INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMATICS AND GEOSCIENCES
Volume 5, No 1, 2014
© Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0
Research article
ISSN 0976 – 4380
Quantification of geologic hazard and vulnerability for Chennai city, India
Ganapathy G.P1, Rajawat A. S2
1-Centre for Disaster Mitigation and Management, VIT University, Vellore 632014, India
2-Space Application Centre, ISRO, Ahmedabad 380015, India
seismogans@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
Quantification of geologic hazard and vulnerability is an important tool for planners and
decision makers, when planning for a future potential earthquake particularly in major cities.
Chennai city is one of the well urbanized and densely populated areas of India, where the
majority of buildings are reinforced concrete cement structures containing three to four
stories. The metropolitan city like Chennai would require more attention when planning for
such earthquake scenarios. The present paper aims to study and understand the seismic
hazard and vulnerability of the Chennai city’s built environment and infrastructure facilities
due to earthquakes. The seismic hazard of the city is assessed by integrating geological and
geotechnical parameters in GIS platform. A pilot seismic vulnerability study is carried out in
the densely populated built areas of the city. A first level rapid visual screening study of
buildings is carried out for part of the city. The vulnerability on infrastructure viz., road,
railway line, bridges, underground pipelines are mapped using GIS techniques. The seismic
vulnerability of part of the city is quantified by integrating the seismic hazard over the built
environment and infrastructure details. The outcome of study will be helpful in earthquake
preparedness as well as during the emergencies in focusing and prioritizing rescue and relief
operations.
Keywords: Seismic Hazard, Vulnerability, Built Environment, Earthquake Planning,
Chennai City.
1. Introduction
Seismic hazard and vulnerability in urban areas is the biggest and most rapidly growing
problem in developing countries. Post-disaster studies, especially after the Bhuj earthquake,
have given the engineering community both architects and structural engineers number of
important lessons to be adequately addressed so as to mitigate the effect of such hazards in
future. Chennai city has experienced three earthquakes of magnitudes greater than or equal to
5.0 in 1807, 1816 and 1823 (Ganapathy, G. P, 2005). Also part of Chennai falls in
seismically moderate to high hazard prone areas. Seismic micro zoning studies have been
used primarily to outline concrete counter measures and emergency response policies.
Spatial vulnerability mapping can helpful for better visual presentations and understanding of
the risks and vulnerabilities so that decision -makers can see where resources are needed for
protection of these areas (Janet Edwards, 2007). The impact of the earthquake event is most
distressing because it distress larger area, and the event onset is sudden. Also they can cause
large scale loss of life and property and disruption to critical facilities, essential services etc.
Assessment of the risk to lifelines such as water supply, telecommunication and road
networks helps manage the risk, through prioritization and mitigation or planning for
emergency preparedness (Pathmanathan Brabhaharan, 2000). The usage of the spatial
decision support system provides the advantages of emphasis on the regions which need more
attention (Harold D. Foster, 2011). One motive behind land-use planning in earthquake
Submitted on August 2014 published on August 2014
32
Quantification of geologic hazard and vulnerability for Chennai city, India
Ganapathy G.P and Rajawat A. S
prone areas is safety and how to mitigate losses (Raafat E. Fat-Helbary et al., 2005). Without
sound risk assessment data the local government officials are handicapped in trying to make
risk management decisions. The earthquake damage scenario analysis are valuable
immediately after major disasters, such as large magnitude earthquakes, as they permit very
quick estimates of damage, loss of life and injury, allowing a rapid, yet realistic response.
Even relatively moderate earthquake events can be the source of huge socio-economic
disasters. Urban areas likes Chennai city therefore require special attention during the
evaluation of seismic hazard and vulnerability. In this regard a study on quantification of
seismic hazard ground shaking effects and vulnerability of the built environment, critical
facilities, and lifeline utilities of Chennai city carried out for the earthquake planning
scenarios.
2. Materials and methods
2.1 Study area
Chennai formerly known as Madras is the capital city of the Indian state Tamil Nadu
covering an area of 174sq.km. The district is bounded by north latitudes 120 59’ 10” to 130
08’ 50” and east longitudes 800 12’ 10” to 800 18’ 30” (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Location map of Chennai city
It has the second largest beach in the world stretching more than 12km length.
The
population of the city was 4.343 million in 2001 and increased to 4.848 million in 2011
Census of India. Chennai being the fifth most populous city in India, it is also the world's
36th largest metropolitan area. The Archaean crystalline rocks, Gondwana and Tertiary
sediments and Recent alluvium are the three group of geological formations found in Chennai.
Most of the geological formations are concealed since they are overlain by the alluvial
materials excepting for a few exposures of crystalline rocks of Charnockites in south-western
part of Chennai. Geologically major part of the city is covered by recent alluvium to a
maximum thickness of 28m and these alluvial deposits can amplify in multi-fold during
International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences
Volume 5 Issue 1, 2014
33
Quantification of geologic hazard and vulnerability for Chennai city, India
Ganapathy G.P and Rajawat A. S
earthquakes Ground shaking is more severe on sites underlain by thick deposits of saturated
sediments rather than those located on bedrock (CGWB, 1993). As a result unless
precautions are taken, the greatest loss from ground shaking where the structures are built on
thick relatively soft saturated sediments. Chennai city is in such condition, about 80% of the
city located in the recent alluvial material and buildings constructed in these areas would be
highly vulnerable to earthquakes.
2.2 Approach
To understand the Seismic Hazard and Vulnerability of Chennai City a pilot study is carried
out on a regional scale of 1:12,500. The seismic hazard of the city is assessed by Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique developed by Saaty in 1980 (Saaty, T. L, 1980). The
thematic layers viz., Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), soil, geology, groundwater
fluctuation and depth to bedrock are prepared in a GIS platform. A pair wise comparison
matrix was prepared for these five thematic layers. Following the AHP, the thematic maps
are assigned weights on a scale of 1–5 depending on their contribution to seismic hazard. The
higher weight is assigned to the theme that contributes more to the hazard. The obtained
values are then incorporated in Arc-GIS Spatial Analyst tool for the integration of all the
thematic maps to obtain the seismic hazard microzonation map of Chennai city. The UNION
and overlay operation carried out to integrate these five thematic layers.
To understand the vulnerability of the built environment and infrastructure, a spatial/nonspatial database on the built environment, critical facilities, transportation and lifeline utilities
was created for the Chennai city. These elements at earthquake risk were studied for
different level of vulnerability in the seismic hazard zone. The steps involved in the
vulnerability assessment are identification of high risk areas by integrating the seismic hazard
map over the vulnerability map and the focus the vulnerability assessment on areas and or
structures located in the high risk areas. The quantification of seismic vulnerability of
Chennai city is assessed by integrating seismic hazard map over the built environment and
critical facilities, transportation and lifeline utilities, in a GIS platform.
3. Results and discussion
3.1 Seismic hazard of Chennai city
The city has been classified under Zone III (moderate seismic hazard) as per seismic hazard
map of India published by Bureau of Indian Standard1. A first level seismic microzonation
map of Chennai city has been produced with a GIS platform using the themes, viz, Peak
Ground Acceleration (PGA), Shear wave velocity at 3m, Geology, Ground water fluctuation
and bed rock depth. Chennai has been broadly classified into three zones, as high, moderate
and low in terms of seismic hazard in an event of future earthquakes (Ganapathy 2011a).
The part of Chennai falls in seismically moderate to high hazard prone areas. The resultant
map depicts that the high hazard areas are distributed in patches around Adyar River and few
patches distributed below Cooum River in the south western part of the city. The areas in the
southern part of Chennai represent lacustrine deposits are underlined by marine black clay as
evident in Taramani areas. The maximum depth to basement is 14m. The central part of the
city has mainly fluvial origin of flood plain deposits as evidence from the flowing Adyar and
Cooum rivers. The upstream portion of Adyar and Cooum rivers had a moderate slope and in
the downstream, the rivers are very gentle to flat in coastal areas. These areas in the northern
International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences
Volume 5 Issue 1, 2014
34
Quantification of geologic hazard and vulnerability for Chennai city, India
Ganapathy G.P and Rajawat A. S
part of the city represent black clay and alluvium of marine origin with maximum depth to
basement of 30m and patches of these areas show high hazard. The western and northwestern
part of Chennai falls under moderate hazard. These areas represent the shale and clay of the
Gondwana age and are also correlated with lake-fill deposits. The remaining areas are prone
to low seismic hazard. It can be concluded that half of the Chennai city is prone to moderate
to high hazard.
3.2 Vulnerability of Chennai city
Establishing the degree of vulnerability of buildings and lifeline utilities, one can obtain an
estimate of risk. Vulnerability analysis is, therefore, an intrinsic aspect of disaster mitigation
and one of the linkages in the assessment process. The Chennai city’s vulnerability is
assessed in three categories viz., built environment, critical facilities (essential and high
potential loss), and transportation and lifeline utilities.
3.3 Built environment
Once the seismic hazard has been quantified, the next step is to create a spatial representation
of the study areas structural, demographic, and economic inventory. Large scale base maps
were prepared using satellite images in GIS platform. The creation of building database for
the present study will be based on visual interpretation of satellite imageries/aerial photos and
field inventories. A spatial data base on landuse, road, railway, bridges, water ways and built
environment were created in a GIS platform using the collected maps from various
authenticated agencies viz. Census of India, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
(CMDA), and Corporation of Chennai (Ganapathy 2011b).
In the Second Master Plan published by CMDA the landuse of Chennai in the year 2006, the
residential areas covered by 54.25 %, institutional areas 18.48%, commercial areas 7.09%,
industrial areas 5.17%, open space 2.09%, agriculture and non-urban areas 0.57 and 0.47, and
the areas including vacant, forest, hills, low-lying areas and water bodies etc, are 11.89%.
Census 2001, reveals the different wall material of the constructed buildings are Brick
65.03%, Concrete 21.78 stone walls 5.16% and rest of the buildings walls constructed by
wood, mud, unburnt brick etc3. In the city 75% of the houses are with roof made up of brick,
stone, concrete and other materials of pucca nature. About 15% are with semi-pucca roofing
materials such as tiles, slate, G.I. metal sheets and asbestos cement sheets, and about 10% are
with ‘Katcha’ materials such as thatched, bamboo etc. Totally 75, 498 slums in the city.
Among these 30,922 slums distributed along the river margin, 5,288 in feeder canals, 22,769
in road margin, and 16,519 distributed in seashore areas. Three major watercourses in the
Chennai City viz, Cooum River, Buckingham canal, Adyar River which are encroached by
30922 slums viz., 8,432, 15,733, and 6,757 respectively.
3.4 Critical facilities
The classification given in HAZUS-MH, 2010 (Hazus-MH, 2010) is used for the present
study on critical facility analysis, Transportation and Utility lifeline structures. The critical
facilities are classified in to two categories viz, essential facilities (hospitals, medical clinics,
schools/educational institutions, Public Buildings, Bus Stops, fire stations, police stations and
emergency operations facilities) and high potential loss facilities (dams, levees, military
installations, nuclear power plants and hazardous material sites). The details of critical
facilities are presented in the Figure 2.
International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences
Volume 5 Issue 1, 2014
35
Quantification of geologic hazard and vulnerability for Chennai city, India
Ganapathy G.P and Rajawat A. S
Figure 2: Spatial distribution of critical facilities in Chennai
Chennai is well known for educational institutions totally 1585 institutions (schools, colleges,
technical educations, medical education, veterinary college, Law College) and most of these
institutions were spread spatially in the southern side of the city. Out of 1585 institutions,
485 are in Government and Government aided and other 1100 are private category (Census
2001). Chennai has totally 323 hospitals which includes 28 Government Hospitals and 42
private hospitals and had a capacity of 12,522 beds and 8411 beds respectively. Apart from
this totally 25 fire stations, 96 police stations, and 10 information and publicity bureaus are
available in the Chennai city. (Yellow Pages)
3.5 Transportation and lifeline utilities
The lifeline inventory is divided between transportation and utility lifeline systems in the
Hazus Methodology. The transportation systems include highways, railways, bus, ports,
International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences
Volume 5 Issue 1, 2014
36
Quantification of geologic hazard and vulnerability for Chennai city, India
Ganapathy G.P and Rajawat A. S
ferry and airports and utility systems that include potable water, wastewater, natural gas,
crude and refined oil, Bank, ATM, places of worship, electric power and communications.
The transportation details and Lifeline utilities are given in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Spatial distribution of transport network and lifeline utilities in Chennai
The Chennai city’s road network is mainly dominated by radial pattern and it converging
towards George Town and is the main Central Business District (CBD) of the Chennai
Metropolitan Area (CMA). The city’s road network is categorized as national highways (3
Nos) and a number of radial roads which connects CMA. The railway network of Chennai
carry’s by 3 corridors in northeast southwest direction as well as in east to west direction and
almost covers the total city. The Phase 1 and Phase 2 of MRTS traversing a length of more
than 15 km covering the residential and IT corridor on the south eastern side of the city in
addition to those 3 corridors.
Chennai city’s sewerage system was designed in 1910 for an estimated 1961 population of
6.6 lakhs at the rate of 114 lpcd, as a separate system. The system then allowed for admission
International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences
Volume 5 Issue 1, 2014
37
Quantification of geologic hazard and vulnerability for Chennai city, India
Ganapathy G.P and Rajawat A. S
of storm water from house courtyards and roofs through gullies. The city was divided as
north, west and south (independent) drainage areas. In the present Chennai City Corporation
area of 174sq.km the sewerage system now covers 99% of the city area. There are 5,15,560
sewer connections as on date to serve the population of Chennai City through a network of
2,663 kms of sewer and 180 sewage pumping stations. The city has one Airport and sea port.
The total quantity of exports handled by sea port remains larger when compared to imports.
Chennai has a major harbour, which consist of 209 acres. Apart from these 9 electricity
offices, 17 fuel stations, 97 gas appliances/agencies, 47 telecommunication services and 106
water suppliers are in the Chennai city. (Yellow Pages)
4. Discussions
Chennai city has been classified into three broad zones, viz, High, Moderate and Low
Seismic Hazard. The High seismic Hazard concentrated in a few places in the western central
part of the city. The moderate hazard areas are oriented in NW-SE direction in the Western
part. The southern and eastern part will have low seismic hazard. Out of 174 sq.km area
107.68 sq.km area covered by residential and commercial buildings. Most of the residential
and commercial areas fall under moderate to high seismic hazard areas. The urbanization in
the city starts from north and spreads in a radial pattern. The areas around Saidapet,
Kodambakkam and Anna Nagar are densely populated as well as these areas built over the
recent alluvial materials, which have the capacity of the soil amplification 2 to 3 times more
than the normal soils. These areas are falls in high seismic hazard zone and mostly residential.
T.Nagar is one of the centres of attraction in Chennai for shopping and mixed residential
areas, where most of building have spatial irregularity.
Figure 4: Spatial Vulnerability of a) Hospitals and Educational Institutions, b) Lifeline
utilities c) Critical facilities in the Chennai City
These are highly vulnerable during earthquakes. This area also falls under moderate to high
seismic areas. Nearly 77% of the buildings are accessible through tar roads, and only 14% are
approachable through mud roads. 18% of the buildings comprise flats and 41% are
independent buildings. Since the city is old one, totally 147 heritage buildings are spreader
mostly in the north Chennai, where we have moderate seismic hazard. The north Chennai is
densely populated compare to other areas and most of buildings in these areas were
constructed in 17th Century. 53% of the buildings are within 20 years of age. 14% are
International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences
Volume 5 Issue 1, 2014
38
Quantification of geologic hazard and vulnerability for Chennai city, India
Ganapathy G.P and Rajawat A. S
between 20 to 40 years of age. The bureau of Indian Standard revised Chennai city from
Zone II to Zone III. Since 77% of the buildings were constructed before the year 2002 and
this building can’t meet seismic design code for Zone III for the city. Even though these
areas are moderate seismic hazard, due to dense population and old buildings nature, the
vulnerability is very high compared to other areas. The probability of damage to these
structures can be depending on their impact on the earthquake strength of the building by
simple Rapid Visual Screening Techniques.
The critical facilities like hospitals and educational institutions are situated in densely
populated areas falls under moderate seismic hazard and these areas are more vulnerable in
terms of population density. However the city doesn’t have much high potential loss
facilities like dams, levees, military installations, nuclear power plants and hazardous
material sites within the city limit. The details are depicted in Figure 4 and Table 1.
Table 1: The severity of hazard zone wise statistics and its vulnerability on the infrastructure
facilities
Seismic Hazard
No Data
Facilities
Total
Area
Low
Moderate
High
Hospitals
56
37
1
8
102
Educational Institutions
25
27
1
30
83
Critical Facilities
348
137
10
93
588
Lifeline Utilities
399
168
6
134
707
Total
828
369
18
265
1480
The length of roads in the city viz, cements concrete, bituminous and Water bound macadam
are 83kms, 3,656kms, and 11kms respectively. Since the sewage system designed before the
2002, it should be checked thoroughly for leakage coz, earthquake is related to ground
shaking phenomenon and the sewerage system of Chennai covers 99% of city’s total area, it
would be highly vulnerable during earthquakes.
About 195 parks with extent varying from 150sq.m to 35,000sq.m and totalling to more than
6, 00,000sq.m. Playgrounds maintained by Chennai Municipal Corporation is concerned, is
more than 200 nos., with a total extent exceeding 5, 00,000sq.m. These areas should avoid
for future development and can be used for emergency shelters.
5. Conclusions
Seismic risk macro-zoning is useful principally for regional policy-making and planning
purposes. Seismic risk micro-zoning is likely to emerge as an important land-use planning
tool for local planning and development in areas of high seismic risk. Since the present
seismic hazard map for Chennai is GIS based one and also have its own limitations, it can be
used as first level regional studies. Further the map can be refined with more geophysical
and geotechnical information’s for future detailed site specific studies. The characteristics of
each seismic zone, the basis for land—use controls, zoning ordinances, building codes, and
building or location permits should be clearly demarcate in the future city developmental
activities. Vulnerability analysis in disaster prone areas is not only fundamental to
formulation of building codes, as widely accepted, but is even more important for the general
process of physical planning, and land use planning in particular, especially with regard to
location decisions for new development. The emergency planners can make use of the present
study as the first hand information. The vulnerability of the buildings, critical facilities,
International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences
Volume 5 Issue 1, 2014
39
Quantification of geologic hazard and vulnerability for Chennai city, India
Ganapathy G.P and Rajawat A. S
lifeline strictures should be studied thoroughly for further planning purposes. The present
vulnerability study is based in spatial distribution and relative risk based. However the likely
damage to structures should be categorized in different grades depending on their impact on
the seismic strength of the building. This kind of studies will be useful to identify the need
for retrofitting. Also thorough study and regular health check up should be recommended for
the vulnerable buildings in the high seismic hazard areas of the city. Generally earthquake
planning scenarios are designed to give realistic image of an anticipated earthquake. They
clearly teach us an important lesson that, some lifeline facilities will be damaged and some of
them won’t damage. By delineating the areas where extensive damage likely, the earthquake
scenarios highlights locations where lifeline facilities need special attention from emergency
planners, public, officials and engineers.
Acknowledgements
The present study is part of ISRO Ongoing project-ISRO/RES/4/548/09-10. The authors
thankful to SAC, ISRO for funding under RESPOND programme. The authors are grateful to
the Officials of Census of India, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (MMDA),
Corporation of Chennai, Metro Water, Central Ground Water Board and Geological Survey
of India, Chennai for providing the data and necessary information without which this work
would not have been possible. The first author acknowledges all the facilities provided by Dr.
G. Viswanathan, Chancellor, VIT University, Vellore, India.
6. References
1. BIS: 1893 Part-1, Indian Standard, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures, (2002) Part 1-General Provisions and Buildings (fifth revision), ICS
91.120.25, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, Edition 6.1 (2005 – 01), p 40.
2. Brian E.Tucker, (1992), Use of Earthquake Damage Scenarios, Proceedings off
Special Theme Session Number 10 of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering entitled, Earthquake Damage Scenarios for cities of the 21st Century,
Madrid, Spain July 23, 1992, and p 203.
3. Census, District Census Handbook, Part AandB, (2011)., Chennai District, Town
Directory, Primary Census Abstract, Census of India, Series-04, Chennai. P 241.
4. CGWB (1993), Groundwater Resources and Development Prospects in Madras
District, Tamil Nadu, Central Ground Water Board, Souther Region, Chennai, p165
5. CMDA, (2008), Second Master Plan for Chennai Metropolitan Area, 2026, Chennai
Metropolitan Authority, Vol. I, II and III, p 303.
6. Fumio Kaneko and Toshihiro Yamada, (1992), Preparation of Earthquake Scenarios
from Seismic Microzoning Studies, Proceedings off Special Theme Session Number
10 of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering entitled, Earthquake
Damage Scenarios for cities of the 21st Century, Madrid, Spain July 23, 1992, pp 175195.
7. Ganapathy G.P, (2011a), First Level Seismic Microzonation Map of Chennai city – a
GIS Approach, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 11, pp 549–559.
International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences
Volume 5 Issue 1, 2014
40
Quantification of geologic hazard and vulnerability for Chennai city, India
Ganapathy G.P and Rajawat A. S
8. Ganapathy G.P, A.S. Rajawat A.S, and Sekar S.K, (2011b), Seismic Hazard and
Vulnerability in the Built Environment of Chennai City, India, Proceedings of the
International conference on Building Resilience, Interdisciplinary approaches to
disaster risk reduction, and the development of sustainable communities and cities,
Heritance Kandalama, Sri Lanka 19th - 21st July 2011, Organised by University of
Salford in association with and RMIT Australia, Paper No .225.
9. Ganapathy, G. P, (2005), Seismic Hazard Assessment for Tamil Nadu State and A
Specific Study on Local Ground Motion Response for Part of Chennai City, India,
Anna University, Ph.D. thesis, 2005, p.167 (Unpublished).
10. Google Earth, (2008), available at http:// www. Google.com/earth [accessed on
04.01.2011], accessed on September 2014.
11. Harold D. Foster, Norman E. (2011), Hardy and Colin J.B. Wood, The role of
earthquake hazard mapping in disaster simulations and exercises: Case studies from
British Columbia, Ministry of Energy and Mines Open file Report, Document No.
P2003-2-9, 2011 pp 69-80.
12. Hazus-MH, (2010), Multi Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Hazus MH-MR5,
Version 10.0.0, Input of Homeland Securities Loss Estimation Methodology for Multi
Hazard, FEMA.
13. Janet Edwards, (2007), Martin Gustafsson, Barbro Näslund-Landenmark, Handbook
for Vulnerability Mapping, EU Asia Pro Eco project, Disaster Reduction through
Awareness, Preparedness and Prevention Mechanisms in Coastal Settlements in Asia
Demonstration in Tourism Destinations, p. 18
14. Pathmanathan Brabhaharan, (2000), Earthquake Ground Damage Hazard Studies and
their use in Risk Management, in the Wellington Region, New Zealand, Proceedings
of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland New Zea Land w
2000w Paper No. 1588
15. Raafat E. Fat-Helbary, Karrar O. El Faragawy, and Abdel-Nasser M. ABDEL Motaal
(2004), Land use planning and seismic hazards of the proposed Aswan New city area,
Egypt, Acta Geodynamica Geomater,1(4), (136), pp 99-106.
16. Ravi Sinha and Alok Goyal, (2001), A National Policy for Seismic Vulnerability
Assessment of Buildings and Procedure for Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for
Potential Seismic Vulnerability, Special Report, IIT Bombay, pp 1-12.
17. Saaty, T. L., (1980), The Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill, New York,
p.350
18. Samadi Alinia, H, M. R. and Delavar, (2009), Applications of Spatial Data
Infrastructure in Disaster Management, Proceedings of GSDI 11 World Conference,
Spatial Data Infrastructure Convergence: Building SDI Bridges to Address Global
Challenges, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 15-19 June 2009, Paper No. 237.
International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences
Volume 5 Issue 1, 2014
41
Quantification of geologic hazard and vulnerability for Chennai city, India
Ganapathy G.P and Rajawat A. S
19. Shailesh Kumar Agrawal, and Prasad.J.K, (2009), Requirements of Building
Materials for Earthquake Resistant Building, Planning Urban Future, Proceedings of
the World Habitat Day, 5th October, 2009, pp 46-55.
20. UNDRO-1, (1978), Disaster Prevention and Mitigation- A Compendium of Current
Knowledge, Vol. 9, Legal Aspects- Disaster Legislation, Office of the United Nations
Disaster Relief Co-ordinator, Geneva, p 69.
21. UNDRO-2, (1991),Mitigating Natural Disasters-Phenamena, Effects and Options, A
Manual for Policy Makers and Planners, A publication within the framework of the
International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) 1990 – 1999, Office of
the United Nations Disaster Relief Co-ordinator, Geneva, p.164.
22. UNDRO-3, (1978), Disaster Prevention and Mitigation- A Compendium of Current
Knowledge, Vol. 5, Land Use Aspects, Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief
Co-ordinator, Geneva, p. 69.
23. YellowPages, (2011), available at http://yellowpages.webindia123.com/dpy/ Masras%
2c + Tamil+ Nadu / Chennai, accessed on August 2014.
International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences
Volume 5 Issue 1, 2014
42