INTERNATIONAL

OF ADVANCED
ENGINEERING
International Journal of JOURNAL
Advanced Research
in Engineering RESEARCH
and TechnologyIN
(IJARET),
ISSN 0976
AND TECHNOLOGY
(IJARET)
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online),
Volume 6, Issue 2, February
(2015), pp. 20-27 IAEME
ISSN 0976 - 6480 (Print)
ISSN 0976 - 6499 (Online)
Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 20-27
IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ IJARET.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2015): 8.5041 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com

IJARET
IAEME

ASSESSMENT OF THE SEISMIC VULNERABILITY OF

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OF SRINAGAR CITY JAMMU
AND KASHMIR
1
1,2

Sidrat Ul Muntaha Anees,

M. Sultan Bhat

Department of Geography & Regional Development, University of Kashmir, J&K

ABSTRACT
Earthquakes are unique among natural hazards in that they occur without warning. Surveys
show that collapsing buildings and structures during an earthquake can cause huge social, economic
and human disasters. Earthquakes have occurred regularly over centuries in Kashmir and people
have learnt to live with it. The aim of this paper is to assess the structural vulnerability of residential
buildings of Srinagar City on the basis of certain selected indicators. The results of the study indicate
that the residential buildings in the inner parts of the City are highly vulnerable to earthquakes and
immediate measures should be taken to make them safe for the people residing in them.
Keywords: Earthquakes, Structural vulnerability, Indicators
INTRODUCTION
Earthquakes are unique among natural hazards in that they occur without warning
(Langenbach 2009). During an earthquake when a structure is shaking, it gets damaged if it is not
sufficiently strong and/or flexible (UNESCO and UNDP 2007). Earthquakes have occurred regularly
over centuries in Kashmir and people have learnt to live with it (Gobar Times 2006). Soft, loose
soils, such as those found in Srinagar tend to amplify the longer period ground motion characteristic
of earthquakes which may accentuate building damage. The danger of earthquakes and the soft
building ground have had a great influence on the way people traditionally built their houses in
Kashmir (Langenbach 2009). The buildings are provided with wooden floors in case of rural
constructions whereas reinforced concrete slab floors and roofs are used in the case of urban
constructions (Ali and Mohammad 2006; Gupta et al. 2008; Ahmad et al. 2012).
Urban environments are physically characterized by a small scale alignment of buildings,
infrastructure and open spaces with their specific types and dimensions (Muck et al. 2012). The
dynamic interaction between urban components or subsystems and diverse forms of vulnerability
20

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 20-27 IAEME

(Rashed 2003) and the concept of chain of losses and failures (Menoni and Pergalani 1996) proves
that vulnerability is an inherently spatial problem (Hashemi and Alesheikh 2012). Damages due to
seismic events in the last decades particularly in cities with dense urban fabric have raised the
interest of emergency planners in estimating the seismic risk associated with future earthquakes
(Kontoes et al. 2012). Surveys show that collapsing buildings and structures during an earthquake
can cause huge social, economic and human disasters (Panahi et al. 2013). The seismic vulnerability
of a building represents its sensitivity to be damaged by a ground shaking of a given intensity
(Giardina et al. 2010). The determination of expected damages or victims occurring during an
earthquake requires over all, the evaluation of two factors, i.e. seismicity and vulnerability. The
second factor is depending on seismic performance of buildings and many ways have been attempted
for its assessment (Angeletti et al. 1988). The vulnerability of buildings is one of the most important
parameters for evaluation of earthquake potential damages in urban fabrics (Hosseini et al. 2009).
Existing buildings can become seismically deficient since seismic design code requirements are
constantly upgraded and there is advancement in engineering knowledge (Chourasia and Agrawal
2007). Vulnerability estimation is a complex process which has to take into account not only the
design of building but also the deterioration of the material and damage caused to the building if any
(Agrawal and Chourasia 2007). Structural vulnerabilities have arisen in Kashmir in recent decades
where traditional practices have been diluted and knowledge and skill have been lost. It is therefore
very important to check the earthquake vulnerability of all existing buildings of mixed traditional
and modern construction in Kashmir, since all of these are located in Seismic Zones IV or V
(UNESCO and UNDP 2007).
DATABASE AND METHODOLOGY
The evaluation of earthquake risks both to individual buildings and for a community as a
whole is a complex task (Langenbach 2009). The difficulties faced in the seismic evaluation of a
building are manifold (Chourasia and Agrawal 2007). Srinagar is divided into 68 municipal wards as
delineated by Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC). Intensive field survey was conducted on 300
residential buildings by filling a comprehensive questionnaire. A vulnerability analysis of built
environment was attempted with an objective to assess the structural vulnerability of Srinagar city.
The methodology followed was based by considering which characteristics of buildings affect their
vulnerability. Based on the degree of vulnerability according to various structural parameters
(Monzavi et al. 2010; Gheitarani et al. 2013), the integrated vulnerability analysis of the study area
was carried out.
INDICATORS SELECTED FOR ASSESSING THE STRUCTURAL VULNERABILITY OF
SRINAGAR CITY
Vulnerability of buildings to earthquakes is dependent on a variety of form and functional
parameters (Muck et al. 2012). Residential building vulnerability is up to five times larger than either
commercial or industrial building vulnerabilities (Cochrane and Schaad 1992). A structure with
higher vulnerability is likely to suffer severe damage (UNESCO and UNDP 2007). Cochrane and
Schaad (1992) determined vulnerability on the basis of construction material type and building age.
The Global Earthquake Model (GEM) initiative (GEM 2012) identified different factors like
building height, age, design and construction as main indicators for building stability (Muck et al.
2012). Panahi et al. (2013) defined the construction materials of structures, year of construction and
their quality as major affecting factors in structural vulnerability. By determining some important
building parameters and the manner in which they can influence the vulnerability of the building, a
particular combination of indicators were chosen as the basis for the structural vulnerability
21

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 20-27 IAEME

estimation of the study area. Hence the indicators selected for assessing the structural vulnerability of
Srinagar city were; (a) Density of residential buildings (Cutter et al. 2003) (b) Age of residential
buildings (Cochrane and Schaad 1992; Dolce et al. 2000; Dolce et al. 2006; Roca et al. 2006; Muck
et al. 2012; Daneshvar et al. 2013; Panahi et al. 2013) (c) Height/Number of storeys of residential
buildings (Cochrane and Schaad 1992; Dolce et al. 2000; Ayala and Speranza 2002; Dolce et al.
2006; Roca et al. 2006; Muck et al. 2012; Gheitarani et al. 2013) and (d) Construction material of
residential buildings (Cochrane and Schaad 1992; UNESCO and UNDP 2007; Eidsvig et al. 2011;
Muck et al. 2012; Panahi et al. 2013).
DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
There is high need in the metropolitan cities to study the seismic risk, since the seismic
hazard although might be low, the resulted risk expressed in terms of damages and human casualties
can be high due to the high average density of built up areas (Kontoes et al. 2012). The total number
of residential buildings in Srinagar city is 1,82,829 as per Census 2011. The housing density was
calculated for all the 68 municipality wards which were then classified into five categories on the
basis of housing density into Very High (Housing density > 2000), High (Housing density 1500 2000), Moderate (Housing density 1000 - 1500), Low (Housing density 500 - 1000) and Very Low
(Housing density < 500) density. On the basis of the categorization of housing density, higher the
density, higher was considered its vulnerability and lower the density, lower was considered its
vulnerability to earthquakes (Cutter et al. 2003). Figure 1 illustrates the vulnerability classification of
municipality wards of Srinagar City according to the density of residential buildings. According to
the figure, the highly dense municipality wards are located in the inner parts of the city. The Very
Low Vulnerability category covering 62% area includes 15 municipality wards; the Low
Vulnerability category covering 17% area includes 11 municipality wards; the Moderate
Vulnerability category covering 11.5 % area includes 15 municipality wards; the High
Vulnerability category covering 4.8 % area includes 9 municipality wards; and the Very High
Vulnerability category covering 4.7 % area includes 18 municipality wards.
AGE OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
The more a buildings lifetime is, the greater would be the amount of its vulnerability (Panahi
et al. 2013). Age is most significant for masonry construction. Steel and reinforced concrete frame
structures show little true aging change (Cochrane and Schaad 1992). Older buildings do not enjoy
adequate safety and are likely to be vulnerable to severe damage or total collapse under strong
seismic excitations (Panahi et al. 2013). Following their age, residential buildings were grouped into
five classes on the basis of vulnerability as; Very High (built before 1981), High (built from 1981 1988), Moderate (built from 1989 - 1996), Low (built from 1997 - 2004) and Very Low
Vulnerability (built from 2005 - present) (Monzavi et al. 2010; Gheitarani et al. 2013). Figure 2
depicts the vulnerability classification of municipality wards of Srinagar City according to the age of
surveyed residential buildings. The age of the residential buildings increases from the outer city
towards the inner city. The Very High Vulnerability class includes 3 municipality wards; the
High Vulnerability class includes 10 municipality wards; the Moderate Vulnerability class
includes 24 municipality wards; the Low Vulnerability class includes 25 municipality wards; and
the Very Low Vulnerability class includes 6 municipality wards.

22

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 20-27 IAEME

Figure 1: Vulnerability classification of

municipality wards of Srinagar City
according to the Density of Residential
Buildings

Figure 2: Vulnerability classification of

municipality wards of Srinagar City
according to the Age of surveyed
Residential buildings

Source: Census 2011

Source: Field survey 2014-2015

HEIGHT OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

With respect to height, vulnerability of residential buildings has been classified in two
categories as the residential buildings of the study area are mostly two or three storied; Low
Vulnerability (having G+1 floors) and Moderate Vulnerability (having G+2 floors) (Monzavi et al.
2010; Gheitarani et al. 2013). Figure 3 illustrates the vulnerability classification of municipality
wards of Srinagar City according to the height of surveyed residential buildings. The first category
includes 19 municipality wards and the second one includes 49 municipality wards.
CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
Categorization of buildings and assignment of vulnerabilities on the basis of their
construction material type is more common (Cochrane and Schaad 1992). The highly vulnerable
buildings include mud brick structures, masonry building and buildings with weak structures
(Hosseini et al. 2009). Cochrane and Schaad (1992) proposed construction material type as the most
feasible vulnerability assessment tool. Strong resistance refers to reinforced concrete constructions,
medium resistance to mixed concrete-timber and thin brick-wall constructions and weak resistance to
simple timber and very light constructions (Eidsvig et al. 2011). The results of the researches done
by experts on the laboratory experiments and observations from the previous earthquakes indicate
that sun-dried mud brick buildings are the most vulnerable structures which totally collapse during
an earthquake with magnitude greater than 6 (Mahdizadeh 2011) and vulnerability of masonry,
concrete and steel buildings decrease respectively (Tavakoli and Tavakoli 1993; JICA and CEST
2000; Ghayamghamian and Khanzade 2008; Ghayamghamian et al. 2012; Panahi et al. 2013).
Buildings constructed of ductile components such as steel tend to withstand earthquakes much better
than those constructed of brittle materials such as unreinforced masonry (Langenbach 2009).
In Kashmir, many types of construction practices are used with a variety of materials
(UNESCO and UNDP, 2007). Surveyed residential buildings were divided into four categories of
vulnerability according to the materials used for their construction as Concrete buildings (having
Low Vulnerability); Brick and Iron buildings (having Moderate Vulnerability); Brick and Wood
buildings (having High Vulnerability); and Sun-dried mud brick and Wood buildings (having Very
High Vulnerability) (Monzavi et al. 2010; Gheitarani et al. 2013). Figure 4 depicts the vulnerability
classification of municipality wards of Srinagar City according to the construction material of
surveyed residential buildings. The Low Vulnerability category includes 13 municipality wards;
23

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 20-27 IAEME

the Moderate Vulnerability category includes 8 municipality wards; the High Vulnerability
category includes 33 municipality wards; and the Very High Vulnerability category includes 14
municipality wards.
Figure 3: Vulnerability classification of
municipality wards of Srinagar City
according to the Height of surveyed
Residential Buildings

Figure 4: Vulnerability classification of

municipality wards of Srinagar City
according to the Construction Material of
surveyed Residential buildings

Source: Field survey 2014-2015

Source: Field survey 2014-2015

Based on the degree of vulnerability of certain selected indicators of Housing density, Age of
structure, Type of material used for construction and Number of floors (Monzavi et al. 2010;
Gheitarani et al. 2013) the structural vulnerability of Srinagar city was classified into three categories
of Low Vulnerability, Moderate Vulnerability and High Vulnerability. From the average values of
the four indicators of Density, Age, Height and Construction material of residential buildings, the
municipality wards were grouped into the former vulnerability categories and were spatially
represented as in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Vulnerability classification of municipality wards of Srinagar City according to the
Density, Age, Height and Construction Material of Residential buildings

Source: Field survey 2014-2015

24

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 20-27 IAEME

The figure illustrates that by considering the impact of all the selected indicators on structural
vulnerability of Srinagar City, the inner areas of the city depict higher vulnerability than its outer
surrounding areas while as the peripheral areas of the city depict lower vulnerability.
RESULTS
The residential buildings located in the inner parts of the Srinagar city are old, densely
populated, having Ground+3 floors and constructed with poor construction materials and these
reasons lead to their higher vulnerability while as the outer city areas consist of newer constructions,
have low density of adjacent buildings and are made up of construction materials having stronger
resistance to earthquakes which makes their vulnerability to earthquakes low.
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
In order to ensure effective measurements, mitigation strategies have to be focused on areas
of high and very high earthquake risk (Muck et al. 2012). The growing vulnerability emphasizes the
need to incorporate earthquake resistant features in constructions practices (Manohar et al. 2012).
Throughout the history of building there have been devices used to enhance earthquake resistance
(Ayala and Speranza 2002). Seismic evaluation of existing buildings and strengthening of those,
which do not have acceptable seismic safety, constitutes one of the mitigation activities (Ilkisik et al.
2010). There are simple ways to reduce the vulnerability of surviving buildings through the process
of retrofitting, as apart from being more cost-effective than rebuilding, retrofitting offers important
advantages that make it a viable and attractive option (UNESCO and UNDP 2007). The Government
should arrange for regular structural vulnerability checks of residential structures which should be
performed by trained civil engineers so that they can bring out the major concerns affecting the
vulnerability of the structure. Newspapers and media can be used to make the general masses aware
about the common concerns of structural vulnerability which they can handle at the personal level.
REFERENCES
1.

2.

3.
4.

5.

6.

7.

Agrawal, S. K. and Chourasia, A. (2007) Methodology for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment

of Building Stock in Mega Cities, A Workshop on Microzonation, Interline Publishing,
Bangalore: pp. 182-190.
Ahmad, N., Ali, Q., Ashraf, M., Alam, B. and Naeem, A. (2012) Seismic vulnerability of the
Himalayan half-dressed rubble stone masonry structures, experimental and analytical studies,
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (12): pp. 3441-3454.
Ali, Q. and Mohammad, T. (2006) Stone masonry residential buildings in northern areas of
Pakistan, Housing Report, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), USA.
Angeletti, P., Bellina, A., Grandori, E. G., Moretti, A. and Petrini, V. (1988) Comparison
between Vulnerability Assessment and Damage Index, Some Results, Proceedings of Ninth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Japan, Vol. 7: pp. 181-186.
Ayala, D.D. and Speranza, E. (2002) An Integrated Procedure for the Assessment of Seismic
Vulnerability of Historic Buildings, Elsevier Science Ltd, 12th European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Paper Reference 561.
Chourasia, A. and Agrawal, S. K. (2007) Estimation of Seismic Vulnerability of Buildings of
Delhi Municipal Area, Journal of the National Institute of Disaster Management, Disaster and
Development, Vol. 1, No. 2: pp. 169-185.
Cochrane, S. W. and Schaad, W. H. (1992) Assessment of Earthquake Vulnerability of
Buildings, Earthquake Engineering, Tenth World Conference, Rotterdam: pp. 497-502.
25

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 20-27 IAEME

8.
9.

10.

11.

12.

13.
14.

15.

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

21.

22.
23.

24.

25.

Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J. and Shirley, W. L. (2003) Social Vulnerability to Environmental

Hazards, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 84, No. 2: pp. 242-261.
Daneshvar, M. R. M., Rezayi, S. and Khosravi, S. (2013) Earthquake vulnerability zonation
of Mashhad urban fabric by combining the quantitative models in GIS, northeast of Iran,
International Journal of Environmental Protection and Policy, Vol. 1, No. 4: pp. 44-49.
Dolce, M., Kappos, A., Masi, A., Penelis, G. and Vona, M. (2006) Vulnerability assessment
and earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) using
Italian and Greek methodologies, ELSEVIER, Engineering Structures (28): pp. 357371.
Dolce, M., Marino, M., Masi, A., Vona, M. (2000) Seismic vulnerability analysis and damage
scenarios of Potenza, International workshop on seismic risk and earthquake damage
scenarios of Potenza.
Eidsvig, U. M. K., McLean, A., Vangelsten, B.V. and Kalsnes B. (2011) Socio-economic
Vulnerability to Natural Hazards Proposal for an indicator-based model, ISGSR, Vogt,
Schuppener, Straub & Bru (eds): pp. 141-147.
Ghayamghamian, M. R. and Khanzade, K. (2008) Buildings classification and determination
of damage function for non-engineering in Bam city, JSEE (39): pp. 2-10.
Ghayamghamian, M. R., Ahmadzadeh, S. and Mirzaei, N. (2012) Evaluation of damage
functions for non-engineering buildings during the 2005 Dahooiyeh-Zarand earthquake in
Iran, Civil Engineering Sharif (27): pp. 13-19.
Gheitarani, N., Ghadarjani, R., Kahvand, M. and Mehrabadi, S. A. M. (2013) Explaining the
Effective Measures in Decreasing the Vulnerability of Urban Area against Earthquake Using
AHP Model (Case study: Tehran, a Metropolis), Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific
Research, Vol. 3, No. 8: pp. 675-681.
Giardina, G., Hendriks, M. A. N. and Rots, J. G. (2010) Assessment of the settlement
vulnerability of masonry buildings, 8th International Masonry Conference, Dresden: pp. 1-15.
Global Earthquake model (GEM) (2012) http://www.globalquakemodel.org/.
Gobar Times (2006) Environment for Beginners. New Delhi, Centre for Science and
Environment.
Gupta, I., Shankar, R., and Sinvhal, A. (2008) Earthquake vulnerability assessment of house
constructions in Himalayas, J. Design Built Environ (3):pp. 1-14.
Hashemi, M. and Alesheikh, A. A. (2012) Development and implementation of a GIS-based
tool for spatial modeling of seismic vulnerability of Tehran, Natural Hazards and Earth
System Sciences (12): pp. 3659-3670.
Hosseini, K. A., Hosseini, M., Jafari, M. K. and Hosseinioon, S. (2009) Recognition of
Vulnerable Urban Fabrics in Earthquake Zones: A Case Study of the Tehran Metropolitan
Area, JSEE, Vol. 10, No. 4: pp. 175-187.
Ilkisik, O. M., Ergenc, M. N. and Turk, M. T. (2010) Istanbul Earthquake Risk and
Mitigation Studies, Disaster Coordination Center, Turkey: pp. 1-8.
JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) and CEST (Center for Earthquake and
Environmental Studies of Tehran, Tehran Municipality) (2000) The Study on Seismic
Microzoning of the Greater Tehran Area in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Final Report: pp.
403.
Kontoes, C., Herekakis, T., Ieronymidi, E., Keramitsoglou, I., Fokaefs, A., Papadopoulos, G.
A., Paralikidis, S., Aifantopoulou, D., Deflorio, A. M., Iasillo, D and Kiranoudis, C. T.
(2012) Mapping Seismic Vulnerability and Risk of Cities: The MASSIVE Project, Journal of
Earth Science and Engineering (2): pp. 496-513.
Langenbach, R. (2009) Dont Tear it Down; Preserving the Earthquake Resistant Vernacular
Architecture of Kashmir, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO), New Delhi.
26

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015), pp. 20-27 IAEME

26.
27.

28.
29.
30.

31.

32.

33.

34.
35.

36.

37.

Mahdizadeh, A. (2011) Report on retrofit procedure of school buildings in Islamic Republic

of Iran, Ministry of Education, State Organization of Schools Renovation, Iran.
Manohar, A. K., Sengupta, K., Tamizharasi, G. and Gogoi, I. (2012) Earthquake
Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings in Guwahati, International Journal of Earth Sciences
and Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 3(1): pp. 618-623.
Menoni, S. and Pergalani, F. (1996) An attempt to link risk assessment with landuse
planning: A recent experience in Italy, Disaster Prevention and Management (5): pp. 6-21.
Monzavi, M. et al. (2010) The vulnerability of the deteriorated texture of the central area of
Tehran against earthquake, The Quarterly of research of Human Geography (73): pp. 1-8.
Muck, M., Taubenbock, H., Post, J., Wegscheider, S., Strunz, G., Sumaryono, S. and Ismail,
F. A. (2012) Assessing building vulnerability to earthquake and tsunami hazard using
remotely sensed data, Springer, Nat. Hazards.
Panahi, M., Rezaie, F. and Meshkani, S. A. (2013) Seismic vulnerability assessment of school
buildings in Tehran city based on AHP and GIS, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
(1): pp. 4511-4538.
Rashed, T. M. (2003) Measuring the environmental context of social vulnerability to urban
earthquake hazards: An integrative remote sensing and GIS approach, University of
California.
Roca, A., Goula, X., Susagna, T., Chavez, J., Gonzalez, M. and Reinoso, E. (2006) A
Simplified Method for Vulnerability Assessment of Dwelling Buildings and Estimation of
Damage Scenarios in Catalonia, Spain, Springer, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (4): pp.
141-158.
Tavakoli, B. and Tavakoli, S. (1993) Estimating the vulnerability and loss functions of
residential buildings, Nat. Hazards (7): pp. 155-171.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) India (2007) Manual for Restoration and
Retrofitting of Rural Structures in Kashmir: How to Reduce Vulnerability of Existing
Structures in Earthquake Affected Areas of Jammu and Kashmir, New Delhi: pp. 40-44.
Evinur Cahya, Toshitaka Yamao and Akira Kasai, Seismic Response Behavior Using Static
Pushover Analysis and Dynamic Analysis of Half-Through Steel Arch Bridge Under Strong
Earthquakes International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 5,
Issue 1, 2014, pp. 73 - 88, ISSN Print: 0976 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 6316.
Mohd Hanief Dar, Zahid Ahmad Chat and Suhail Shafi, Flaws In Construction Practices of
Masonry Buildings In Kashmir With Reference To Earthquakes (A Case Study)
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering & Technology (IJARET),
Volume 6, Issue 1, 2015, pp. 67 - 72, ISSN Print: 0976-6480, ISSN Online: 0976-6499.

27