A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India - Geological & Mining ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

construction is concentrated along main roadways and in Almora proper. Thesurvey revealed that 57 % of new constructions in the region are load-bearingstructures.Table 3.6: Per village analysis of houses built and masonsName ofVillageNo. ofhousesLoadbearingFrameStructureTotal no.masonsUntrainedmasonsOthermasonssurveyedArtola 2 0 2 2 2 0Barishina 1 0 1 1 1 0Chitai 4 3 1 4 4 0Dina Pani 1 0 1 1 1 0Falseema 3 2 1 3 2 1Gadoli 1 0 1 1 1 0Jyoli 1 0 1 1 1 0Maatgo 1 1 0 1 1 0Maniagar 3 3 0 3 3 0Matila 1 0 1 1 1 0Paper Sali 4 2 2 4 4 0Shishral 1 1 0 1 1 023 12 11 23 22 1As for Study Area A, constructions were considered as safe if they met theminimum requirements of key features such as a plinth band, lintel band, smallopenings and a light roof. The more features included, the higher the resilience toan earthquake. Table 3.7 presents a per village distribution of earthquake-safeload-bearing constructions. Frame structure results are found in Table 3.8. “Safe”in this context refers to buildings that are constructed in order to withstand amedium earthquake of magnitude 6 or less on the Richter scale. A breakdown offeatures in each of the houses surveyed is found in Annex II. All houses in theregion were built by untrained masons.The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 65
Table 3.7: Percentage of safe houses in different villagesLegendNOVNHSNHSENUSPSName of villageNumber of houses surveyedNumber houses safe from earthquakeNumber of unsafe housesPercentage of safe housesLoad-bearing StructuresNOV NHS NHSE NUS PSChitai 3 1 2 33Falseema 2 2 0 100Jyoli 1 0 1 100Maatgo 1 0 1 100Maniagar 3 0 3 33Paper Sali 2 0 2 50Shishral 1 1 0 10013 4 9 30.76• 30 % of load-bearing constructions are considered to be earthquake-safe inthis region.• 30 % of frame structures are considered to be earthquake-safe in thisregion.• As the interviews with masons indicate, nearly half of local masons in theAlmora region are unfamiliar with frame structures. The housing surveyreveals that 80 % of frame structure constructions were built by migrantmasons (mainly from Bihar), whereas92 % of load-bearing structures werebuilt by local masons, dramatically emphasizing the need for training of localmasons. This recommendation is further supported by the low proportions ofearthquake-safe load-bearing and frame structure constructions in the area(30 % each).The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitigation and Response – A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India 66
Page 1 and 2:
The Role of Non GovernmentalOrganis
Page 3 and 4:
Table of contentsChapter 1 - Introd
Page 5 and 6:
List of figuresFigure 1.1: Study re
Page 7 and 8:
preparedness, and has potential to
Page 9 and 10:
This case study investigates the im
Page 11 and 12:
• What are homeowner perceptions
Page 13 and 14:
Seismic activity in this area is du
Page 15 and 16:
The study comprises two regions: St
Page 17 and 18:
1.4.1 - b Study Area B- Almora dist
Page 19 and 20:
etc. operational). The study involv
Page 21 and 22: Chapter 2 - Theoretical Orientation
Page 23 and 24: 2.1.2 VulnerabilityVulnerability is
Page 25 and 26: of a disaster everyone knows how to
Page 27 and 28: disaster management in the country,
Page 29 and 30: Despite the apparent increased cons
Page 31 and 32: 2.3.1 Disaster Mitigation and Prepa
Page 33 and 34: save lives. This event marked a pri
Page 35 and 36: Systems technologies and education
Page 37 and 38: As suggested previously, there is a
Page 39 and 40: on the main agenda (Benson et al, 2
Page 41 and 42: Frame structureFramed structures ha
Page 43 and 44: The curriculum of the PSI workshops
Page 45 and 46: Figure 2.2a: Community based disast
Page 47 and 48: district irrespective of the fact t
Page 49 and 50: etrofitting, monitoring and homeown
Page 51 and 52: structures as an alarming forty-fiv
Page 53 and 54: Reponses for what features masons t
Page 55 and 56: trained masons in the Study Area A
Page 57 and 58: ecommended that a similar study be
Page 59 and 60: 3.1.2b Awareness and Dissemination
Page 61 and 62: It is interesting to note that when
Page 63 and 64: Community based disaster preparedne
Page 65 and 66: 3.1.3 - Section 3 Housing Impact As
Page 67 and 68: Load-bearing1.single steel rod in e
Page 69 and 70: The overall proportion of newly bui
Page 71: etween stirrups of 6-12 inches. Alt
Page 75 and 76: 3.2 DiscussionThe discussion segmen
Page 77 and 78: In Study Area A the number of earth
Page 79 and 80: 2) mitigation measures were taken i
Page 81 and 82: 3.3 ConclusionsIn conclusion, the s
Page 83 and 84: ReferencesAlexander, D., 1997. The
Page 85 and 86: Guptasarma, D. 1996. Is the Seismic
Page 87 and 88: Telford, J. and Cosgrave, J., 2007.
Page 89 and 90: Annex I - Earthquake safe featuresT
Page 91 and 92: The Role of NGOs in Disaster Mitiga
Page 97 and 98: Annex 2 - Mason Interview ResultsSt
Page 99 and 100: 11. How to make such a course more
Page 101 and 102: sloped roof 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 2.78s
Page 103 and 104: 17. Do homeowners request earthquak
Page 105 and 106: light roof 1 0 1 2.78 0 0.00RCC 1 3
Page 107 and 108: 6. How long have you lived in the v
Page 109 and 110: 16. Do you have an emergency commun
Page 111 and 112: 26. What activities related to the
Page 113 and 114: 36. Would you prefer traditional ma
Page 115 and 116: Appendix IV - Breakdown of earthqua
Page 117: Appendix IV - Breakdown of earthqua
show all

A Case Study in Uttarakhand, Northern India - Geological & Mining ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?