present at corners, junctions or jam bs of opening, sloping roof
features, roof type, roofing m aterial, irregularities in structure and anchorage of no n
structural com ponents.
Xpo x
toaacigD
COM—Ot_OJ
-S3
ED
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 153
Fig. 5.27 : Layout of Masonry
Comments: The buildings were surveyed for the elements used in masonry. From the survey, about
95% of buildings came out to be using either half-dressed stone or brick masonry.
Recommendations: Random rubble should not be used in masonry.
Fig. 5.28 : Mortar Used
29
Comments: The buildings were surveyed and the type of mortar used were noted. It was noted that
in most of the buildings cement mortar has been used, whereas some buildings (20%) were found to
be using lime mortar.
Recommendations: Mud mortar should not be used in buildings.
vPON
COCuo
DCD4—Oi_Q)
_QED
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0&
Fig. 5.30 : Bands
Comments: A part of the survey was carried out to find out provision of bands provided. From the
result obtained, it has been found that about 65% buildings have lintel bands, whereas only 25%
buildings have bands at sill level.
Recommendations: Sill level bands along with lintel bands should be provided in buildings.
Xpo xTo"aacigDCQ
M—O&_0JED
4035302520151050
Fig. 5.31 : Vertical Reinforcement at several locations
Comments: From the survey carried out on the buildings, it was found that only one-third of the
buildings have vertical reinforcement at jambs of opening.
Recommendations: Vertical reinforcement should be provided at both corners, junctions and jambs
of opening.
30
VPOV'uTaac
DCO
OJ-S3ED
454035302520151050
r*
XT
(F
Fig. 5.32 : Earthquake Resistant Features
Comments: For buildings having sloping roof, provision of ties, bracings and roof and gable bands have
been surveyed. From the result it was found that about 40% buildings have bracings; whereas only
few buildings have provision of tie and roof and gable band.
Recommendations: For sloped roof constructions, provision of ties, bracings and roof and gable bands
are necessary.
NOON
CuOCD
CQ
0>_QED
706050403020100
//
/jp
&
&
Fig. 5.33 : Roof Type
Comments: The types of roofs were surveyed and as per the result, a few buildings to be having flat
roof, which is a good practice for earthquake-prone areas.
Recommendations: NIL.
31
Fig. 5.34 : Roofing Material
Comments: The result obtained from the survey clearly shows that corrugated iron sheet as roofing
material has widely been used in buildings, which is a good practice.
Recommendations: NIL.
Fig. 5.35 : Irregularities in Structures
Comments: The buildings were surveyed for irregularities in structures. From the data obtained, it is
clear that re-entrant corner, vertical geometry irregularity and partially filled panels are the major
issues regarding irregularity.
Recommendations: Irregularities in structures should be avoided for the sake of improved
performance of buildings under earthquake.
32
Fig. 5.36 : Irregularities in Structures
Comments: This part of the survey was carried out to find out the irregularities in structures along
with fig. 5.35. From the survey, it was seen that staircase connectivity to building and bracing were
found to be major issues regarding irregularity.
Recommendations: Irregularities in structures should be avoided for the sake of improved
performance of buildings under earthquake.
SC
QlOC
D-S3
OJ-S3
ED
9080706050403020100
/< f
&
/
I
£
m
AA , ' * CcP O'
Fig. 5.37 : Non Structural Components
Comments: The survey carried out on buildings was also regarding anchorage of non-structural
components. From the survey, it was found that the major non-anchorage issues were with false
ceilings, display boards and fire extinguishers.
Recommendations: All the non-structural building components should be properly anchored.
33
5.3.2 Safe Shelters of RCC typology
The parameters considered for study are structural frame type, aspect of soft storey, provision of fire
safety devices, land slide prone site issue, non-anchorage of heavy mass to the structural system, infill
half-brick masonry walls or brick on edge walls, un-symmetrical placement of stair cases and elevators,
plan aspect ratio, short column effect, floating columns or floating structural walls, main load bearing
columns along the length of the building plan, beam-column supports/junctions centrally positioned
in all floors or separation between adjacent buildings less than 2% of building height, re-entrant
corners, diaphragm discontinuity, out of plane offsets, non-parallel system, vertical (stiffness)
irregularity, staircase connectivity and dampness, reinforcement corrosion, cracks in slab, beam and
column, stabilization against earthquake of the non-structural components such as partition wall,
facade elements, false ceilings, brick parapets/pillars/planters, water tank on roof, signs/display
boards, almirah/racks, fire extinguisher.
Xpo x
CigD
COM—OOJ
-S3
ED
35
30
2520
15
105
0
^ O rd in a ry design w ithout ERD
^ ERD ductile detailingprovision,in fill wall shear w alls and braces
O rdinary ERD and with ordinary infill walls
= ERD ductile detailing provision
Fig. 5.38 : Structural Frame Type
Comments: From the survey done on the buildings against ERD, it was found that about 20% of
buildings do not have ERD provisions.
Recommendations: ERD provisions should be incorporated in design of buildings.
34
60
N Land Slide Prone site
II Soft story
= Fire safety devices as per NBC-2005 in place
= Separation between adjacent building <2% of height of building
^ Plan aspect ratio of the building more than 2.5
Any heavy m ass not anchored to structural system of building
Fig. 5.39 : Structural and Locational Deficiency
Comments: From the survey carried out for the above-mentioned features, the major issue found out
was regarding higher plan aspect ratio (30% cases); whereas separation between buildings was also
an issue (20% cases).
Recommendations: Plan aspect ratio of buildings should not be too high and also there should be
adjacent separation between buildings.
35
120
100
80
60
40
20
01
E3 Infill m asonry wall made w ith half brick w alls or brick on edge walls
H Stair cases and elevators un-sym m etrically placed in plan
■ situation to develop short colum n effect
Q Floating colum ns or floating structural w alls
[D Main load bearing colum ns are along the length o f the building plan
0 Beam colum n supports/junctions centrally positioned in all floors
Fig. 5.40 : Wall and Column
Comments: A part of the survey was carried out for the above-said features. From the survey, no
major issue was found except unsymmetrical placement of staircase.
Recommendations: Staircase should be symmetrically placed in building.
NOON
ClOc
DCD
0>_QED
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CDci_ou
-Mc05i_+-»cCDCDCC ClO
03
OM u 00Q '~o
CL03
CDc
Q .M—o
■M
O
03Q_Co
3ClOCD
03UCD>
>-M
■4—'UCDCcouCD0003Ui—
03■MCO
Fig. 5.41 : Irregularities in Structure
36
Dam
pnes
s
Comments: Among the buildings surveyed for irregularities in structure, staircase connectivity to
building and dampness were found to be major issues.
Recommendations: Irregularities in structure should be avoided to enhance performance of buildings
under earthquake.
60c
Fig. 5.42 : Non Structural Building Components
Comments: The buildings were surveyed against anchorage of non-structural building components.
From the results, it was found that major anchorage-related issues were with false ceiling, display
boards and fire extinguishers.
Recommendations: All non-structural building components should be properly anchored.
37
Bibliography
1. IS 456:2000 -- Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice.
2. IS 732:1989 (Reaffirmed 2005) -- Code of Practice for Electrical Wiring Installations.
3. IS 1127:1970 (Reaffirmed 2003) -- Recommendations for Dimensions and Workmanship of Natural Building Stones for Masonry Work.
4. IS 1172:1993 (Reaffirmed 2002) -- Code of Basic Requirements for Water Supply, Drainage and Sanitation.
5. IS 1597(Part 2):1992 -- Construction of Stone Masonry - Code of practice: Part 2 Ashlar masonry.
6. IS 1646:1997 -- Code of Practice for Fire Safety of Buildings (General): Electrical Installations.
7. IS 1661:1972 (Reaffirmed 2001) -- Code of Practice for Application of Cement and Cement-Lime Plaster Finishes.
8. IS 1742:1983 (Reaffirmed 2002) -- Code of Practice for Building Drainage.
9. IS 1893(Part 1):2002 -- Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures: Part 1 General Provisions and Buildings.
10. IS 1905:1987 (Reaffirmed 2002) -- Code of Practice for Structural use of Unreinforced Masonry.
11. IS 2065:1983 (Reaffirmed 2001) -- Code of practice for water supply in buildings.
12. IS 2116:1980 (Reaffirmed 2002) -- Specification for Sand for masonry mortars.
13. IS 2212:1991 (Reaffirmed 2005) -- Brickworks - Code of practice.
14. IS 2250:1981 (Reaffirmed 1995) -- Code of Practice for Preparation and Use of Masonry Mortars.
15. IS 2527:1984 (Reaffirmed 2000) -- Code of Practice for Fixing Rainwater Gutters and Downpipesfor Roof Drainage.
16. IS 2571:1970 (Reaffirmed 2001) -- Code of Practice for Laying In-Situ Cement Concrete Flooring.
17. IS 2645:2003 (Reaffirmed 2005) -- Integral Waterproofing Compounds for Cement Mortar and Concrete - Specification.
18. IS 3067:1988 (Reaffirmed 2000) -- Code of practice for General Design Details and Preparatory Work for Damp-proofing and Water-proofing of Buildings.
19. IS 3414:1968 (Reaffirmed 2000) -- Code of Practice for Design and Installation of Joints in Buildings.
20. IS 4326:1993 (Reaffirmed 2003) -- Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings - Code Of Practice.
38
21. IS 4837:1990 (Reaffirmed 2002) -- School Furniture, Classroom Chairs and Tables - Recommendations.
22. IS 4913:1968 (Reaffirmed 1996) -- Code of Practice for Selection, Installation and Maintenance of Timber Doors and Windows.
23. IS 6295:1986 (Reaffirmed 2001) -- Code of Practice for Water Supply and Drainage in High Altitudes and/or Sub-zero Temperature Regions.
24. IS 7662(Part 1):1974 (Reaffirmed 2004) -- Recommendations for Orientation of Buildings: Part 1 Non-industrial Buildings.
25. IS 7942:1976 (Reaffirmed 2004) -- Code of Practice for Daylighting of Educational Buildings.
26. IS 8225:1987/ISO 354:1985 (Reaffirmed 2002) -- Measurement of Sound Absorption in a Reverberation Room.
27. IS 8827:1978 (Reaffirmed 2006) -- Recommendations for Basic Requirements of School Buildings.
28. IS 9077:1979 (Reaffirmed 2002) -- Code of Practice for Corrosion Protection of Steel Reinforcement in RB and RCC Construction.
29. IS 10894:1984 (Reaffirmed 2005) -- Code Of Practice for Lighting of Educational Institutions.
30. IS 12054:1987 (Reaffirmed 2002) -- Code of Practice for Application of Silicone-based Water Repellents.
31. IS 12183(Part 1):1987 (Reaffirmed 2004) -- Code of Practice for Plumbing in Multi-storeyed Buildings: Part 1 Water Supply.
32. IS 13182:1991 (Reaffirmed 2000) -- Waterproofing and Damp-proofing of Wet Areas in Building - Recommendations.
33. IS 14435:1997 (Reaffirmed 2002) -- Fire Safety in Educational Institutions - Code of Practice.
34. IS 14458(Part 2):1997 (Reaffirmed 2002) -- Retaining Wall for Hill Area: Part 2 Design of Retaining/Breast walls.
35. SP 25:1984 -- Handbook on Causes and Prevention of Cracks in Buildings.
39
A A L L
Loharb Oghna 1 1 0 0 % ~ n r G o o g l e m a p
K hi I
Dhenda
Sharog
Harun
H iun
Sanog Uperla
Barhai
GulchhaKaranda
Shal
B H A l
Neri
K a b i
Paoba
K E L S T O N
C H A I L L Y Ron
A nji co]
JanolS U M M E R H I L L
Chahli Kaian
Kalawat
N i u n
Karog
Bhakoo
Kelti Maron
Muhal Dudhali
Dhi
Ka
Bagoloo
Pagog
Barohi
Up-Muhal Devli Dhar
Gahan
I n d i a n I n s t i t u t e O f — A d v a n c e d S t u d y *
IAWRI
Fatechi
B h a rya I
J a d e n i
L O N G \Naog
F I N C A S K E S T A T E C O M B L E Y <5> T H E ,
*■I n d i r
BANKSNOP ;T H W E L L 1N G
fE S T A T E U l I
D PL A L P A N I H O U S I N G B O A R D C O L O N Y
S A N G TUB O H
f r i a oP M A u ii *A N, A F■ I M A R Y A H A N
V I L L A G E
G H O R A C H O W K tv*? IL SI N <3 E S T A f l
TAL
T U T I K A N D I
S : I A N A NN A VmHA HARK NI I : -r:H j\
k v Am
F O R E S T C O L O N YB A C H
M A L Y A N AK H A L I N lS T R A W B E R R Y H I L L
S E C T O R 4
N E W S H I M L A
Dha
Bha <s>via
A n u
N i h a n
C E M E T E R Y
Shara wag
Jangal Shara wag
Badaya
Rug
B H A T T A K U F E R
Barmu
C H A K R A Y A L
Badf
J anga Badfar-
D watD E V N A G A R
V I K A S N A G A RS E C T O R 8
S H I V N A G A RV S U DA
Bagag li M a i h t h a i
Im m e d ia te O c c u p a n c yA d m in i s t r a t i o n
1.1 H P Secretariat Chota Shimla1.3 P olice headquarter Shimla1.4 D C O ffice Shimla1.5 M C O ffice Shimla1.6 D istrict C ourt Chakkar1.7 SSP O ffice ShimlaI S O ffice O f C iv il D efen ce & H om e G uard Shimla 1.9 P .W D N ig am vthar
1 .10 M eteoroLogical Centre1.11 N C C B h a w a n1.12 Fire Station M a ll road1.13 Forest Departm ent T a Hand
H o s p i t a l
2.1 IG M C Shimla2 .2 R ip p on H ospital M a ll R oad2.3 K am la N ehru H ospital Portm ore2 .4 R ed C ross S ociety C hota Shimla2 .5 Indus H ospital (N a v Bahar)2 .6 T enzm hospital Panthagathi2 .7 Shimla San lonum
E le c t r ia l s u b s t a t i o n
3.1 H P S E B P ow er H ouse Totu3 .2 H P S E B P ow er Sub Station K asnm pti3 .3 H P SE B P ow er Sub Station M a ll road
T e le c o m m u n ic a t io n
4.1 C .T .O M a ll R oad4 .2 B .S .N .L T elephone exchange Sanjauh4.3 B S N L Telephone E xch an ge N e w Shimla4 .4 B S N L Tel. E xchange T otu4 .5 B S N L Tel. E xchange C hota Shimla4 .6 A irtei K asm npn4 .7 R elianace H ead o ff ic e K asum pan4.S T A T A D o c o m o Kasnm pti4 .9 V od a fon e K asnm pti
4 .10 Idea K haluuI n f o r m a t i o n D is s e m in a t io n
5.1 A ll India R ad io Sum m er hill5 .2 D oordarshan Shimla
T r a n s p o r a t io n
T u n n e l
5. 1 V ic t o r y T u n n e l5.2 Dtialli Tu n n e l5.3 Low er Bazar P e destrian (Tunn el)
Bridge
7.1 Lift b r id g e7.2 A u c k la n d B rid g e
B u s standS I ISBT Tutikandi8.2 O ld B us Stand Shimla
W a t e r s u p p ly
9.1 W ater Pum ping Station kasum pd9.2 W ater Tank Saryauh9.3 W a te r Ta n k (K asum pti)
10.110.3
11.111.211.311.411.5 11.8 11.9
12.112.212.3
13.1.1
.3 .1 .2 13.1.3 L3.1.4 13 1 5
F o o d & C iv i l S u p p l ie s
F o o d gram god ow n Bhatta kuffer L P G G od ow n Bhatta K u ffe i
P o l ic e s t a t i o n
P olice Station (N ew Shimla)P olice Station B oileuganj P oh ce Station C hota Shimla P oh ce Station D halh P olice Station Sadar P olice Station Lakkar Bazar P oh ce Station Sanjauh
F ir e s t a t i o n
Fire station Chota Shimla Fire Station M a ll road Fire Station B oileugan;H P U . S u m m e r H i l l
R e h a b il ita t io nE d u c a t i o n a l
G o v t.C O E . G ovt. C o llege Sanjauh G S S S Portm ore G S S S L alp amR Ct C-rYwrt D p p t p p C n l l p w K r » t ' . i u > n
13.2 .2613.2 .27 13.2.2S13.2 .2913.2 .3013.2.3113.2 .3213.2 .3313.2 .3413.2 .3513.2 .3613.2 .37 13.2.3S13.2 .3913.2 .4013.2.4113.2 .42
13.2.213.2.313.2 .4 13-2.513.2.613.2 .713.2.813.2 .9
13.2 .1013.2.11
G H S Anna dale 1G .H .S B haran 1G H S C Laura M aidanG H S D halhG .H .S JakhooG H S KarthuG H S K haluuG H S Krishna N agarG H S Sum mer hillG H S T uti kandxG S S S BoileuganjG S S S C hota ShimlaG S S S Lakkar BazarG H S PhaghG .S .S .S Portm oreG S S S SanjauhG S S S T otu
Private
St. B ede's C o llege (N a v B ahar)St.Edw ards S ch oo l H im LandD A V Sr S ec S ch oo l N ew ShimlaD A V P u b l i c S r . S e c . S c h o o l ( L a k k a r B a z a rD A V P ublic S ch o o l T otuR K M V A uck landS V M V ik a snagarA uckland H ouse sch oo l ShimlaCentral S ch oo l fo r T ibetan C hota ShimlaB ishop C otton S ch oo l Shimla
17.1
L oreto C onvent (Tarahall)Ice Skating R in g Lakkar BazarA rva S r S ec S ch oo l ShimlaB al Shiksha N iketan ChakkarB lue B ells H igh S ch oo l D halhC hasp lee S ch oo l ShimlaD ayanand P ublic S ch oo l ShimlaE C I C halet D a y S ch oo l ShimlaH am ault P ubhc S ch o o l B enm oreH appy M od e l H igh S ch oo l SanjauhH im alayan P ubhc S ch oo l KarthuKenchrya V idyalaya JakhooLaureate P ubhc S ch oo l B haranMomal P ubhc S ch oo l SanjauhSacred Heart S ch oo l DhalhSanjay Gandhi Sr S ec S ch oo l N ew ShimlaSavxtn P ubhc S chool (Talland)S D S ch oo l R am B azar Shimla P ubhc S ch oo l Khalm i Shishu Shiksha N iketan T otu S P M M od e l S ch oo l E ngine Ghar St. M a n y S ch oo l Chakkar St. Thom as S ch o o l (Shim la)
S p e c ia l i n s t i t u t i o n
Anath A shram Tutikandi S ch oo l O f B lind C hildren (D h alh )S ch oo l O f Speech & H earing Im paired Children
C o m m u n i t y H a ll
C om m um tv C enter N e w Shimla C om m m itv H all Dhalh
P a r k in g
C ar Parking H igh C ourt Shimla M C ca r Parking Shimla N ew C ar Parking (N ear H H H )N ew C ar Parking (San jauh)
ReligiousK a h b a n Tem ple
E x t r a B u i l d i n g a
P oh ce L ine KarthuGrand H otelS SB C am pus Fir hillH im fed M ilk Plan N e w TotuG ovt Prim ary S ch oo l Sankatm ochanA m bedkai Bha w an Krishna N agarM ist C ham ber Forest C o lo u v Khaluu
Ban
>V
K h il
D h e n d a
a S h a ro g
H arun H iun
Sa rto g U p erla
B a rh a i
CHAILLY
— K o lu K i K w a li
C h a h l
K a irJ a n o l R ori
SUMMER HILLC h a h li K a la n
N iun
A m i TEACHERS f ln ) ' COLONY
K h u rd 0
Kalawat
B - o h i
0 J u t o g h
w j j j Ja b lo g
F a te c h i
Neri
G a h a n
Ind ian In s titu te O fAdvanced S tudy The
BOIL
ecil. Sh im la ~
PANJARI
GHORA CHOWKI TUTIKANDI
CHAKKAR
SANDALAnji
KYARI
h a ry a l BAG H
& b l .
D w at
la2a
I3a4a5a6a7a
) 8a9a10a11a
[12a13a
Safe ShelterPolice line BliaranIce Skating Ring Lakkar BazarLoreto Convent TarahallSimula Nursing College AimadaleHPU Sum m er HillA A Y BEE Banquet Hall TotuGopal Mandir BoiluganjG .S.S.S Tuti kandiRailway Club NabliaG .S.S.S PliaghValm iki M andir Krishna nagar SD School Ram Bazar D A V Prunary School Mall
G u lc h h aK a ra n d a
S h a l
II
| 1 0 0 % ■»■ I | G o o g le m a p
N eriK a b i
P a o b a
KELSTON
K a ro g
B h a k o o
K e lti M aron
M uhal O u d h a li
3 ?D h a g o i
K a n d i
B a g o lo o
£•*1 l IT HU
£
P a g o g
K, ___ LONCY<&mamN ao g
K a t li
M u n g a rD h ar
FIN GCOMBLEY
BANKS
ESTATE
^all f),Indira Gandhi
Jedic
U p -M u h a l D e v li D h ar
lalpani
PHAGLI
£ ___sQ .____Lakhu Tem ple &ns
BOTHWELL NORTH OAK DINGU BAWI ESTATE - SANJAULI
A n u
C h e n
C h u ra t N a lla
HOUSING D BOARD COLON^mm1SANGTI FRI
AHAN S h a ra w a g
J a n g a lS h a ra w a g
B a d a y a
■ a Ant
KANLOG
MILSINC ESTATE
TALLAND NAVBHAHAR SHANANBHATTAKUFER
B arm u
NIG AM VIHARCHOTTA SHiMLA
FOREST COLONY ‘ S H
KHALINI w
w
SECTOR 4
MALY AN A
CHAMIYANA
J a n g a lB a d fa r - I
R u g
CHAKRAYAL
KHALJOG
C h h a li
B a d fa r
J a n g a lB a d fa r - l i
B a n re ru
STRAWBERRY HILL
J a n g a l B a rm u
CHAURIPTINEW SHIMLA DEV NAGAR
VIKASNAGARSECTOR 8
SHIV NAGAR
TOLAGSHAURALA
L a m b i D har
lb R K M V Auckland 2b MC Rest House Bharari 3b Community Center C'hungi Kkana 4b R.G. Govt. Degree College Kotsheia
7b Sankat Mockan Temple8b I.S.B.T Tutikandi9b Govt Primary School Nabha10b Building O f Education Deptt. Phaglil i b G .S .S.S Lalpani12b Old Bus Stand Simula13b Indira Gandhi Sports Complex Mall
15b Radhasow m i Satsang Hall Benm ore
HIMUDAn m n i u v
14a Kendnya Vidvalaya Jaklioo15a Hamault Public School Benmore16a SPM Model School Engine Gliar17a St. Xavier School Sanjauh C'hovvk 17b Govt. Degree College Sanjauh18a Janjatiya Bhavvan Dhalh 18b M C Office Dhalh19a Shivalik Institute o f Nursing Bliattakufer 19b Hill Grove Sr Sec School C'hamiyana20a Sarasvvati Paradise School 20b Dnectorate of Horticulture Nav Baliar21a SV M Vikasnagar 21b G .S .S.S Kasumpati22a Central School for Tibetan Cliota Simula 22b Woodvilla Palace Hotel C'hota Simula23a C’onmimutv’ Center New Simula 23b D A V Sr Sec School New Simula24a Forest Rest House Khalmi 24b Bishop Cotton School Shimla25a Central Potato Research Institute Kanlog 25b St.Edwards School Hunland
42
C a rt R oadGitanjali Cottage Barnet SimulaOld Barriel(First Shop)K a r o qOld Barriel(Last Shop)S .4 N G T J
Regional Transport OfficeB h a k o o Oberoi Staff Rest House
SWIMMER HILL Hotel Oberoi CECIL SimulaP a g o g Tree(Near by Oberoi Hotel)
Labour Bureau O fficeM L A Rest HouseK AIT H Uachal Prudesh
A N N A D A L EUmv rs ity L 0 M G iv ld lian SabliaN a o g
S H A N K L I 10 M ES Inspection Bungalow'NY
11 Hotel VictorsCHERif L O N Victory Tunnel(First Shop)R a ilw a y s Victory Tunnel(Last Shop)
13 Bindu Raj DharmashalaT H E M A L L I D G A H C O L O N Yc a m b L lt v14 Cedar Grand HotelB A N K S P&TCOLONY15 R Tech Signal (Anuy Building)
■ Gref 1 6 Ranjan Hotel«*■ Christ Churc
7"o A n n a d a l e Old Bus Stop(First Shop)Shimla Old Railway BIndian Ins titu te OfEL a ZAnAdvanced Study s Old Bus Stop(Last Shop)CHAURA
ShimlaMAI D AN 1S Hotel V lkrantForest Area *
Local Bus StopiFirst Shop)K n I U N A N A G A RL A L P A N I Local Bus Stop! Last Shop)
Colors o f India Tours 20 GurdwaraPrivate Lim ited
21 Rippon Staff Rest HouseBOIL-EAUGANJ22 Hotel KolunoorP H A G L IS W A N A L G A R D E N23 Hotel MahainavaP A N J A R I
24 Tara View HotelZD Forest Department talland2D Deshraj Buildingh o r a \c h o w k i O K E S P L A iF U T I K A N D i M I L S I N G T C 26 uslia TradmgE S T A T E27 Lift bridge28 Hotel Crystal Palace
K A N L O G 29 Vidhan Sliablia Staff Rest HouseWater Tr.;Negr/30 High Court(New building)K A C H I G H A T T I
Rhawe 31 Tree(New Bemloe)K Y A R I
32 Udyog Bhawanoe ytotel33 Raiupal Shood Hnuland
F O R E S T C O L O N Y 34 2s inuaL Bliawan HnulandBAG H3D Balson Apartment Hnuland36 HP Headquarter Forest Departm ent
> Devi Temple ,So 37 Dnectorate o f Urban Dev elopment TollandBHAGWATITc Sankat M ochan Temple NAGAfl 38 C P W D Staff rest House Nigain V uiarW ater T a n k
K H A L I N I 39 PW D Departm entBISHOP COTTONSCHOOLC e n t e r : 3 1 . 1 0 5 8 0 , 7 7 . 1 6 5 7 6 40 HP Police Headquarter
Police Station Chota Shimla4 1M a p d a t a © 2 <
43
| 100% t | | Google map
Chungi Khana
Ram garhia Sabha
Sterling Castle
Bharari Regency
Garhwal Bhawan
Fnends ApartmentSecondry Delight Bar f 1
Sain ik Rest HouseHotel Paradise Regency
Batsley Bungalow
Jundokan Goju-Ryu K arate-Do Federation...
M Rad isson Hotel Shim la
Rajkiya KanyaLoreto Convent Tara Hall
Heritage Museum 9 ^
Army Recruitment Office
CYrcufej,Auckland School
Hotel Barowalia Resorts
0/* s r RdShim la British Resort
Indira Gandhi M edical College
Sh im la Youth HostelStrathmore Building Govt Dental College&Hospital
Koeniq Solutions IT Offsnore TrainingPostal Quarters
The Mall Shim la lc« Skating Rink
Hotel Gulm argtf i Passport Office Shim la Thomas Lodge BivoW T o '
Cedar Grand
Great Escape Routes
Hotel SidharathWildcraft
C hrist Church Shim laKalka Shimla Taxi Union
Sh im la O ld i Railw ay Station I k̂hoO RdRailway Staff Quarter Red Cross Building
Rippon Hospital
'° * e r BazarHim achal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha
C hauraKesri Bhawan
STEAM SHED
GurudwaraDirectorate of Education
Hotel Apsara
Hotel PrestigePo lice Station Sadar Shim la Cart RoadKrishna Nagar Mosque
Him achal Tour Travel Package
Forest Area
Indra Gandhi Sports Complex
|3»( Hotel Willow Banks
ClarkesC olors o f India Tours Private Limited Hotel H oliday Home
High Court Of Him achal Pradesh
Hotel Honeymoon
l C e nte t: 31.10772.77.172021
M ahavidyalaya Shim la
aFive Star Lodge
->Q
IT’D Ganga
GovernmentKendrtya v idyalaya
a
Shim la Q Cart Rd
Tunnel b v Pass R oa d1 v ic tory Tunnel2 Hotel \ aruna
Hotel Hans4 Hotel Ganga5 Hotel Auurae6 Hotel BaUees7 Hotel Surya8 Hotel Lord’s Grev9 Yathis Chandra bood10 Hotel Blue Diamond11 H o te l T a j P a la ce
12 BSNL (Staff Rest House)13 New Blessmgton Girls HostalH l=N Narkanda Resorts Shim la
14 Hiraa dial Prades h w aqf Board15 A u c k la n d T u n n e l
16 Auckland Bndae
44
8. Present Status, Recommendation and Action required for the Important Buildings
Reinforced concrete building (R)
Unsafe** - means that the building has been constructed before 1996 that did not account for codal provision of IS: 1893:2002 and IS: 13920:1993.
(The building has been considered to be constructed before 1996) Three years have been considered for the penetration of the code for construction.
Unsafe* - means that the building has been constructed after 1996 but did not account for codal provision of IS: 1893:2002 and IS: 13920:1993.
(The building has been considered to be constructed between 1996 and 2004) Two years have been considered for the penetration of the code for the
construction of the building.
Safe - means that the building has been constructed after 2004 and account for codal provision of IS: 1893:2002 and IS: 13920:1993.
Masonry building (M)
Unsafe- means that the building has been constructed that did not account for codal provision of IS: 4326:1993. The building have been considered to be
constructed before 1996. Three years have been considered for the penetration of the code for the construction of the building.
Safe- means that the building has been constructed that account for codal provision of IS: 4326:1993. The building have been considered to be
constructed after 1996. Further those masonry buildings have also considered under the category of safe buildings that have been constructed with
traditional earthquake resistant practices although these buildings might have been constructed before 1996.
Recommendations for all the important buildings in general that are considered unsafe:
1. Those buildings that are considered to be unsafe with respect to the existing codal provisions can be analyzed in detail and checked whether retrofitting
is required.
2. The respective building authorities can check if the dead load on the building floors can be reduced by removing unwanted items/ replacement of the
brick walls with light weight partitions/ light weight concrete blocks.
45
S.No Building/Structure Yr of Const. Typology Issues Present Status
Immediate Occupancy1 Administration1 HP Secretariat 1988, 1992 M, R Unsafe**,Unsafe**2 HP High Court3 HP Police Headquarters 1995 R Unsafe*4 Office of the DC Shimla 1899 M Safe5 MC Shimla Office N.A. M Unsafe6 District Court 2012 R cracks Soil settlement Safe7 Office of the SSP 1995 M Safe
8Office of Civil Defence & Home Guard
1978 RPeeling of surface
concrete layerUnsafe**
9 PWD Department 1996 R minor cracks not serious Unsafe*10 Meteorological Centre 2006 R By visual appearance Unsafe*11 NCC Bhawan 1815 M minor cracks not serious Unsafe12 Fire 1972 M cracks not serious Unsafe13 Forest Department 1969 R Unsafe**
Administration: (77% unsafe buildings, 10 out of 13)
Recommendation and Action required:
1. Since the buildings that are considered as important buildings are associated with state government department hence these particular buildings are
supposed to have immediate occupancy performance level means that the building should be in place for its respective function immediately after
earthquake. Hence the respective state government departments should have their Disaster Management Plan (DMP) in place for post-earthquake
scenario.
2. The disaster management plans made by respective departments should get shared with the other/ among the other state government departments.
3. Hence the state department should get their building retrofitted as per the existing codal norms.
46
S.No Building/Structure Yr of Const. Typology Issues Present Status2 Hospital1 IGMC 1986, 1994 R, R moderate crack
It seems that the hospitals does not
have standard operating
procedures w.r.t zone V
Unsafe**, Unsafe**2 Rippon Hospital 1882 M Safe3 Kamla Nehru Hospital 1924 M Unsafe4 Red Cross Society, Chhota Shimla 1989 R Unsafe**5 Indus Hospital, Nav Bahar 1983 R Unsafe**6 Tenzin Hospital, Panthaghati 2007 R Safe7 Shimla Sanitorium, Chaura Maidan 1996 M Unsafe
Hospital: (62% unsafe buildings, 5 out of 8)
Recommendation and Action required:
1. Hospitals can be given the directions to follow standard operating procedures as that exist for the hospitals in the seismic areas. At present these
standard operating procedures does not exist in the hospitals of the Shimla city. Such as corridor with the dead materials/ unlocked stretcher etc.
2. Importantly the non-structural elements such as costly medical equipments should be anchored as per the requirement in the high seismic areas that
are highly required in the post disaster scenario.
3. Hospital staff should be trained to handle post disaster scenario of an earthquake the requirement of which is far different from the scenario of a normal
road accidents.
47
S.No Building/Structure Yr of Const. Typology Issues Present Status3 Electrial substation1 HPSEB Power House, Totu 1981 M moderate cracks Needs Attention Unsafe2 HPSEB Power Sub-St., Kasumpti 1990 R moderate cracks Needs Attention Unsafe**3 HPSEB Power Sub-St., Mall Rd 1908 M cracks Unsafe
Electrical Substation: (100% unsafe buildings, 3 out of 3)
Recommendation and Action required:
1. Since power/electricity is an immediate required necessity in post disaster scenario, hence the state electricity board should maintain their building as
per the existing codal norms.
2. The disaster management plans made by respective departments should get shared with the other/ among the other state government departments.
48
S.No Building/Structure Yr of Const. Typology Issues Present Status4 Telecommunication1 Central Telecom Office, Mall Road 1886 M cracks Unsafe2 BSNL Tel. Exchange, Sanjauli N.A. R Unsafe*3 BSNL Tel. Exchange, New Shimla N.A. R Unsafe**4 BSNL Tel. Exchange, Totu 1996 R Unsafe*5 BSNL Tel. Exchange, Chhota Shimla 1994 R Unsafe**6 Airtel
Issue of Most of Building being
rented
7 Reliance 1995 R8 Docomo 2002 R Unsafe*9 Vodafone 2000 R Unsafe*
10 Idea 2002 R Unsafe*
Telecommunication: (100% unsafe buildings, 8 out of 8)
Recommendation and Action required:
1. Any building that is taken up by Telecommunication Company on rent the procedure should be controlled by Municipal Corporation. At present it seems
that Municipal Corporation doesn't have any control over the buildings in which the Telecommunication Companies are running. The Telecommunication
is a dire necessity for post-disaster scenario of an earthquake and hence the Telecommunication system should exist in a building that has been designed
under the category of important building. Any building that has not been designed as an important building / does not fulfil the provisions of existing
codes cannot be taken up by Telecommunication Companies. This component should be ensured by Municipal Corporation of Shimla.
49
S.No Building/Structure Yr of Const. Typology Issues Present Status5 Information Dissemination1 All India Radio, Summerhill 1970 R Unsafe**2 Doordarshan, Shimla 1994 M,R crack Trans block soil settlement Unsafe*
Information Dissemination: (100% unsafe buildings, 2 out of 2)
Recommendation and Action required:
1. Information dissemination is one of the important requirement in the post disaster earthquake scenario. Correct and important information is required
to be delivered to the common mass of the society.
2. Dissemination centers further help in the undesired rumors in the society.
50
S.No Building/Structure Yr of Const. Typology Issues Present StatusTransporation
6 TunnelVictory TunnelLower Bazar PedestrianDhalli
7 Bridge
1 Lift Bridge 1976 R CorrosionRetrofitting and Strengthening required
Unsafe**
2 Auckland Bridge 2013 R Safe
8 Bus stand1 ISBT Tutikandi 2012 R Safe2 Old Bus Stand 1990 R Unsafe**
Bridge: (50% unsafe bridges, 1 out of 2)
Recommendation and Action required:
1. The reinforcement of tertiary beams of the lift bridge was found to be corroded; hence should be strengthened and corrosion should be arrested.
Bus Stand: (50% unsafe buildings, 1 out of 2)
Recommendation and Action required:
1. It can be checked through a panel of committee if retrofitting is required for Old Bus Stand.
51
S.No Building/Structure Yr of Const. Typology Issues Present StatusServices
9 Water supply1 Water Pumping Station, Kasumpti 1992 R Unsafe**2 Water Tank, Sanjauli N.A. R Unsafe**3 Water Tank, Kasumpti N.A. moderate Cracks needs attention
10 Food & Civil Supplies1 Food Grain Godown 2003 R Unsafe*2 Kerosene Depot3 LPG Godown 2004 R Safe
Water Supply (Overhead Water Tanks): (100% unsafe structures, 2 out of 2)
Recommendation and Action required:
1. Since water is one of the most essential requirement for life and hence is important requirement after earthquake. The concerned department should
check the compliance of all water tanks including overhead (including stacking), over the ground with respect to existing codal provisions. Incase found
unsafe should be given utmost priority for the retrofitting of the water tanks.
52
S.No Building/Structure Yr of Const. Typology Present Status
11 Police station1 Police Station, New Shimla 2010 R Safe
2 Police Station, Boileuganj 1886 M Unsafe
3 Police Station, Chhota Shimla 1905 M Safe
4 Police Station, Dhalli 2007 R Safe
5 Police Station, Sadar 1832 M
6 Police Station, Annadale7 Police Station, Sadar8 Police Station, Lakkar Bazar N.A. M Unsafe
9 Police Station, Sanjauli 2010 R Safe
Police stations: (33% unsafe buildings, 2 put of 6)
Recommendation and Action required:
1. Police department should have post-earthquake disaster management plans to handle the chaotic situations.
53
S.No Building/Structure Yr of Const. Typology Issues Present Status
12 Fire station1 Fire Station, Chhota Shimla 2007 R Emergency operation to
be ensured - issue of Rohru village
Safe
2 Fire Station, Mall Road 1972 M Unsafe
3 Fire Station, Boileuganj 1975 R Unsafe**
Fire station: (67% unsafe buildings, 2 out of 3)
Recommendation and Action required:
1. Fire station official should be trained to handle multiple accidental locations associated with fire hazard as it would be a scenario in case of postearthquake.
54
Rehabilitation Yr. of Const. Typology Present Status
EducationalGovt.
1 HP University, Summer Hill2 CoE Govt. Degree College, Sanjauli 1872 M Unsafe
3 Govt. Girls Sr. Sec. School, Portmore 1994 M Unsafe
4 Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Lalpani 1848 M Unsafe
5 RG Govt. Degree College, Kotshera 2003,2008,2011 R Unsafe*,Safe ,Safe
26 GHS Annandale 1987 R Unsafe**
27 GHS Bharari 1990 M Unsafe
28 GHS Chaura-maidan 1999 R Safe
29 GHS Dhalli N.A. M Unsafe
30 GHS Jakhu 2006 R Safe
31 GHS Kaithu N.A. M Unsafe
32 GHS Khalini 1996 R Unsafe*
33 GHS Krishananagar 1947 M Unsafe
34 GHS Summerhill 1990 M Unsafe
35 GHS Tutikandi 1942 M Unsafe
36 GSSS Boileauganj 1904 M Unsafe
37 GSSS Chhota Shimla 1990 R Unsafe**
38 GSSS Lakkar Bazar 1930 M Unsafe
39 GSSS Phagli 1930 M Unsafe
40 GSSS Portmore
41 GSSS Sanjauli N.A.,2000+ M,R Unsafe ,Unsafe*
42 GSSS Shimla
43 GSSS Totu 1963 M Unsafe
Private
55
1 Jesus & Mary School, Nav Bahar2 St. Bede's College, Nav Bahar 1973,1978,2004 R Unsafe**,Unsafe**, Unsafe*
3 St. Edwards School, Himland 1931,1996 M,R Unsafe, Unsafe**
4 DAV Sr. Sec. School, New Shimla 1999,2004 R Unsafe*,Safe
5 DAV Sr. Sec. School, Lakkar Bazar 1990 R Unsafe**
6 DAV Public School, Totu 1986 R Unsafe**
7 RKMV, Auckland 1994 R Unsafe*8 Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Vikas Nagar 1992 R Unsafe**9 Auckland House School, Aukland 1920,1941,2004 M,R,R Unsafe, Unsafe**,Safe
10 Central School for Tibetans, Chhota Shimla 1939,1990,1994,2004 M,R,R,R Unsafe, Unsafe** ,Unsafe**,Unsafe**
11 Bishop Cotton School, New Shimla 1859,1987,1992,2003 M,R,R,R Unsafe ,Unsafe** ,Unsafe**, Safe
12 Loreto Convent, Tara Hall 1892,1978,1992 M,R,R Unsafe, Unsafe**, Unsafe**
13 Skating Rink Building 2002 R Unsafe*
14 Arya Sr. Sec. School Shimla N.A.,1980,1992 M,R,R Unsafe, Unsafe**, Unsafe**
15 Auckland School Shimla
16 Bal Shiksha Niketan Chakkar 1980 R Unsafe**
17 Bishop Cotton School (Shimla) 1859,1987,1992,2003 M,R,R,R Unsafe, Unsafe**, Unsafe**, Unsafe*
18 Blue Bells High School Dhalli 1964 M Unsafe
19 Chasplee Garden School Shimla N.A. M Unsafe
20 Convent Of Jesus & Mary
21 D.A.V. Public School Lakkar Bazar
22 D.A.V. Public School Totu
23 D.A.V. Public School New Shimla
24 Dayanand Public School Shimla 1980 R Unsafe**
25 ECI Chalet Day School Shimla 1981 M Unsafe
44 Hainault Public School Shimla 1891,1996 M,R Unsafe, Unsafe*
45 Happy Model Sanjauli 1994 R Unsafe**
46 Himalayan Public School Kaithu 1988 R Unsafe**47 Himalayan International School, Chharabra
56
48 H.P.University Model School Summerhill49 Jesus & Marry School Shimla
50 Kendriya Vidyalaya Jakhoo 1964 R Unsafe**
51 Laureate B.Ed. College Bharari N.A. R Safe
52 Loreto Convent, Tara Hall, Shimla 1892,1978,1992 M,R Unsafe, Unsafe**, Unsafe**
53 Monal Public Sanjauli 1950,1994 M,R Safe, Unsafe**
54 Sacred Heart School Dhalli 2007,2010 R Safe ,Safe
55 Sanjay Gandhi SSS New Shimla 1996 R Unsafe**
56 Savitri Public School Talland 1970 R Unsafe**
57 S.D. SSS Shimla 1907 R Unsafe**
58 Shimla Public School 1979,2002 R Unsafe**,Unsafe*
59 Shishu Shiksha Niketan Totu 1990 R Unsafe**
60 S.P.M. Model School Sanjauli 1940 M Unsafe
61 St. Edward's School Shimla 1931,1996 M,R Unsafe ,Unsafe*
62 St. Marry School Chakkar 1997 R Unsafe**
63 St. Thomas SSS Shimla 1912,2003 M,R Unsafe ,Unsafe*
64 S.V.M. Vikasnagar 1992 R Unsafe**
65 Tibetan SSS Shimla
Special institution1 Anath Ashram, Tutikandi 1935,1973,2005 M,M,R Safe, Safe, Unsafe*
2 School of Blind Children, Dhalli 1976,2004 M,R Safe, Unsafe*3 School of Speech & Hearing Impaired Children, Dhalli 1976,1987 M,R Safe, Unsafe**
Community hall1 Community Center, New Shimla 1996 R Unsafe*
2 Community Hall, Dhalli 1997 R Unsafe**
Parking
57
1 Car Parking, High Court 2000 R Unsafe*
2 MC Car Parking, Below High Court 2002 R Unsafe*
3 New Car Parking, Near HHH 2004 R Safe
4 New Car Parking, Sanjauli 2011 R Safe
Religious1 Kalibari Temple Hall 1823,1885 M,R Unsafe, Unsafe**
Rehabilitation: (83% unsafe buildings, 84 out of 101)Recommendation and Action required:
1. Since the rehabilitation buildings are considered as important buildings which are associated with the state government departments such as education
department and Municipal Corporations hence these particular buildings are supposed to have immediate occupancy performance level means the
building should be in place for function immediately after the earthquake for being occupied by those people whose residences have been severely damaged/collapsed. Hence the respective state government department should have their disaster management plan (DMP) in place for the postearthquake scenario to handle the chaotic situations as these buildings will be occupied by the people.2. The disaster management plans made by respective departments should get shared with the other/ among the other state government departments.3. The state department/private bodies should get their buildings retrofitted as per the existing codal norms.4. The non-structural elements such as costly computer systems should be anchored as required in the high seismic areas to reduce economic loss.5. Any building that is functioning as a school and is taken up on rent the procedure should be controlled by Municipal Corporation. At present it seems
that Municipal Corporation doesn't have any control over the building's safety aspects. The school buildings are a dire necessity in case of post-disaster scenario of an earthquake. Hence the private schools should exist in a building that has been designed under the category of important building. Any
school building that has not been designed as an important building / does not fulfil the provisions of existing codes cannot be taken up by school authorities. This component should be ensured by Municipal Corporation of Shimla.6. Since water is one of the most essential requirement for the life and hence required after earthquake. School authorities should keep the water tanks in perfect conditions.
58
Masonry Building on the roadside
S. No. Building Name Yr. of Const. Present StatusTunnel Bypass Road
9 Yatis Chandra Sood Shimla(Tunnel Bypass road) N.A. Unsafe
12 BSNL Staff Rest House Shimla N.A. Unsafe
Cart Road4 Oberoi Staff Rest House 1881 Unsafe
5 Hotel Oberoi CECIL Shimla N.A. Unsafe
10 MES Inspection Bungalow Shimla N.A. Unsafe
15 R Tech Signal (army) Shimla 1929 Unsafe
16 Hotel Ranjan Shimla 1905 Unsafe
21 Rippon Staff Rest House Shimla N.A. Unsafe
22 Hotel Kohinoor Shimla N.A. Unsafe
29 Vidhan Sabha Staff Rest House Shimla N.A. Unsafe
41 Police Station Chhota Shimla N.A. Safe
Roadside Masonry Building: (91% unsafe buildings, 10 out of 11)Recommendation and Action required:
1. If possible, it should be ensured that the masonry buildings along the roadside should be strengthened/retrofitted by the owners to the extent that severe damage/collapse of the building does not take place. If such thing happens, it will lead to blockage of the roads in case of an earthquake.
59
RCC Building on the roadside
S. No. Building Name Yr. of Const. Present Condition
Tunnel Bypass Road2 Hotel Varuna Shimla N.A. Unsafe**
3 Hotel Hans Shimla 2004 Safe
4 Hotel Ganga Shimla 1881 Unsafe**
5 Hotel Anurag Shimla N.A. Unsafe**
6 Hotel BalJees Shimla
7 Hotel Surya Shimla 1986 Unsafe**
8 Hotel Lord's Grey Shimla 1994 Unsafe**
10 Hotel Blue Diamond Shimla N.A. Unsafe**
11 Hotel Taj Palace Shimla 1979 Unsafe**
13 New Blessington Girls Hostal Shimla N.A. Unsafe**
14 H.P. Waqf Board Shimla 1980 Unsafe**
15 Auckland Tunnel 1929 Unsafe**
16 Auckland Bridge
Cart Road3 Regional Transport Office Shimla N.A. Unsafe*
7 Labour Bureau Office Shimla N.A. Unsafe*
8 MLA Rest House Shimla 1967 (approx.) Unsafe**
9 Vidhan Sabha Shimla
11 Hotel Victory Shimla Safe
13 Bindu Raj Dharamshala Shimla 1984 Unsafe**
14 Hotal Cedar Grand Shimla N.A. Unsafe*
18 Hotel Vikrant Shimla 1965 Unsafe**
20 Gurdwara Shimla 1885 Unsafe**
23 Hotel Mahamaya Shimla 1994 Unsafe**
60
24 Hotel Tara View Shimla N.A. Unsafe**
25 Deshraj Building Shimla N.A. Unsafe**
26 Usha Trading Shimla N.A. Unsafe**
27 Lift bridge Unsafe**
28 Hotel Crystal Palace Shimla 1982 Unsafe**
30 High Court Shimla New Building 2014 Safe
32 Udyog Bhawan Bemloi 1987 Unsafe**
33 Rampal Shood Himland 1979 Unsafe**
34 Nirmal Bhawan Himland N.A. Unsafe*
35 Balson Apartment Himland Unsafe**
37 Directorate of UD Talland 1996 Unsafe*
38 CPWD Staff rest House Nigam Vihar N.A. Unsafe*
Roadside RCC Building: (91% unsafe buildings, 29 out of 32)Recommendation and Action required:
1. If possible, it should be ensured that the masonry buildings along the roadside should be strengthened/retrofitted by the owners to the extent that severe damage/collapse of the building does not take place. If such thing happens, it will lead to blockage of the roads in case of an earthquake.
61
Safe Shelter Masonry Building
S. No. Building Name Yr. of Const. Present Status
18.1a Police Line Bharari Admin Block N.A. Unsafe
18.3a Loreto Convent Tarahall Junior Block 1892 Unsafe
18.5a HPU Summer HillHimalayan Study N.A. Unsafe
Student Central Association N.A. Unsafe
18.7b Sankat Mochan Temple Main Temple Block 1962 Unsafe
18.8a GSSS Tuti kandi 1942 (in record) Unsafe
18.9a Railway Club Nabha N.A. Unsafe
18.9b Government Primary School Nabha N.A. Safe
18.10a GSSS Phagli 1925,1930 Unsafe
18.10b Building Of Education Dept PhagliBlock B 1980 Unsafe
Old Building 1980 Unsafe
18.11a Valmiki Mandir, Krishna nagar 1904 Unsafe
18.11b G.S.S.S Lalpani 1848 Unsafe
18.13a DAV Primary School Mall N.A. Unsafe
18.15a Hainault Public School BenmoreStaff Room Block 1891 Unsafe
Principal Office Block 1891 Unsafe
18.16a SPM Model School Engine GharPrincipal Office Block 1891 Safe
Class Room Block 1940 Unsafe
18.17b Govt. Degree College Sanjauli 1869,1872 Unsafe
18.22a Central School for Tibetan Chhota Shimla Prayer Block 1939 Unsafe
18.22b Woodvilla Palace Hotel Chhota Shimla 1938 Unsafe
18.24b Bishop Cotton School Shimla Office Block 1859 Unsafe
18.25b St. Edwards School HimlandBlock A 1931 Unsafe
Block B '1931 Unsafe
62
1. Since the Safe Shelter buildings are considered as important buildings associated with the state government departments such as education department
and Municipal Corporations hence these particular buildings are supposed to have immediate occupancy performance level means the building should be in place for function immediately after the earthquake for being occupied by those people whose residences have been severely damaged/collapsed. Hence the respective state government department/private bodies should have their disaster management plan (DMP) in place for the post-earthquake
scenario to handle the chaotic situations as these buildings will be occupied by the people.2. The disaster management plans made by respective departments should get shared with the other/ among the other state government departments.3. The state department/private bodies should get their buildings retrofitted as per the existing codal norms.4. The non-structural elements should be anchored as required in the high seismic areas to avoid any hindrances.6. Since water is one of the most essential requirement for the life and hence required after earthquake. The authorities concerned should keep the water
tanks in perfect conditions.
Safe Shelter Masonry Building: (92% unsafe buildings, 22 out of 24)Recommendation and Action required:
63
Safe Shelter RCC Building
S. No. Building Name Yr. of Const. Present Status
18.1a Police Line BharariBarrack Block 1985 Unsafe**CID Block 1980 Unsafe**
18.1b RKMV Auckland Science Block 1994 Unsafe**
18.2a Ice Skating Rink Lakkar Bazar 2002 Unsafe*
18.2b MC Rest House Bharari 1994 Unsafe**
18.3a Loreto Convent Tara HallSenior Block 1 1992 Unsafe**Senior Block 2 1978 Unsafe**
18.3b Community Center Chungi Khana 2001 Unsafe*
18.4a Shimla Nursing College Annadale 2003 (approx.) Unsafe*Auditorium cum Library Block 2003 Unsafe*
18.4b RG Government Degree College KotsheraArt Block 2008 SafeScience Block 2011 SafeIT Lab Block 2011 SafeAdmin Block 1984 Unsafe**Arts Block 1988 Unsafe**Auditorium Block 1975 Unsafe**Chief Warden Block 2000 Unsafe*COE Block 2006 SafeDCC Block 1975 Unsafe**
18.5a HPU Summer HillEOC Block Phase 1 2007 SafeEOC Block Phase 2 2007 SafeGandhi Bhawan 1990 Unsafe**Health Centre 1988 Unsafe**HPU Business School 2005 SafeICDEOL Block 1991 Unsafe**IT Lab 1995 Unsafe**Law Department 1990 Unsafe**
64
Library Block 1975 Unsafe**Multi Facility Block 2005 SafeNetaji Subhash Chandra Bose Bhawan 1991 Unsafe**Population Research Centre 2002 Unsafe*Science Block A 1971 Unsafe**Science Block B 1971 Unsafe**Guest House 2011 Safe
18.6a AAY BEE Banquet Hall Totu 2002 Unsafe*
18.7a Gopal Mandir Boileauganj 1960 (approx.) Unsafe**
18.7b Sankat Mochan Temple
Office Block 2003 Unsafe*Hospital Block 1994 Unsafe**Bhandara Block 1994 Unsafe**Toilet Block 2000 Unsafe*
18.8b ISBT Tutikandi 2012 Safe
18.10b Building of Education Department Phagli
New Building 2010 SafeBlock A 2005 SafeBlock C 1993 Unsafe**Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan 2001 Unsafe*
18.12a SD School Ram BazarAdministration Block 1907 Unsafe**Play School Building 1907 Unsafe**
18.12b Old Bus Stand Shimla 1990 Unsafe**
18.13b Indira Gandhi Sports Complex Mall Road 1984 Unsafe**
18.14a Kendriya Vidyalaya Jakhoo 1964 Unsafe**
18.15a Hainault Public School Benmore Classrooms and Library Block 1996 Unsafe*
18.15b Radhaswami Satsang Hall Benmore N.A. Unsafe**
18.17a St. Xavier School Sanjauli Chowk 1982 Unsafe**
18.18a Janajatiya Bhawan DhalliOld Building 1989 Unsafe**New Building 1997 Unsafe*
18.18b MC Office Dhalli 1993-1997 Unsafe**
18.19a Shivalik Institute of Nursing Bhatta KufferLibrary Block 1980 Unsafe**
Reception Block 1980 Unsafe**
65
18.19b Hill Grove Sr Sec School ChamiyanaOld Block 1996 Unsafe*
New Block 2010 Safe
18.20a Saraswati Paradise School 2009 Safe
18.20b Directorate of Horticulture Nav BaharLaboratry Block 1969 Unsafe**
FT Factory Building 1969 Unsafe**
Directorate Building 1982 Unsafe**
18.21a SVM Kasumpati 1992 Unsafe**
18.21b GSSS Kasumpati 1985,1990 Unsafe**
18.22a Central School For Tibetans Chhota ShimlaClass Rooms & Library Block 1994 Unsafe**
Computer Block 2004 Safe
Principal Block 1990 Unsafe**
18.22b Wood villa palace hotel 1938 Unsafe**
18.23a Community Center New Shimla 1996 Unsafe*
18.23b DAV Sr Sec School New ShimlaBlock A 1999 Unsafe*
Block A1 2004 Safe
18.24a Forest Rest House Khalini 1992 Unsafe**
18.24b BCS Shimla
Junior Block 1992 Unsafe**
Class Rooms & Lib Block 1987 Unsafe**
Boxing Hall & Shooting Block 2003 Unsafe*Activity Center 1985 Unsafe**
18.25a Central Potato Research Institute Kanlog
Administration Block 2000 Unsafe*
Auditorium Block 1980 Unsafe**
CMBL Lab 2000 Unsafe*
Director Cell Building 1965 Unsafe**
Social Science Division Block 2000 Unsafe*
18.25b St.Edwards School Himland Primary Block 1996 Unsafe*
66
1. Since the Safe Shelter buildings are considered as important buildings associated with the state government departments such as education department
and Municipal Corporations hence these particular buildings are supposed to have immediate occupancy performance level means the building should be in place for function immediately after the earthquake for being occupied by those people whose residences have been severely damaged/collapsed. Hence the respective state government department/private bodies should have their disaster management plan (DMP) in place for the post-earthquake
scenario to handle the chaotic situations as these buildings will be occupied by the people.2. The disaster management plans made by respective departments should get shared with the other/ among the other state government departments.3. The state department/private bodies should get their buildings retrofitted as per the existing codal norms.4. The non-structural elements should be anchored as required in the high seismic areas to avoid any hindrances.6. Since water is one of the most essential requirement for the life and hence required after earthquake. The authorities concerned should keep the water
tanks in perfect conditions.
Safe Shelter RCC Building: (82% unsafe buildings, 68 out of 83)Recommendation and Action required:
67
9. Summary of Safe and Unsafe Buildings
Category Total No. of Buildings Total No. of Safe Buildings Total No. of Unsafe Buildings % Unsafe Buildings
Administration 49 13 36 73.5
Rehabilitation 101 17 84 83.2
Transportation 43 4 39 90.7
Safe Shelter 107 17 90 84.1
Total 300 51 249 83.0
In general, it has been observed that most of the important buildings are old, i.e. constructed before the introduction of existing earthquake
resistant codal provisions, hence most of the buildings have been observed to be unsafe. Although the growth of Shimla city in terms of new
constructions are taking place leading to more and more congestion, hence it is highly desirable that an effective disaster management plan
should be worked out to handle any eventuality of an earthquake.
68