See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349184679

Seismic vulnerability assessment of low-rise unreinforced masonry buildings

in Northeast India considering variability of material properties

Article  in  Asian Journal of Civil Engineering · July 2021

DOI: 10.1007/s42107-021-00350-7

CITATION READS

1 363

4 authors:

Lipika Halder Sekhar Chandra Dutta

National Institute of Technology, Agartala Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad
27 PUBLICATIONS   73 CITATIONS    118 PUBLICATIONS   1,916 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pranoy Debnath Richi Prasad Sharma

Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad National Institute of Technology, Agartala
3 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   282 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Increasing the collapse time for non-engineered buildings View project

RC Design of Structures- A primer View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pranoy Debnath on 22 August 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-021-00350-7

ORIGINAL PAPER

Seismic vulnerability assessment of low‑rise unreinforced masonry

buildings in Northeast India considering variability of material
properties
Lipika Halder1 · Sekhar Chandra Dutta2 · Pranoy Debnath2 · Richi Prasad Sharma1

Received: 1 November 2020 / Accepted: 19 January 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings are the most common building typology in the rural and urban areas of Northeast
India. These URM buildings suffered substantial damage during earthquakes. In this context, the paper makes an effort to
assess the vulnerability of URM buildings of this region through fragility analysis. Four representative URM buildings,
consisting of single- and double-storey, have been selected from a group of buildings in the Northeastern part of India based
on a suitable statistical parameter to reflect the commonly constructed building typology. Following the equivalent frame
modelling approach, each building has been modelled with varying material properties, and thus, a total of 60 building
models have been developed. Non-linear static analysis is performed for all the buildings to obtain the probability distribu-
tion function (pdf) of the damage states based on the capacity curve parameters. Inelastic displacement demands have been
calculated for all the buildings based on the expressions given in FEMA 440 along with the response spectrum of Indian
seismic code, IS 1893 Part I. Fragility curves are then derived from the complementary cumulative distribution function
(cdf) of displacement demand and pdf of damage states. It is seen that there is a very high probability of suffering major
to complete damage for URM buildings subjected to a peak ground acceleration of 0.18 g. Furthermore, derived fragility
curves give reasonable predictions of observed post-earthquake building damage and can be used for the earthquake risk
assessment of the same building typology of this Northeastern region of India.

Keywords  URM building · Capacity curve · Seismic demand · Damage states · Fragility curves · Vulnerability assessment

Introduction

Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings are the most pre-

vailing types of building typology in the rural and urban
areas of NorthEast India (NDMA 2013; Halder et al. 2020).
These buildings are customarily built with load-bearing
* Sekhar Chandra Dutta masonry walls without proper engineering contribution,
scdind2000@gmail.com; sekhar@iitism.ac.in where seismic-resistant attributes like seismic bands and
Lipika Halder vertical reinforcement are mostly absent. Nayak and Dutta
erlhalder@yahoo.co.in (2016a, b) have conducted experiments on the shake table to
Pranoy Debnath investigate the vulnerability of masonry buildings by point-
pranoy.debnath9@gmail.com ing out the basic failure mechanism. Furthermore, a few
Richi Prasad Sharma retrofitting measures have also been suggested to improve
richisharma.sharma@gmail.com behaviour. However, such studies could not include the effect
1 of uncertainty involved in various aspects. Uncertainty may
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute
of Technology Agartala, Agartala, Tripura 799046, India arise due to the variability in materials used as well as the
2 construction quality, technical supervision, and maintenance
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad, Dhanbad, Jharkhand 826004, of the buildings, which also depend on the financial capac-
India ity of the house owner. Thus, these URM buildings, built

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.


to resist gravity loads only, seem to be most vulnerable to
seismic loads. The recent 2017 Ambasa earthquake of mag-
nitude Mw 5.7 hit Tripura, a state of Northeast India. The
poor performance of buildings, as well as the degree of dam-
age experienced by the URM buildings due to this moderate
earthquake with peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.052 g,
have been reported by Halder et al. (2020), Anbazhagan
et al. (2019), and Saha et al. (2020). Hence, seismic risk
assessment of these URM buildings is of utmost importance
for the prediction of the damage scenarios in case of a future
earthquake as well as for making proper planning of the pre-
disaster mitigation process of this seismically active region
of India.
In the seismic risk assessment procedure, fragility analy-
sis is an essential component that generally is performed
based on (1) statistical data of damaged buildings derived
from post-earthquake reconnaissance survey (e.g., Whitman
et al. 1973; Colombi et al. 2008; Rota et al. 2008; Del Gaudio
et al. 2017, etc.); (2) expert opinion on the performance
of buildings subjected to earthquakes of different hazard
levels (ATC 13 1985; Lagomarsino and Giovinazzi 2006);
(3) analytical simulation of seismic performance of selected
structural models (Singhal and Kiremidjian 1996; Rossetto
and Elnashai 2005; Rota et al. 2010; Sharma et al. 2021,
etc.); or a combination of these approaches (Barbat et al.
1996; Kappos et al. 1995, etc.). Among these approaches,
the analytical approach is mostly used in the regions with a
lack of sufficient damage data. However, the uncertainties/
biasness related to the opinion of the experts restricts the use
of the expert opinion approach in the fragility assessment.
The analytical method of fragility analysis mainly con-
sists of modelling the building and assessing the probability
of suffering damage for a given level of earthquake intensity.
A number of researchers have carried out fragility analysis to
assess the vulnerability of masonry buildings (e.g., Glaister
and Pinho 2003; RestrepoVélez and Magenes 2004; D’Ayala
2005; Borzi et al. 2008; Oropeza et al. 2010; Pagnini et al.
2011; Lagomarsino and Cattari 2013; Asteris et al. 2014,
etc.). Fragility analysis of various civil engineering struc-
tures, as well as structural/nonstructural components, has
also been carried out based on the analytical approach. For
example, Derakhshan et al. (2019) evaluated the probability
of earthquake damage to nonstructural components of URM
buildings through fragility analysis. The effect of different
dynamic soil–pile interaction models on fragility analysis
of URM building has been investigated by Cavalieri et al.
(2020). Bhandari et al. (2019) performed fragility analysis
of base-isolated reinforced concrete frames based on incre-
mental dynamic analysis of the frames under far-field and
near-field earthquakes. In the recent study of Sharma et al.
(2021), the vulnerability of semi-rigid steel moment frames
is investigated through fragility analysis. The study also
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
presented the effect of near-field and far-field earthquakes
on the probability of exceedance through fragility curves.
In this respect, it is to be noted here that though India
has experienced numerous damaging earthquakes, there is
a dearth of a large number of organised data of a certain
building typology that suffered damage of different degrees.
Hence, to evaluate the seismic vulnerability of existing URM
buildings, an analytical approach can be used to overcome
this limitation.
Several modelling approaches, starting from advanced
micro to simplified macromodeling approaches, are avail-
able in the literature to evaluate the performance of the URM
buildings using non-linear static or dynamic analysis. In the
advanced micromodelling method, every brick unit, as well
as the mortar joint, is modelled independently, incorporat-
ing the intrinsic property of brick and mortar along with
the interaction between the brick–mortar joint. Hence, the
method is mainly used for modelling specific parts of the
building (e.g., wall) considering the significant computa-
tional exertion, rigour, as well as involvement of time in it.
However, a relatively simpler equivalent frame modelling
approach is available in the literature to model the building
as a whole, considering very few numbers of degrees of
freedom to simulate in-plane behaviour of URM buildings
(Magenes and Della Fontana 1998; Magenes 2000; Kap-
pos et al. 2002; Salonikios et al. 2003; Galasco et al. 2004;
Roca et al. 2005; Casolo and Peña 2007; Chen et al. 2008;
Belmouden and Lestuzzi 2009; Singh et al. 2013).
Singh et  al. (2013) derived fragility curves of URM
buildings of India through non-linear static analysis. In the
reported study, fragility curves have derived for URM build-
ings with three mortar types: cement–sand, lime–surkhi, and
clay mud. However, in the fragility analysis, the variability
associated with material properties was directly taken from
HAZUS (FEMA 2002). An effort was made by Halder et al.
(2020) to comprehend the vulnerability of URM buildings of
Northeast India through fragility analysis. A large number of
existing URM buildings were considered to incorporate the
effect of variability related to the geometrical configuration
on the capacity curve of buildings. However, in the reported
study, the uncertainty associated with material property was
not considered, though it has a significant impact on the
capacity curve. Furthermore, this was limited to the use
of a physically intuitive mechanics-based non-linear static
approach considering the building as a combination of ele-
ments of known stiffness. Such a method may not give very
accurate results for all buildings (Halder et al. 2020). In this
background, an effort has been made in this present study
to derive fragility curves for representative URM buildings
considering variability associated with material proper-
ties, which is supposed to provide a more reliable estimate
compared to the one used in the previous study (Halder
et al. 2020). The reasonable range of properties of brick
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
masonry has been determined using the guidelines avail-
able in IS 1893: Part I (2016). The equivalent frame method
proposed by Dolce (1989) has been used to simulate the in-
plane behaviour of URM buildings. Fragility curves for this
building typology are developed from the bilinear capacity
curve parameters based on the approach proposed by Rota
et al. (2010). Both the studies may be useful for assessing
the vulnerability of URM structures giving a complete idea
about the same. Hence, they can be considered complemen-
tary to each other. Many abbreviations used in this paper are
presented at the end in a tabular form as Appendix 1.
Seismic failure modes in the in‑plane
direction
Failure modes in the pier
The vertical and horizontal loads acting on the URM walls,
end conditions, and aspect ratio (height to width ratio) of
the wall beside the material properties of the masonry prism
altogether govern the fundamental mode of failure in the
URM walls. Three types of failure modes, viz., rocking fail-
ure, diagonal cracking failure, and shear sliding failure, have
to be considered in the analysis of a URM pier subjected to
in-plane loading (Tomazevic et al. 1996; Magenes and Calvi
1997). These three failure modes used in the present study
are summarised below. However, the details of the failure
modes are available in Petrovčič and Kilar (2013).
Rocking failure
Rocking failure generally takes place in piers with a compar-
atively lesser aspect ratio. When the lateral load increases,
the tensile flexural cracks develop at the corners of the pier,
and the pier starts to rock about its toe. Subsequently, failure
occurs by the crushing of diagonally compressed corners
of the pier. The tensile strength of the masonry is generally
neglected in this case. The governing equation of rocking
failure mode is stated in Eq. 1 (Petrovčič and Kilar 2013):
( )
𝜎(N) 𝜎(N)
VR (N, λ) = 1− Dt, (1)
2𝛼V (λ) Kfc
where 𝜎(N) = N∕(Dt) is the mean compressive stress in the
pier due to the vertical force N; D and t are the width and
thickness of the pier, respectively. λ = H∕D is the aspect
ratio ( H being the height of the pier); fc is peak compressive
strength of masonry; 𝛼v (λ) = |𝛼0 |λ is the pier shear ratio
( 𝛼0 is zero moment coefficient, 𝛼0 = H0 ∕H for H0 ≥ H∕2 or
𝛼0 = 1 − H0 ∕H for H0 < H∕2 , H0 being the effective height
of pier); k = 0.85 is the peak compressive strength reduc-
tion factor.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Diagonal shear failure
In the diagonal shear failure, diagonal cracks occur along
both the brick and mortar joints under the collective effect of
axial and lateral load on the masonry pier. This type of crack
generally forms at the centre and propagates towards the
corners of the pier. The governing equation that describes
the diagonal shear failure is mentioned below (Turnšek and
Ĉaĉoviĉ 1971; Turnšek and Sheppard 1980; Tomazevic
1990; Petrovčič and Kilar 2013):
√( )
ft 𝜎(N)
VD (N, λ) = 1− Dt, (2)
b(λ) ft
where ft = 1.5𝜏0 is the tensile strength of the masonry; 𝜏0 is
the shear strength of the masonry at zero compressive stress;
b(λ) is the shear stress distribution coefficient at the centre
of the pier; and ( b(λ) = 1 for λ < 1 , b(λ) = λ for 1 ≤ λ ≤ 1.5 ,
b(λ) = 1.5 for λ > 1.5 ) (Petrovčič and Kilar 2013).
Sliding shear failure
Under the action of seismic loading, sliding shear failure
generally occurs in relatively squat piers when the horizontal
tensile cracks generate in the single brick–mortar bed-joint
and propagate along the length of the wall. In some cases,
cracks may form in a stepwise mode through the bed-joints
as well as the head-joints. Based on the Mohr–Coulomb fric-
tion law, the corresponding resisting shear strength equation
is developed, incorporating the effect of cracking of the wall
due to flexure. The governing equation describing the slid-
ing shear failure is given below (Petrovčič and Kilar 2013):
ft + 𝜇𝜎(N)
Vs (N, λ) = Dt, (3)
1 + 3𝜏0 𝛼V (λ)∕𝜎(N)
where 𝜇 is the masonry friction coefficient; ft , 𝜎(N) , 𝜏0 ,
𝛼V (λ), D , and t are the same as described in Eqs. 1 and 2.
Failure mode of spandrels
In a URM wall, the spandrel beam elements are developed
similarly, like the pier elements. However, the bed-joint
alignment is different concerning the direction of the axial
load. As the bed-joints in spandrels are subjected to almost
zero normal stress, the shear strength is then developed
through the cohesion only. The shear failure mode of span-
drels prescribed by Petrovčič and Kilar (2013) is considered
in this study and is expressed below:
VS,sp = 𝜏0 hsp tsp , (4)
13

where 𝜏0 is defined as the shear strength of the masonry
precisely at zero confining stress; hsp represents the height
of the spandrel; and tsp denotes the thickness of the spandrel.
Building model analysis tool
The presence of URM buildings is very significant in num-
bers in earthquake-prone areas in NorthEast India and many
other developing countries. Variability of material proper-
ties, difficulties in structural analysis of masonry walls, and
the non-engineered portion of the construction make the
analysis very difficult for URM buildings. In the literature,
sophisticated finite-element methods are found to model
and analyse URM buildings using either non-linear static or
dynamic methods. However, large-scale experimental data
for defining material behaviour as well as high computa-
tional rigour are required for such computations. Therefore,
a relatively simpler equivalent frame modelling (EFM)
approach has been used in several past studies to model the
URM buildings to assess the global behaviour of it. In the
EFM approach, the vertical and horizontal elements of a
wall with an opening are modelled as piers and spandrels,
respectively, and pier-spandrel intersections are modelled
as rigid end offsets. Figure 1a shows an equivalent frame
model of a wall. The effective height of piers has been deter-
mined based on the expression given by Dolce (1989), as
mentioned below:
1 ( )
Heff = h� + �
D H − h� ,
3.h
where h′  , D  , and H for given pier can be obtained as
described in Fig. 1b.
SAP2000 (CSI 2018) may be used to model and analyse
the URM buildings using the EFM approach. This software
has been used for non-linear analysis of URM buildings in
previous studies (Kappos et al. 2002; Kappos et al. 2006;
Singh et al. 2013; Kappos and Papanikolaou 2016 etc.). The
non-linear behaviour of the structural elements, i.e., piers
Fig. 1  a Equivalent frame model of a sample masonry wall; b definition of the effective height of piers according to Dolce (1989)
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
and spandrels, are introduced by lumped plasticity through
plastic hinges at appropriate locations to show the types of
failure that may experience by each element along the span.
It is observed in Eqs.1–3 that the shear capacities of the
piers are affected by the mean compressive stress acting on
the piers due to the axial load. Hence, the governing failure
mode is affected by the variation in the vertical compressive
stress. Therefore, the incorporation of P–V interaction in the
definition of the hinge can address this effect. However, in
SAP 2000 (CSI 2018), only P–M interaction is available.
Hence, P–V interaction can be used to derive P–M interac-
tion. In this respect, the shear capacity can be multiplied
by appropriate, effective pier height to obtained equivalent
moment capacity. The masonry piers are modelled using lin-
ear frame elements, and interacting P–M hinges are provided
at both ends. Figure 2 shows a P–M interaction curve (deep
black line with dots) that describes the combined rocking,
diagonal, and sliding shear behaviour of a pier through the
P–M hinges. The principal failure mode in various ranges
of axial load is considered to develop the curve. However,
1.0
NORMALIZED AXIAL FORCE (P)
0.8
0.6
(5) 0.4
ROCKING
0.2 SLIDING SHEAR
DIAGONAL SHEAR
GOVERNING MODEL
0.0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
NORMALIZED MOMENT (M)
Fig. 2  Failure mode surface representing normalized ultimate lateral
strength of URM pier
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
in the case of spandrels, the shear hinge is provided in the
middle. Equation 4 is used to calculate the shear capacity of
spandrels. Plastic hinges are defined using the constitutive
relationship proposed by Petrovčič and Kilar (2013) based
on Eurocode 8 (1996).
Mechanical definition of damage states
Damage states (DS), the expected physical damage to a
building caused by an earthquake event, are described in
different ways, as seen in the literature. Five damage grades
have been defined by the EMS-98 (Grünthal 1998), which
signify slight damage to destruction on the basis of the dam-
age witnessed in Europe during the seismic events from
1992 to 1998. HAZUS (FEMA 2002) has defined four dam-
age states, slight, moderate, extensive, and complete damage
state. However, various damage states are suggested in the
literature, which is derived from EMS-98 (Grünthal 1998)/
HAZUS (FEMA 2002) or both with appropriate alteration
(Lang and Bachmann 2004; Milutinovic and Trendafiloski
2003; Blong 2003; Roca et al. 2006). The definition of dam-
age states in terms of displacement is very important as the
displacement can be obtained from the non-linear static or
dynamic analysis. Kappos et al. (2006), Barbat et al. (2006),
and Lagomarsino and Giovinazzi (2006) defined median val-
ues of the displacement threshold for four damage states
using the yield and ultimate displacement values, as shown
in Table 1. It is to be mentioned here that the slight dam-
age may occur before the yielding takes place, while the
moderate damage may be attained at a displacement greater
than the yield displacement. Hence, the damage threshold
definition for four damage states given by Lagomarsino and
Giovinazzi (2006) is used in this present study.
Table 1  Damage states and previously defined damage state thresholds
Damage state Damage identification Damage threshold definition
Kappos et al. (2006)
DS1 Minor/slight 0.7 ∆y
DS2 Moderate 0.7 ∆y + 5(∆u − 0.7 ∆y)/100
DS3 Major/extensive 0.7 ∆y + 20(∆u − 0.7 ∆y)/100
DS4 Collapse/complete ∆u
∆y, Dy, dy: yield displacement and ∆u, Du, du: ultimate displacement
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Parameters considered in the proposed
study
As India is a developing country, people of different income
groups used to build their houses using materials with large
variations in their quality depending upon their financial
abilities. Furthermore, the house owners, with the consul-
tation of local masons, construct their buildings with dif-
ferent geometrical models without proper planning and
design guidelines given in the Indian seismic codes. It is
found in the earthquake reconnaissance reports that poor
material property is one of the major causes of damages to
the buildings (Kaushik and Dasgupta 2013; Rai et al. 2015,
2017 etc.). However, variation in the material property and
geometric configuration of the buildings are the primary
sources of uncertainty in the fragility analysis. Hence, a fea-
sible range of material properties of brick masonry has to be
used to model a group of representative URM buildings for
analysis. Estimation of masonry properties and the selection
of the representative URM building geometry are discussed
in detail in the sections given below.
Variability of material properties
It is to be mentioned here that the detailed information
regarding the properties of the brick masonry of Northeast
India is not available in the literature. Furthermore, it is not
possible to find out the properties of the brick masonry of
the existing buildings through experiments. However, based
on the compressive strength of brick and mortar, the com-
pressive strength of brick masonry and, subsequently, the
modulus of elasticity of brick masonry can be determined
using empirical relationship suggested in the literature (Ben-
net et al. 1997; Kaushik et al. 2007; IS 1893:Part I 2016,
etc.). Hence, to have an idea about the class of brick avail-
able in Tripura, a Northeastern state of India, a detailed sur-
vey was conducted in various brickfields, and experimental
tests were conducted on the burnt clay bricks collected from
the brickfields.
Barbet et al. (2006) Lagomarsino and
Giovinazzi (2006)
0.7 Dy 0.7 dy
Dy 1.5 dy
Dy + 0.25 (Du − Dy) 0.5 (dy + du)
Du du
13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 3  a Samples of burnt clay brick and b compressive test of burnt clay brick

Table 2  Compressive strength Local classification Average experimental values of Standard Classification according
of burnt clay bricks compressive strength (MPa) deviation to IS 1077(1992)
IS classifi- Average
cation strength
(MPa)

First (9 specimens) 10.297 1.25 10 10

Second (9 specimens) 7.865 0.95 7.5 7.5
Third (9 specimens) 3.4323 0.7 3.5 3.5

Figure 3 shows the testing of burnt clay brick to find Table 3  Mix proportion and characteristic compressive strength of
out its compressive strength. It is found that three different mortar as per IS 1905(1995)
classes of bricks, namely first class, second class, and third Grade of mortar Mix proportions (cement: Compres-
class brick, are available in the brickfields, which are used sand) sive strength
in the building construction based on the financial ability (MPa)
of the owner. Table 2 shows only the compressive strength H1 1:3 10
of locally available bricks of three different classes deter- H2 1:4 7.5
mined from the experimental tests for the sake of brevity M1 1:5 5
as well as considering the objective of this present paper. M2 1:6 3
The table also shows that the average compressive strength L1 1:8 0.7
of locally available bricks is very close to the average com-
pressive strength of the three classes of bricks given in IS
1077 (1992). In this present study, the compressive strength fm = 0.433fb0.64 fmo
0.36
(6)
of three different classes of bricks, viz., first class; second
class, and third class of bricks, as given in IS 1077(1992)
have been used as these values seems to be the true represen- Em = 550fm, (7)
tation of the strength of locally available bricks of this state
where fb is the compressive strength of brick masonry unit
as well as the whole North-east India. Table 3 shows the
and fmo is the compressive strength of mortar.
compressive strength of five different grades of mortar with
Several analyses have to be performed, changing the
cement sand proportion (1:3), (1:4), (1:5), (1:6), and (1:8)
properties of brick masonry to incorporate the uncertainty
as prescribed in IS 1905 (1995). The compressive strength
associated with material properties on the capacity curve
( fm ) and modulus of elasticity ( Em ) of masonry prism are
of URM building. To achieve this aim, a dataset consist-
determined using the equations given by IS 1893: Part I
ing of fifteen different values of compressive strength and
(2016), as mentioned below:

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

modulus of elasticity of masonry prism is generated using
the compressive strength of three different classes of bricks
and five different grades of mortar (see Tables 2, 3) through
the above-mentioned equation. Hence, Table 4 shows a real-
istic range of variation of the compressive strength ( fm ) and
modulus of elasticity ( Em ) of masonry prism.
Geometric variation
To develop an earthquake damage scenario of any particular
region, the construction of the capacity curve for each build-
ing is essential to incorporate variability and uncertainty
related to the capacity curve parameters. Nevertheless, it
will be an impractical approach to consider a huge number
of buildings. Therefore, representative buildings have to be
selected from a large building stock to perform the analysis.
For the statistical parameter, the standard deviation can rep-
resent the uncertainty in the capacity. Hence, the representa-
tive buildings have to be analysed to develop capacity curves
as well to generate data required to estimate parameters like
median as well as standard deviation.
An effort was made to collect existing URM building
plans of Agartala, the capital of the state Tripura and accord-
ingly, plans of 34 URM buildings have been received from
the appropriate administrative authority. Among these build-
ings, 10 are single-storey, and 24 are double-storey build-
ings. All these building plans are studied in such a way that
the socio-economic levels of Agartala can be linked to the
same. These levels can be merely denoted by the total floor
area of the building (Sarkar et al. 2015). The houses of the
lower income group should have a lesser floor area than that
of medium and upper income groups. Therefore, at first,
these 34 buildings are grouped into three categories based
on the total floor area. These are Groups-I for total floor
area less than 600 sq. ft or 55.74 sq. m., Groups-II for total
floor area between 600 and 1200 sq. ft. or 55.74–111.48
sq. m., and Groups-III for total floor area greater than 1200
sq. ft. or 111.48 sq. m., denoting lower, medium, and upper
income groups, respectively (Sarkar et al. 2015). To evalu-
ate the vulnerability of the buildings, each building of the
respective building groups needs to be analysed to get the
capacity curve parameters incorporating variability associ-
ated with the geometrical configuration. However, it is quite
a rigorous way to consider such a large number of buildings
and almost unviable. Accordingly, the representative build-
ings are to be sorted out based on some parameters that are
expected to influence the resistance of the building. The lat-
eral resistance of the masonry buildings is provided by the
wall; hence, the length of the wall in any particular direc-
tion is a very crucial parameter as the thickness of the wall
usually remains constant. Here, a parameter wall density is
calculated in both directions as the percentage of the ratio
of the cross-sectional area of all the load-bearing walls in
a particular direction to the total floor area of the building.
Grouping of the building plans based on the total floor area
is listed in Table 5 along with the parameter, wall density in
the two perpendicular directions. It has been observed from
the table that all the buildings under Group-I are of single-
storey (SS) and Group-III are of double-storey (DS). How-
ever, buildings under Group-II comprised of both SS and
DS. Hence, based on the number of storey and group, four
different building groups are selected from the dataset listed
in Table 5, namely Group-I (SSB), Group-II (SSB), Group-
II (DSB), and Group-III (DSB). The mean and standard

Table 4  Compressive strength Type of brick Type of mortar Compressive Strength of masonry Modulus of
and modulus of elasticity of prism (fm) (MPa) elasticity (Em)
masonry prism (MPa)

First 1:3 4.33 2381.50

First 1:4 3.90 2147.20
First 1:5 3.37 1855.58
First 1:6 2.81 1543.88
First 1:8 1.89 1039.56
Second 1:3 3.60 1981.02
Second 1:4 3.25 1786.13
Second 1:5 2.81 1543.54
Second 1:6 2.34 1284.26
Second 1:8 1.38 760.55
Third 1:3 2.21 1216.34
Third 1:4 1.99 1096.67
Third 1:5 1.72 947.73
Third 1:6 1.43 788.53
Third 1:8 0.85 466.97

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 5  Grouping of the URM Plan No. of storey Total floor Wall density Wall density Group
buildings sl. no area (sq. in X-dir. (%) in Y-dir. (%)
m.)

1 1 43.98 6.29 9.77 Group-I SSB Lower income group

2 1 47.71 6.67 7.64
3 1 48.15 7.97 7.31
4 1 52.21 6.5 9.49
5 1 52.74 7.88 10.25
6 1 54.05 7.94 9.28
7 1 65.91 7.4 9.70 Group-II SSB Middle
8 1 69.86 8.58 5.99 Group-II DSB income group
9 1 83.41 5.55 7.06
10 1 85.81 2.77 4.40
11 2 87.97 6.29 9.77
12 2 95.42 6.67 7.64
13 2 96.31 7.97 7.31
14 2 104.84 6.70 9.88
15 2 105.48 7.88 10.25
16 2 116.88 6.3 7.87 Group-III DSB Higher
17 2 135.81 7.33 9.58 income group
18 2 136.08 6.31 6.9
19 2 136.43 8.5 7.85
20 2 136.65 7.59 7.55
21 2 141.74 8.55 7.44
22 2 146.34 7.07 7.68
23 2 147.02 6.73 8.37
24 2 149.67 6.65 9.2
25 2 150.01 7.24 8.49
26 2 154.99 5.97 7.96
27 2 155.28 5.39 7.85
28 2 159.08 6.44 5.45
29 2 164.00 6.35 7.85
30 2 169.69 6.71 7.64
31 2 173.20 9.07 6.67
32 2 182.81 5.84 6.81
33 2 194.07 7.93 6.93
34 2 207.18 6.65 6.64

deviation for wall densities of these four groups of buildings values close to the mean values of each group are selected as
are shown in Table 6. The building plans with wall densities representative building plans for the belonging group. There-
fore, four representative buildings are chosen, and among

Table 6  Statistical parameters Group Wall density in the Wall density in the Wall density of selected
of dataset and parameters of the X-direction Y-direction building
representative buildings
Mean Std dev Mean Std dev X-direction Y-direction

Group I (SS) 7.21 0.8 8.96 1.19 6.50 9.49

Group II (SS) 6.07 2.53 6.78 2.22 5.55 7.06
Group II (DS) 7.10 0.77 8.97 1.38 6.7 9.88
Group III (DS) 6.98 0.98 7.62 0.95 6.73 8.37

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

these four buildings, two buildings are single-storey, and the
other two are double-storey.
Details of the selected URM buildings
The URM buildings considered in this present study are
made by typical common construction typologies used in
entire Northeast India. The load-bearing walls are entirely
made with pier and spandrel units braced with reinforced
concrete floor and roof slabs. Among the four selected proto-
type URM buildings, two are single-storey, and the other two
are double-storey with a storey height of 3.00 m. The thick-
ness of the walls made up of burnt clay bricks is 0.25 m. The
openings for windows and doors in the walls of the buildings
are almost regular. The buildings have 0.12 m-thick RC roof
and floor slabs. The typical plan of the buildings (which
is almost the same in all stories) is shown in Fig. 4. These
prototype buildings are considered to represent groups of
similar buildings. The materials considered in this study are
already defined in the previous section. The shear modu-
lus (Gm ) is taken as 0.35Em and the coefficient of friction
is taken as 0.8 (Halder et  al. 2020). Fifteen equivalent
frame models of each building plan have been developed

Fig. 4  Ground floor plan of four considered models: a Group-I (SSB), b Group-II (SSB), c Group-II (DSB), and d Group-III (DSB) (all dimen-
sions are in m)

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 7  Fundamental lateral Group Type of brick Type of mortar Fundamental lateral period (s)
natural periods of URM
buildings First mode Second mode Third mode

Group I (SS) First class brick 1:3 0.1129 0.0928 0.0766

1:4 0.1189 0.0977 0.0807
1:5 0.1279 0.1052 0.0868
1:6 0.1403 0.1153 0.0952
1:8 0.1709 0.1405 0.1159
Second class brick 1:3 0.1268 0.1057 0.0872
1:4 0.1355 0.1113 0.0919
1:5 0.1452 0.1197 0.0988
1:6 0.1597 0.1313 0.1083
1:8 0.1947 0.1599 0.1320
Third class brick 1:3 0.1606 0.1319 0.1089
1:4 0.1691 0.1389 0.1147
1:5 0.1819 0.1495 0.1234
1:6 0.1994 0.1639 0.1352
1:8 0.2430 0.1997 0.1648
Group II (SS) First class brick 1:3 0.0973 0.0867 0.0742
1:4 0.1025 0.0913 0.0782
1:5 0.1102 0.0982 0.0841
1:6 0.1208 0.1077 0.0922
1:8 0.1473 0.1312 0.1124
Second class brick 1:3 0.1108 0.0987 0.0845
1:4 0.1167 0.1039 0.0890
1:5 0.1255 0.1118 0.0958
1:6 0.1376 0.1226 0.1049
1:8 0.1677 0.1494 0.1279
Third class brick 1:3 0.1383 0.1232 0.1055
1:4 0.1456 0.1298 0.1111
1:5 0.1567 0.1396 0.1195
1:6 0.1717 0.1531 0.1311
1:8 0.2093 0.1865 0.1597
Group II (DS) First class brick 1:3 0.2409 0.1892 0.1605
1:4 0.2537 0.1992 0.1609
1:5 0.2729 0.2144 0.1818
1:6 0.2999 0.2350 0.1993
1:8 0.3646 0.2864 0.2429
Second class brick 1:3 0.2743 0.2154 0.1427
1:4 0.2888 0.2268 0.1924
1:5 0.3107 0.2440 0.2070
1:6 0.3406 0.2675 0.2269
1:8 0.4151 0.3251 0.2766
Third class brick 1:3 0.3424 0.2689 0.2281
1:4 0.3606 0.2832 0.2402
1:5 0.3879 0.3047 0.2584
1:6 0.4253 0.3340 0.2833
1:8 0.5183 0.4071 0.3453

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

using fifteen different properties of masonry prism listed

in Table 4. Thus, a total of 60 building models are devel-
oped, and non-linear static analysis is performed using the
software SAP2000 (CSI 2018). Table 7 shows the first three
lateral periods of all the building models. 3D extruded view
of equivalent frame models for the representative buildings
is shown in Fig. 5.

Bilinear capacity curve parameters

The curvilinear pushover curves obtained through non-lin-

ear static analysis of all the 60 models have been converted
to bilinear capacity curves through the iterative graphical
procedure, based on the guidelines given in the FEMA 356
(2000). Hence, the line segments of the bilinear capacity
curve is generated by approximately balancing the area
under the curvilinear and bilinear curves and evaluating the
effective stiffness as the secant stiffness at 60% of the effec-
tive yield strength of the structures. The post-yield slope is
obtained using a line segment that passes through the real
curve at the estimated target displacement. However, the
effective yield strength should not be greater than the maxi-
mum base shear force at any point on the real curve. These
idealised bilinear curves are then divided into two classes
considering the number of storeys, namely, single-storey
and double-storey building (referred to SSB and DSB in the
rest of the paper) classes. Figure 6a–d shows the bilinear
capacity curves of SSB and DSB classes in their respective
Fig. 5  3D extruded view of buildings: a Group-I (SSB), b Group-II
(SSB), c Group-II (DSB), and d Group-III (DSB)
X- and Y- direction. Two sets of curves in each figure (as
indicated by black and red lines) identify two different geo-
metrical configurations. However, different curves in each
set stand for different material properties. It is observed that
the in-plane resistance of all the buildings in the Y direction
is comparatively more than in the X-direction. The reason
is that the wall density of the representative buildings in
the Y-direction is higher as compared to the X-direction
(see Table 6). Every single curve of the figures provides
knowledge about the two control points, attainment of the
yield and ultimate base shear capacity, and corresponding

Table 7  (continued) Group Type of brick Type of mortar Fundamental lateral period (s)
First mode Second mode Third mode

Group III (DS) First class brick 1:3 0.2218 0.2089 0.1819
1:4 0.2336 0.2201 0.1916
1:5 0.2513 0.2367 0.2061
1:6 0.2755 0.2595 0.2259
1:8 0.3357 0.3163 0.2754
Second class brick 1:3 0.2525 0.2379 0.2071
1:4 0.2659 0.2505 0.2182
1:5 0.2861 0.2695 0.2347
1:6 0.3136 0.2955 0.2573
1:8 0.3822 0.3600 0.3135
Third class brick 1:3 0.3152 0.2969 0.2586
1:4 0.3320 0.3127 0.2723
1:5 0.3571 0.3365 0.2929
1:6 0.3915 0.3688 0.3211
1:8 0.4771 0.4495 0.3914

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

1000 1000

800 800
BASE SHEAR (kN)

B A SE SH E A R (kN )
600 600

400 400

Group I SSB Group I SSB

200 200 Group II SSB
Group II SSB
Mean Mean
0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 0 3 6 9 12 15 18
DISPLACEMENT (mm) DISPLACEMENT (mm)

(a) SSB in X-direction (b) SSB Y-direction

1000 1000

800 800
BASE SHEAR (kN)
BASE SHEAR (kN)

600 600

400 400
Group II DSB
Group II DSB 200 Group III DSB
200
Group III DSB
Mean
Mean 0
0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 DISPLACEMENT (mm)
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

(c) DSB in X-direction (d) DSB in Y-direction

Fig. 6  Bilinear capacity curves for URM buildings

displacements, as well. The significant dispersion of the Seismic demand

yield, as well as ultimate displacement, is noticed in each
SSB and DSB in their respective X- and Y-directions. The
variation in the material properties, as well as the geometri-
cal configuration of the buildings, is the main reason for this
dispersion in the capacity curve parameters. The capacity
curve indicated by the blue line represents the mean curve
of each class.
The dispersion of the capacity curves resulted in disper-
sion in damage states in both the building classes. Hence,
these dispersions have been supported to show the fragil-
ity function through the probability density function (pdf).
Consequently, the pdf for each of the four damage states are
generated for both SSB and DSB classes and are shown in
Fig. 7a–d.
The degree of damage suffered by any structure indicates the
inelastic deformation occurred during a seismic event. Seis-
mic demand has been represented in this study through dis-
placement demand. The 5%-damped acceleration response
spectrum of IS 1893: Part I (2016) is used to calculate the
displacement demand of the buildings using the well-known
expression mentioned below (FEMA 356 2000; FEMA 440
2005):
Te2
𝛿t = C0 C1 C2 Sa g, (8)
4𝜋 2

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

2.0 2.0
DS1 DS2 DS1 DS2
DS3 DS4 DS3 DS4
1.6 1.6

1.2 1.2
pdf

pdf
0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4

0.0 0.0
0 3 6 9 12 15 0 3 6 9 12 15
Global Displacement (mm) Global Displacement (mm)

(a)SSB in X-direction (b) SSB in Y-direction

2.0 2.0
DS1 DS2 DS1 DS2
DS3 DS4 DS3 DS4
1.6 1.6

1.2 1.2
pdf

pdf

0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4

0.0 0.0
0 3 6 9 12 15 0 3 6 9 12 15
Global Displacement (mm) Global Displacement (mm)

(c) DSB in X-direction (d) DSB in X-direction

Fig. 7  Probability density functions of the four damage states for URM buildings

R−1 with the roof displacement of the building which behaves

C1 = 1 + , (9)
aTy2 as a multi-degree-of-freedom (MODF) system. The calcu-
lation is made using the first modal participation factor at
[ ]2 the level of the control node; C1 represents a modification
1 R−1 factor that relates the expected maximum displacement of an
C2 = 1 + , (10)
800 Ty inelastic ESDOF system with elasto-plastic hysteretic prop-
erties to the displacements calculated for the elastic spectral
Sa response; C2 is a modification factor which represents the
R= C , (11) combined effect of pinched hysteresis shape, stiffness degra-
Vy ∕W m
dation, and strength deterioration on the maximum displace-
where C0 is the factor to correlate spectral displacement of ment response; Sa is the spectral acceleration at the effective
an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (ESDOF) system fundamental period of the system; a refers to the type of
local soil class; R is the strength ratio of the system, i.e.,

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.


the ratio of elastic strength demand to the calculated yield
strength capacity; Vy represents the yield strength capacity
of the system evaluated based on the results of non-linear
static analysis; Cm is the effective mass factor, and the value
of it is 1 for URM building, and W is the effective seismic
weight of the system.
Analytical fragility curves
The fragility curve represents the probability of failure of a
structure subjected to earthquake loading of given intensity.
However, failure does not primarily mean the complete col-
lapse of the structure. Rather, it can be expressed using a
damage state threshold once the seismic behaviour of the
structure is described through a suitable damage measure.
Accordingly, the failure probability is explained by the prob-
ability of reaching a given damage state for a certain level
of PGA.
The failure probability of a definite damage state has been
evaluated using the expression mentioned below, as reported
by Rota et al. (2010), which is subsequently used by Halder
et al. (2020):
∞[
]
∫
Pf (PGA) = 1 − FD|PGA (𝛼) fc (𝛼)d𝛼, (12)
0 ther increased to 98–100% in the case of DSB for collapse
where FD|PGA is defined as cumulative distribution function
(cdf) of the displacement demand for a given PGA level and
fc (𝛼) is the pdf of the capacity for a certain damage state.
The seismic demand in terms of displacement is calcu-
lated using the response spectrum following the procedure
already discussed in the preceding section. The 5%-damped
acceleration response spectrum, as given in IS 1893: Part I
(2016), has been used in this present study. As the consid-
ered URM buildings are from seismic zone V, the accel-
eration response spectrum of PGA 0.36 g with medium
soil condition is used here. The displacement demand for
all buildings of each class has been calculated by scaling
the response spectrum to the various PGA levels (Abo-EI-
Ezz et al. 2013). The complementary cdf of the seismic
demand for both the SSB as well as DSB classes are shown
in Fig. 8a–d in the X- and Y-directions, respectively.
The convolution procedure between pdf and complemen-
tary cdf is described graphically in Fig. 9. The light blue line
of Fig. 9a represents the complementary cdf of the demand
for a PGA level of 0.12 g. The probability density func-
tions of the four damage states for DSB class are shown by
solid-continuous-line bell curves. The complementary cdf
is then convolved with the pdf of damage states. As a result,
a probability distribution function is obtained, as shown by
a black-dashed-line bell curve drawn under the respective
solid-continuous-line bell curve for each of the four damage
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
states. This distribution function is defined as the proba-
bility of failure (pf). The result of the convolution is then
represented as the probability of exceedance of a certain
damage state for a certain level of PGA by integrating the
area below the probability of failure curve of that damage
state. Figure 9b shows these values as the fragility points
corresponding to PGA of 0.12 g for all the four damage
states considered in this study. The same procedure is then
followed for both the building classes and for all the con-
sidered PGA levels. A lognormal probability density func-
tion is then used to fit the obtained fragility points, and the
fragility curves are derived for SSB and DSB classes. The
corresponding lognormal parameters (µ and σ) of the curves
are summarised in Table 8. Figure 10a–d shows the fragility
curves derived for SSB and DSB based on the procedure
given by Rota et al. (2010).
The fragility curves are presented in Fig. 10a–d. These
curves show the probability of exceedance of successive
damage states for both SSB and DSB classes considered
in this study. It is observed from the figures that the prob-
ability of exceedance of major damage state (DS3) at a
PGA level of 0.36 g, that is the maximum PGA assigned
for this Northeast zone of India as per IS 1893: Part 1
(2016), is almost 100% for both SSB and DSB classes.
Such probabilities are nearly 95–98% for SSB, which fur-
damage state (DS4). However, the probability of exceed-
ance of DS4 damage state is more than 70% for SSB and
has increased even up to 96% for DSB in a PGA of 0.18 g
that is considered to design the structures in this region.
Furthermore, 93% and 100% probability is observed for
SSB and DSB classes, respectively, to suffer DS3 damage
in the same seismic hazard level.
It is also noticed from the figures that even a PGA of
0.052 g of the 2017 Ambasa earthquake (as reported by Deb-
barma et al. 2017) has the potential to cause considerable
damage to URM buildings. The figures show that though the
probability of exceeding collapse damage state (DS4) seems
to be very low (2% for SSB and maximum 15% for DSB),
substantially high probability of exceeding major damage
(DS3) as well as moderate damage (DS2) is noticed for the
reported PGA level. The probability of exceeding the DS3
damage state, which is 21% for the SSB, has increased to
64% for DSB class. Likewise, the probability of suffering
moderate damage (DS2) for the SSB class is 60%, and the
same for DSB is 94%. Furthermore, 97–99% probability is
observed for the SSB and DSB classes to experience slight
damage (DS1). At this juncture, it is to be mentioned here
that during the 2017 Ambasa earthquake, URM buildings
suffered moderate damage to a great extent (Anbazhagan
et al. 2019; Halder et al. 2020; Saha et al. 2020), which
indirectly validates the present study.
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

1 - CDF
1 - CDF

0.36g
0.4 0.4
0.36g 0.30g
0.18g
0.06g 0.24g 0.30g
0.2 0.12g 0.2 0.12g
0.18g 0.06g
0.24g

0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(a) SSB in X-direction (b) SSB in Y-direction
1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.36g

0.30g
0.6 0.6
1 - CDF
1 - CDF

0.24g
0.36g
0.4 0.4 0.18g
0.24g
0.30g
0.18g 0.12g
0.2 0.06g 0.12g 0.2
0.06g

0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(c) DSB in X-direction (d) DSB in Y-direction

Fig. 8  Complementary cdf of displacement demand of URM buildings for various PGA levels

Conclusive remarks double-storey-building (DSB). All buildings of each group

The need for deriving analytical vulnerability curves for
the assessment of unreinforced masonry building stock in
Northeast India is established following a review on the
scarcity of researches or earthquake data available for this
region. A methodology is performed over URM buildings
for developing analytical fragility curves from 3D non-lin-
ear static analysis. The proposed approach is based on the
outcomes of the non-linear static analysis of representative
buildings with varying material properties. Thus, the uncer-
tainty associated with material properties is incorporated in
the fragility analysis. A total of 60 URM building models
consisting of single-storey and double-storey are clustered
in two classes, namely single-storey-building (SSB) and
have been analysed to derive fragility curves. The probabil-
ity density functions of certain damage state thresholds have
been developed on the basis of the bilinear pushover curve
parameters. The seismic demand expressed as the comple-
mentary cumulative distribution function of displacement
demand is obtained using the expressions given in FEMA
440 (2000) and the response spectrum of IS 1893:Part I
(2016). These two functions are then convolved to derive
fragility points of considered damage states. The fragil-
ity curves are then derived by fitting the fragility points in
the lognormal density function for different levels of PGA.
Summarily, following salient points may be noted from this
study.

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

1.0

Probability of exceeding the damage states

1.8
PGA = 0.12g Pdf (DS1) PGA = 0.12g DS1
1.6 Pdf (DS2)
0.8
DS2
1.4 Pdf (DS3) DS3
Pdf (DS4) DS4
1.2
(1 - CDF) (0.12g) 0.6
Probability

1.0 Pf (DS1)
0.8
Pf (DS2)
Pf (DS3) 0.4
0.6 Pf (DS4)
0.4
0.2
0.2

0.0 0.0
0 3 6 9 12 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30 0.36
Displacement (mm) PGA (g)

(a) (b)

Fig. 9  a Convolution of pdf of damage states for Group-II (DSB) building and complementary cdf of displacement demand at a PGA of 0.12 g;
and b fragility points

Table 8  Lognormal distribution Damage state SSB DSB

fitting parameters of the derived
fragility points X-direction Y-direction X-direction Y-direction
µ σ µ σ µ σ µ σ

DS1 − 4.119 0.5697 − 4.551 0.898 − 5.170 0.830 − 3.733 0.7940

DS2 − 3.065 0.5770 − 3.484 0.694 − 4.068 0.698 − 3.157 0.7486
DS3 − 2.452 0.5061 − 2.512 0.540 − 3.315 0.468 − 2.633 0.6321
DS4 − 1.976 0.4626 − 1.888 0.515 − 2.524 0.445 − 2.148 0.5293

1. The bilinear capacity curves show significant disper-
sion in the yield and ultimate displacement owing to
the different material properties as well as the geometri-
cal configuration of URM buildings. In another view, it
can be concluded that the capacity of buildings dete-
riorates drastically, but exhibits an increase in ductility
with the reduction in material strength. However, the use
of low strength material is a very common practice in
the Northeastern zone of India or other regions of this
country as well as in other developing countries.
2. The results from the analytical fragility curves describe
that the probability of suffering collapse damage state
(DS4) is above 70% for the single-storey building
(SSB) in the design basis PGA level (0.18 g) as per IS
1893: Part 1 (2016). The same damage state is further
increased to 96% in the case of double-storey building
(DSB) class. Significantly, high probability is seen for
each of the building classes to suffer major damage to
even complete collapse corresponding to the maximum
PGA level (0.36 g) assigned for this region in Indian
seismic code, IS 1893: Part 1 (2016).
3. More significantly, the fragility curves show that even
at a PGA level of 0.052 g, which was noted in the 2017
Ambasa earthquake, 60–94% probability is observed
to suffer moderate damage (DS2). Furthermore, more
than 97% probability of exceeding slight damage (DS1)
is seen for SSB and DSB classes. The observed dam-
age to masonry buildings reported in the literature
(Anbazhagan et al. 2019; Halder et al. 2020) during the
same earthquake confirms the outcome of the present
study.
In this present study, only in-plane seismic failure modes
are simulated as the URM buildings considered have rigid
floors/roofs connected with the load-bearing walls in the
orthogonal directions. However, for masonry buildings
with flexible floors/roofs, the out-of-plane failure mode

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

1.0 1.0

P rob ab ility of exceed in g d am age states

Probability of exceeding dam age states

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
DS1 DS2 DS1 DS2
DS3 DS4 DS3 DS4
0.0 0.0
0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30 0.36 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30 0.36
PGA (g) PGA (g)
(a) SSB in X-direction (b)SSB in Y-direction

1.0 1.0

P ro b a b ility o f ex ceed in g d a m ag e sta tes

Probability of exceeding dam age states

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
DS1 DS2 DS1 DS2
DS3 DS4 DS3 DS4
0.0 0.0
0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30 0.36 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30 0.36
PGA (g) PGA (g)
(c) DSB in X-direction (d) DSB in-Y direction

Fig. 10  Fragility curves of the URM buildings

may govern and has to be considered in the modelling and
analysis process.
The proposed derivation methodology is presumed to be
a reasonable negotiation between computational rigour and
precision in the outcome. This proposed approach of devel-
oping analytical fragility curves can reasonably predict the
observed post-earthquake building damage and, hence, can
be used for the seismic vulnerability assessment of the other
building typology of this northeastern region of India. The
study may be extended further considering spectral accelera-
tion, Sa (T, 5%) at the fundamental period corresponding to
5% damping, as intensity measure followed by an adequate
non-linear dynamic analysis methodology. Furthermore,
the results are planned to enrich, covering more number of
buildings for different regions. Such studies are initiated and
will be reported as and when completed.

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Appendix 1

Explanation of symbols/abbreviations used

Symbols

a Type of local soil class

b⟨𝛌⟩ Shear stress distribution coefficient at the centre of the pier, with respect to λ
C0 Factor to correlate spectral displacement of an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom
C1 Modification parameter which relates the expected maximum displacement of an inelastic ESDOF system with elastic–plastic hyster-
esis properties to the displacement calculated from the elastic spectral response
C2 Modification parameter accounts for the effects of pinched hysteresis shape, stiffness degradation, and strength deterioration on the
maximum displacement response
C𝐦 Effective mass factor
D Pier width
E𝐦 Modulus of elasticity of masonry prism
F𝐃|𝐏𝐆𝐀 Cumulative density function (cdf)
f𝐛 Compressive strength of brick
fc Peak compressive strength of masonry
f 𝐜 ⟨𝜶⟩ Probability density function (pdf)
f𝐦 Compressive strength of masonry prism
f 𝐦𝐨 Compressive strength of mortar
f𝐭 Tensile strength of masonry
H Height of the pier
H𝐞𝐟𝐟 Effective height of pier
H0 Zero moment height
h′ Calculated height of the pier as per Dolce to calculate effective height to calculate effective height
h0 Height of the pier at the point of contra-flexure
h𝐩 Height of the pier
h𝐬𝐩 Height of the spandrel
h𝐬𝐭 Storey height
K Stiffness of the building
k Peak compressive strength reduction factor
Mw Moment magnitude
N Vertical force
P𝐟 Probability of failure
R Strength ratio of the system
( )
S𝐚 T 𝐲 Spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of the system
T𝐞 Effective lateral period
T𝐲 Fundamental period of the system
t Thickness of the wall
t𝐬𝐩 Thickness of the spandrel
V 𝐃 (N, 𝛌) In-plane failure mode for diagonal cracking
V 𝐑 (N, 𝛌) In-plane failure mode for rocking
V 𝐒 (N, 𝛌) In-plane failure mode for shear sliding
V 𝐮,𝐬𝐩 Ultimate shear stress in the spandrel
V𝐲 Yield strength capacity of the system
𝜶0 Zero moment coefficient
αv Shear ratio
𝝈⟨N⟩ Mean compressive stress in the pier due to the axial force
λ Pier slenderness ratio
𝝁 Masonry friction coefficient
𝝉0 Shear strength of masonry at zero compressive stress

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Symbols
Abbreviations
3D Three dimensional
ATC​ Applied Technology
Council
cdf Cumulative density func-
tion
DSB Double storey building
DS Damage state
EFM Equivalent frame model
ESDOF Equivalent single-degree-
of-freedom
FEMA Federal Emergency Man-
agement Agency
IS Indian Standard
MDOF Multi-degree-of-freedom
pdf Probability density func-
tion
PGA Peak ground acceleration
RC Reinforced concrete
SSB Single storey building
URM Unreinforced masonry

Author contributions  LH: conceptualization, methodology, formal

analysis, and writing–original draft. SCD: supervision, writing-review,
editing, and final correction, resources. PD: helping in preparation of
the draft. RPS: overall supervision and correction of the draft.
Compliance with ethical standards  Construction and Building Materials, 23(1), 40–53. https​://doi.
Conflict of interest  On behalf of all the authors, the corresponding au-
thor states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Abo-EI-Ezz, A., Nollet, M., & Nastev, M. (2013). Seismic fragility
assessment of stone masonry buildings. Earthquake Engineering
and Engineering Vibration, 12, 87–97. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
s1180​3-013-0154-4.
Anbazhagan, P., Mog, K., Rao, K. S. N., Prabhu, N. S., Agarwal, A.,
Reddy, G. R., et al. (2019). Reconnaissance report on geotechni-
cal effects and structural damage caused by the 3 January 2017
Tripura earthquake, India. Natural Hazard, 98, 425–450. https​://
doi.org/10.1007/s1106​9-019-03699​-w.
Asteris, P., Chronopoulos, M., Chrysostomou, C., Varum, H., Plev-
ris, V., Kyriakides, N., & Silva, V. (2014). Seismic vulnerability
assessment of historical masonry structural systems. Engineer-
ing Structures, 62–63, 118–134. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.engst​
ruct.2014.01.031.
ATC-13. (1985). Earthquake damage evaluation data for California.
Redwood City: ATC Applied Technology Council.
Barbat, A. H., Pujades, L. G., & Lantada, N. (2006). Performance of
buildings under earthquakes in Barcelona, Spain. Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 21, 573–593. https:​ //doi.org
/10.1111/j.1467-8667.2006.00450​.x.
Barbat, A. H., & Ye´pez Moya,F, Canas, J. A. . (1996). Damage sce-
narios simulation for seismic risk assessment in urban zones.
Earthquake Spectra, 12(3), 371–394.
Belmouden, Y., & Lestuzzi, P. (2009). An equivalent frame model for
seismic analysis of masonry and reinforced concrete buildings.
org/10.1016/j.conbu​ildma​t.2007.10.023.
Bennet, R. M., Boyed, K. A., & Flanagan, R. D. (1997). Compres-
sive properties of structural clay tile prism. Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, 123(7), 920–926. https​://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:7(920).
Bhandari, M., Bharti, S., Shrimali, M., & Datta, T. (2019). Seismic
fragility analysis of base-isolated building frames excited by near-
and far-field earthquakes. Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 33(3), 04019029. https​://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CF.1943-5509.00012​98.
Blong, R. (2003). A new damage index. Natural Hazards, 30(1), 1–23.
https​://doi.org/10.1023/A:10250​18822​429.
Borzi, B., Crowley, H., & Pinho, R. (2008). Simplified pushover-based
earthquake loss assessment (SP-BELA) method for masonry
buildings. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 2(4),
353–376. https​://doi.org/10.1080/15583​05070​18281​78.
Casolo, S., & Peña, F. (2007). Rigid element model for in-plane
dynamics of masonry walls considering hysteretic behaviour
and damage. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
36(8), 1029–1048. https​://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.670.
Cavalieri, F., Correia, A. A., Crowley, H., & Pinho, R. (2020). Seismic
fragility analysis of URM buildings founded on piles: influence
of dynamic soil–structure interaction models. Bulletin of earth-
quake engineering, 18, 4127–4156. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/s1051​
8-020-00853​-9.
Chen, S. Y., Moon, F. L., & Yi, T. (2008). A macroelement for the
nonlinear analysis of in-plane unreinforced masonry piers. Engi-
neering Structures, 30(8), 2242–2252. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engst​ruct.2007.12.001.

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.


Colombi, M., Borzi, B., Crowley, H., Onida, M., Meroni, F., & Pinho,
R. (2008). Deriving vulnerability curves using Italian earthquake
damage data. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 6, 485–504.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1051​8-008-9073-6.
CSI (Computers and Structures Inc.), S ­ AP2000® Version 20.2.0, Inte-
grated Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structures. CSI,
Berkeley, © Copyright Computers and Structures, Inc. (2018).
D’Ayala, D. F. (2005). Force and displacement based vulnerability
assessment for traditional buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engi-
neering, 3, 235–265. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/s10518​ -005-1239-x.
Debbarma, J., Martin, S. S., Suresh, G., Ahsan, A., & Gahalaut, V. K.
(2017). Preliminary observations from the 3 January 2017, M ­ W
5.6 Manu, Tripura (India) earthquake. Journal of Asian Earth
Science, 148, 15173–15180. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.jseae​
s.2017.08.030.
Del Gaudio, C., De Martino, G., Di Ludovico, M., Manfredi, G.,
Prota, A., Ricci, P., & Verderame, G. M. (2017). Empirical fra-
gility curves from damage data on RC buildings after the 2009
L’Aquila earthquake. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 15(4),
1425–1450. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1051​8-016-0026-1.
Derakhshan, H., Walsh, K. Q., Ingham, J. M., Griffith, M. C., & Tham-
biratnam, D. P. (2019). Seismic fragility assessment of nonstruc-
tural components in unreinforced clay brick masonry buildings.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 49(3), 285–
300. https​://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3238.
Dolce, M. (1989). Models for in-plane loading of masonry walls, Corso
sul consolidamento degli edifici in muratura in zona sismica,
Ordine degli Ingegneri, Potenza. (in Italian).
Eurocode 8. (1996). Design provisions for earthquake resistance of
structures-part 1-3: General rules-specific rules for various mate-
rials and elements. In DD ENV 1998-1-3: European Committee
of Standardization, Brussels, Belgium
FEMA. (2002). Earthquake loss estimation methodology, HAZUS-MH
MR5. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
FEMA 356. (2000). Prestandard and commentary for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
FEMA 440. (2005). Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis
procedures. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
Galasco, A., Lagomarsino, S., Penna, A., & Resemini, S. (2004). Non-
linear seismic analysis of masonry structures. In Proceedings of
the 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver,
Canada, 1–6 August 2004. Paper No. 843.
Glaister, S., & Pinho, R. (2003). Development of a simplified defor-
mation-based method for seismic vulnerability assessment. Jour-
nal of Earthquake Engineering, 7(I S 001), 107–140. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/13632​46030​93504​75.
Grünthal, G. (1998). European macroseismic scale 1998 EMS-98. Lux-
embourg: European Seismological Commission.
Halder, L., Dutta, S. C., & Sharma, R. P. (2020). Damage study and
seismic vulnerability assessment of existing masonry buildings
in Northeast India. Journal of Building Engineering, 29, 101190.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.10119​0.
IS 1077. (1992). Common burnt clay building bricks-Specification (fifth
revision). New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
IS 1893 (Part I). (2016). Indian standard criteria for earthquake resist-
ant design of structures, part 1-general provisions and buildings.
New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
IS 1905. (1995). Code of practice for structural use of unrein-
forced masonry, (third Revision). New Delhi: Bureau of Indian
Standards.
Kappos, A. J., Panagopoulos, G., Panagiotopoulos, C., & Penelis,
G. (2006). A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of
R/C and URM buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 4,
391–413. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1051​8-006-9023-0.
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
Kappos, A. J., & Papanikolaou, V. K. (2016). Nonlinear dynamic
analysis of masonry buildings and definition of seismic damage
states. The Open Construction and Building Technology Journal,
10(Suppl 2: M2), 192–209. https​://doi.org/10.2174/18748​36801​
61001​0192.
Kappos, A. J., Penelis, G. G., & Drakopoulos, C. G. (2002).
Evaluation of simplified models for lateral load analy-
sis of unreinforced masonry buildings. Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, 128(7), 890–897. https​://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:7(890).
Kappos, A., Pitilakis, K., Stylianidis, K., Morfidis, K. (1995). Cost-
benefit analysis for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings in Thes-
saloniki, based on a hybrid method of vulnerability assessment. In
Proceedings of the 5th international conference on seismic zona-
tion, Nice (Vol. 1, pp. 406–413).
Kaushik, H. B., & Dasgupta, K. (2013). Assessment of seismic vul-
nerability of structures in Sikkim, India, based on damage obser-
vation during two recent earthquakes. Journal of Performance
of Constructed Facilities, 27, 697–720. https​://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.00003​80.
Kaushik, H. B., Rai, D. C., & Jain, S. K. (2007). Stress–strain charac-
teristics of clay brick masonry under uniaxial compression. Jour-
nal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 19(9), 728–739. https:​ //doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:9(728).
Lagomarsino, S., & Cattari, S. (2013). Chapter 1: Seismic vulner-
ability of existing buildings: Observational and mechanical
approaches for application in urban areas. In P. Gueguen (Ed.),
Seismic vulnerability of structures (pp. 1–62). London: ISTE
Ltd./Wiley. https​://doi.org/10.1002/97811​18603​925.ch1. ((ISBN
978-1-84821-524-5)).
Lagomarsino, S., & Giovinazzi, S. (2006). Macroseismic and mechani-
cal models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current
buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 4, 415–443. https​
://doi.org/10.1007/s1051​8-006-9024-z.
Lang, K., & Bachmann, H. (2004). On the seismic vulnerability of
existing buildings: A case study of the city of Basel. Earthquake
Spectra, 20(1), 43–66. https​://doi.org/10.1193/1.16483​35.
Magenes, G. (2000). A method for pushover analysis in seismic assess-
ment of masonry buildings. In Proceedings of the 12th World
conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand
(Vol. 1866, pp. 1–8).
Magenes, G., & Calvi, G. M. (1997). In-plane seismic response of brick
masonry walls. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynam-
ics, 26(11), 1091–1112.
Magenes, G., & Della Fontana, A. (1998). Simplified non-linear seis-
mic analysis of masonry buildings. Proceedings of the British
Masonry Society, London, UK, 8, 190–195.
Milutinovic, Z.V. & Trendafiloski, G.S. (2003). RISK-UE: An
advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with application
to different European towns WP4: Vulnerability of current build-
ings, European Commission. http://www.civil​.ist.pt/~mlope​s/
conte​udos/Damag​eSatt​es/RiskU​EWP04​. Accessed 10 Oct 2020.
National Disaster Management Authority. (2013). Seismic vulnerability
assessment of building types in India: compilation of catalogue
of building typologies in India. https ://ndma.gov.in/images/disas-
ter/earthquake/Catalogue%0of%20Building%20Types%20in%20
India.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2020.
Nayak, S., & Dutta, S. C. (2016b). Failure of masonry structures in
earthquake: A few simple cost effective techniques as possi-
ble solutions. Engineering Structures, 106, 53–67. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engst​ruct.2015.10.014.
Nayak, S., & Dutta, S. C. (2016a). Improving seismic performance of
masonry structures with openings by polypropylene bands and
L-shaped reinforcing bars. Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 30(2), 04015003. https​://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CF.1943-5509.00007​33.
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
Oropeza, M., Michel, C., & Lestuzzi, P. (2010). A simplified analytical
methodology for fragility curves estimation in existing buildings.
In Proceedings 14th European conference on earthquake engi-
neering, Ohrid, Macedonia.
Pagnini, L. C., Vicente, R. S., Lagomarsino, S., & Varum, H. (2011).
A mechanical model for the seismic vulnerability assessment of
old masonry buildings. Earthquake and Structures, 2(1), 25–42.
https​://doi.org/10.12989​/eas.2011.2.1.025.
Petrovčič, S., & Kilar, V. (2013). Seismic failure mode interaction for
the equivalent frame modeling of unreinforced masonry struc-
tures. Engineering Structures, 54, 9–22. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.
engst​ruct.2013.03.050.
Rai, D. C., Singhal, V., Raj, S. B., & Sagar, S. L. (2016). Reconnais-
sance of the effects of the M7.8 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake of
April 25, 2015. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 7(1), 1–17.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/19475​705.2015.10849​55.
Rai, D. C., Kaushik, H. B., & Singhal, V. (2017). M 6.7, 4 January
2016 Imphal earthquake: dismal performance of publicly-funded
buildings. Current Science, 113(12), 2341–2350.
Restrepo-Ve´lez, L. F., & Magenes, G. (2004). Simplified procedure for
the seismic risk assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings. In
Proceedings of 13th World conference on earthquake engineering,
Vancouver, Canada.
Roca, A., Goula, X., Susagna, T., Chavez, J., Gonzalez, M., & Reinoso,
E. (2006). A simplified method for vulnerability assessment of
dwelling buildings and estimation of damage scenarios in Cata-
lonia, Spain. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 4(2), 141–158.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1051​8-006-9003-4.
Roca, P., Molins, C., & Marí, A. R. (2005). Strength capacity of
masonry wall structures by the equivalent frame method. Jour-
nal of Structural Engineering, 131(10), 1601–1610. https​://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:10(1601).
Rossetto, T., & Elnashai, A. (2005). A new analytical procedure for the
derivation of displacement-based vulnerability curves for popula-
tions of rc structures. Engineering Structures, 7, 397–409. https:​ //
doi.org/10.1016/j.engst​ruct.2004.11.002.
Rota, M., Penna, A., & Strobbia, C. L. (2008). Processing Italian dam-
age data to derive typological fragility curves. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, 28(10–11), 933–947. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.soild​yn.2007.10.010.
Rota, M., Pennab, A., & Magenes, G. (2010). A methodology for
deriving analytical fragility curves for masonry buildings based
on stochastic nonlinear analyses. Engineering Structures, 32(5),
1312–1323. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.engst​ruct.2010.01.009.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Saha, R., Debnath, R., Dash, S., & Haldar, S. (2020). Engineering
Reconnaissance Following the Magnitude 5.7 Tripura Earthquake
on January 3, 2017. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facil-
ities, 34(4), 04020052. https​://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-
5509.00014​46.
Salonikios, T., Karakostas, C., Lekidis, V., & Anthoine, A. (2003).
Comparative inelastic pushover analysis of masonry frames. Engi-
neering Structures, 25(12), 1515–1523. https​://doi.org/10.1016/
S0141​-0296(03)00118​-4.
Sarkar, A., Halder, L., & Sharma, R. P. (2015). Seismic damage evalua-
tion of unreinforced masonry buildings in high seismic zone using
the nonlinear static method. In V. Matsagar (Ed.), Advances in
structural engineering (pp. 1039–1053). New Delhi: Springer.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2193-7_82.
Sharma, V., Shrimali, M. K., Bharti, S. D., & Datta, T. K. (2021). Seis-
mic fragility evaluation of semi-rigid frames subjected to near-
field earthquakes. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 176,
106384. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.10638​4.
Singh, Y., Lang, D. H., Prasad, J. S. R., & Deoliya, R. (2013). An ana-
lytical study on the seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings in
India. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 17(3), 399–422. https​
://doi.org/10.1080/13632​469.2012.74621​0.
Singhal, A., & Kiremidjian, A. S. (1996). Method for probabilistic
evaluation of seismic structural damage. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 122(12), 1459–1467.
Tomazevic, M. (1990). Masonry structures in seismic areas -a state of
the art report. In Proceedings of the 9th European conference on
earthquake engineering, Moscow (Vol. A, pp. 246–302).
Tomazevic, M., Lutman, M., & Petkovic, L. (1996). Seismic behaviour
of masonry walls: Experimental simulation. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 122(9), 1040–1047.
Turnšek, V., & Ĉaĉoviĉ, F. (1971). Some experimental results on the
strength of brick masonry walls. In Proceedings of the 2nd inter-
national brick masonry conference, Stoke-on-Trent (pp.149–156).
Turnšek, V., & Sheppard, P. (1980). The shear and flexural resistance of
masonry buildings. In Proceedings of the international research
conference on earthquake engineering, Skopje (pp. 517–573).
Whitman, R. V., Reed, J. W., & Hong, S. T. (1973). Earthquake damage
probability matrices. In Proceedings of the 5th World conference
on earthquake engineering (Rome) (pp. 2531–2540).
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com

View publication stats