2nd Presentation: Risk Assessment 2nd Seminar, "Seismic Risk assessment for Kathmandu Valley" was held on 11th April, 2017, at Hotel Yak and Yeti (Durbarmarg, Kathmandu), for dissemination of results of Seismic Risk Assessment of 'The Project for Assessment of Earthquake Disaster Risk Assessment for the Kathmandu Valley (JICA)'

1. T H E P R O J E C T F O R A S S E S S M E N T O F
E A R T H Q U A K E D I S A S T E R R I S K F O R
T H E K A T H M A N D U V A L L E Y I N N E P A L
April 11, 2017
Seismic Risk Assessment for
Kathmandu Valley
Suman Salike, SDE, MoUD
Kenpei Kojika, JICA Project Team
CONTENTS
→ Earthquake and Its Consequence
→ Procedure of Seismic Risk Assessment
→ Scenario Earthquake and Seismic Hazard
→ Building Damage
→ Damage of Infrastructure and Lifeline
→ Human Casualty
→ Economic Loss
→ Conclusions
2
→ Earthquake and Its Consequence
3
Where the Earthquake Happens
Antarctic plate
African plate
South American plate
Indian plate
Eurasian plate
Philippine sea plate
Pacific plate
North American plate
Plate Boundary or Fault inside Plate
Source of Gorkha Earthquake (from S. Wesnousky, et.al.)
4

2. Characteristics of the Earthquake
X 31.6X 1000X
Magnitude and Intensity Distribution of
Gorkha Earthquake (from USGS)
Difference of Magnitude and its energy 5
Magnitude describes the
energy released by an
earthquake (e.g. Richter
scale)
Intensity gives the
information of ground
shaking strength and
related to damage degree,
changing with the distance
from the site to the source
of earthquake (e.g. MMI)
M=7.8
VIII
VII
VI → Procedure of Seismic Risk Assessment
6
Hazard:
A dangerous
phenomenon, substance,
human activity or
condition that may cause
loss of life, injury or other
health impacts, property
damage, loss of
livelihoods and services,
social and economic
disruption, or
environmental damage
Vulnerability:
The characteristics and
circumstances of a community,
system or asset that make it
susceptible to the damaging
effects of a hazard
Definition of Disaster Risk
Exposure:
People, property, systems,
or other elements present
in hazard zones that are
thereby subject to
potential losses
Disaster risk = Hazard * Vulnerability * Exposure
RISK
Hazard
Exposure
Vulnerability
Hazard, exposure, vulnerability and disaster risk (According to ISDR)
7
Law, Regulation
Avoidance
Sustainable
Development
Components of Disaster Risk Management
8
We Are Here

3. Approach of Seismic Hazard and Risk Assessment
Earthquake Source
Site response
Attenuation
Total risk is determined by the intensity of ground motion, vulnerability of
structure and the number of vulnerable structures 9
Target of Seismic Risk Assessment
Building Road Bridge
Water & Sewage Power & Communication Human and Economic Loss
10
→ Scenario Earthquake and Seismic Hazard
11
Scenario Earthquakes
Thomas Ader et al. 2012 J. R. Elliote et al. 2016
2015 Gorkha Earthquake
12
(1) Far-Mid Western Nepal
M=8.6
(2) Western
Nepal
(3) Central Nepal South
M=7.8
M=7.8
1934 Bihar Earthquake

4. Ground Shaking Level for Risk Assessment
13
Gorkha Earthquake
Scenario Earthquake
Fault Model
(1)
(2)
(3)
CNS-2/CNS-1 ≅ 1.5
CNS-3/CNS-1 ≅ 2.0
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) Distribution
Case WN
Case CNS-1 Case CNS-2 Case CNS-3
Gorkha earthquake
(estimated for verification)
14
150 - 200
150 - 400
150 - 200
300 - 800250 - 600
Intensity (MMI) Distribution
Case WN
Case CNS-1 Case CNS-2 Case CNS-3
15
Gorkha earthquake
(estimated for verification)
Liquefaction Distribution
Case WN Case CNS-1 Case CNS-2 Case CNS-3
16
Case WN Case CNS-1 Case CNS-2 Case CNS-3
Rainy Season
High potential
Moderate potential
Low potential
Dry Season
Note: Due to soil properties are insufficient, some
assumption are made for the liquefaction estimation

5. Slope Failure Distribution
Case WN
Case CNS-1 Case CNS-2 Case CNS-3
17
Note: Due to soil properties are
insufficient, some assumption are
made for the slope failure estimation
→ Building Damage
18
Damage of Gorkha Earthquake
Kathmandu Durbar Square
(2015/5/6)
Bhaktapur (2015/5/7)
Gongabu (2015/5/23)
Sankhu (2017/3/24)Sankhu (2015/5/23)
Gongabu (2017/3/24)
19
NowImmediately after earthquake Masonry RC building
Level 1: Negligible to slight damage
No structural damage, slight non-
structural damage)
Level 2: Moderate damage
Slight structural damage, moderate non-
structural damage
Level 3: Substantial to heavy damage
Moderate structural damage, heavy non-
structural damage
Level 4: Very heavy damage
Heavy structural damage, very heavy
non-structural damage
Level 5: Destruction
Very heavy structural damage, collapse
of ground floor or parts of buildings.
Building Damage Level
European Macroseismic Scale (EMS) 1998
20

6. Procedure of Building Damage Assessment
Damage Function
Building Damage
Ground Shaking (PGA)
∑ Building
21
Ground Shaking (PGA)
DamageRatio
Building Structure
DL4+5
DL3+4+5
DL2+3+4+5
Proposed Damage Function
Category Structural type
1 Masonry 1 Adobe
2 Masonry 2 Brick masonry with mud mortar,
flex roof & 20 years and more
Stone with mud mortar
3 Masonry 3 Brick masonry with mud mortar, rigid roof, &
flex roof within 1~20 years
4 Masonry 4 Brick masonry with cement mortar Stone with cement mortar
5 RC 1 RC non-engineered
6 RC 2 RC engineered with low to mid-rise
Six structure types for center and perimeter areas, respectively
22
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 200 400 600 800
Masonry 1 Masonry 2 Masonry 3
Peak ground acceleration (PGA: cm/sec2, gal)
DamageGrade4+5
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 200 400 600 800
Masonry 1p Masonry 2p Masonry 3p
Masonry 4p RC 1p RC 2p
Peak ground acceleration (PGA: cm/sec2, gal)
DamageGrade4+5
Perimeter area of the ValleyCenter area of the Valley
predominant period Tg > 1.5s predominant period 0.3s < Tg < 1.5s
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Estimation of Building Inventory in 2015
Total Number: 444,554 23
Entire Building Inventory Survey in 4 Municipalities
Sampling Building Survey (More than 10,000 Buildings in study area)
Interpretation of Building Footprint using High Resolution Satellite Image
The Urbanization Pattern analysis, Land use mapping, etc
Component Ratio of Building TypesBuilding Number
Estimation of Baseline Inventory for Risk Assessment
Assumption: Heavily damaged buildings (GD4+5) due to Gorkha
Earquake were supposed to be reconstructued with Brick Masonry
with Cement or RC-Engineered.
Total Number: 444,554
24
RC Non-eng. to RC Eng.: 1%
B/S with mud to B/S with cement : 5%
Adobe to B/S with cement : 2%
Baseline inventory
Total Number: 444,554

7. Building Damage Distribution for Baseline Inventory
25
Building Damage
Distribution
Building Damage Ratio
Distribution
CNS-2CNS-2
Building Damage Estimation (Baseline inventory)
26
Heavy, Moderate and Slight Damage Building
School Building Damage Estimation
27
Damage Distribution (CNS-2)
Scenario
Earthquake
Damage Level
Total (5,731)
DL2 DL3 DL 4 & 5
WN 568 253 237 1,058 18.5%
CNS-1 916 539 737 2,192 38.2%
CNS-2 1,057 810 1,654 3,521 61.4%
CNS-3 960 875 2,486 4,321 75.4%
Damage by Structure Type
Health Facility Building Damage Estimation
28Damage Distribution (CNS-2) Damage by Structure Type
Scenario
Earthquake
Damage Level
Total (584)
DL2 DL3 DL 4 & 5
WN 51 24 20 95 16.3%
CNS-1 85 55 64 204 34.9%
CNS-2 105 83 153 341 58.4%
CNS-3 97 94 235 426 72.9%

8. Government Building Damage Estimation
29
Scenario
Earthquake
Damage Level
Total (478)
DL2 DL3 DL 4 & 5
WN 44 20 20 84 17.6%
CNS-1 71 44 59 174 36.4%
CNS-2 85 66 126 277 57.9%
CNS-3 80 73 186 339 70.9%
Damage Distribution (CNS-2) Damage by Structure Type
Building Inventory Assumption for 2030
RC Eng. 7%
RC Non-Eng. 48%
Masonry (all) 45%
RC Eng. 20%
RC Non-Eng. 35%
Masonry (all) 45%
RC Eng. 20%
RC Non-Eng. 35%
Masonry (cement) 45%
RC Eng. 55%
RC Non-Eng. 0%
Masonry (cement) 45%
RC Eng. 53%
RC Non-Eng. 24%
Masonry (all) 23%
RC Eng. 69%
RC Non-Eng. 17%
Masonry (all) 14%
Case 0, same as 2016
Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
Case 2Case 1
30
Bldg. at 2016: 444,554
Bldg. at 2030: 606,506
(New bldg.: 161,592)
Building Damage Estimation (2030)
31
Cost: 57,335/year mil. NPRCost: 231,931/year mil. NPR
Cost: 172,761/year mil. NPR
Cost: 209,210/year mil. NPR
Cost: 72,702/year mil. NPR
→ Damage of Infrastructure and Lifeline
Road
Bridge
Water Supply Pipeline
Power Distribution Network
Telecom Network (BTS)
32

9. Road
33
Hazardous Road Segment of Road Network
Potential area of
Landslide
Potential area of
Landslide
Potential area of
Liquefaction
Potential area of
Liquefaction
Road NetworkRoad Network
Hazardous road segment is identified by comparing the road network with
the potential landslide and liquefaction sites
34
Possible road damage by Liquefaction
Possible road damage by landslide
Road-link Blockage by Building Damage in Kobe Earthquake
35
Width of representative road: Less than 3.5m
Rate of road-link blockage (%)＝0.9009×Rate of damaged building(%)＋19.845
Width of representative road: 3.5m to < 5.5m
Rate of road-link blockage (%)＝ 0.3514 ×Rate of damaged building(%)＋13.189
Width of representative road: 5.5m to < 13m
Rate of road-link blockage (%)＝ 0.2229 ×Rate of damaged building(%) －1.5026
(Source: Central Disaster Prevention Council, Japan)
Hazardous Road Segment (CNS-2)
36
By landslide
98.5 km
1.7%
274.9 km
4.7%
Blockage of emergency roadBy blockage
By liquefaction

10. Bridge
37
Bridge Inventory
38
62 bridges from DOR bridge database
83 bridges from project survey
Total 145 bridges
Single-span bridges: 73
Multi-span bridges: 72
RC pier: 45 for Evaluation
Others: 27
Bridge Damage Estimation
39
Damage WN CNS-1 CNS-2 CNS-3
Heavy 0 1 12 32
Moderate 2 21 27 11
Slight 18 17 6 2
Water Supply Pipeline
40

11. Procedure of Damage Estimation for Pipeline
PGA (gal)
Seismic Intensity (MMI)
Liquefaction Potential
Calculation of Damage Rate
by each Grid
Pipe Line Damage Rate
(Damage Spot / Km)
Pipeline
Seismic HazardSeismic Hazard
Water Supply
Network
Water Supply
Network
41 42
Water Supply Pipeline Network
Existing Network Planned Network
(under construction)
43
Damage Estimation of Water Supply Pipeline
Existing Network Planned Network
(under construction)
Damage WN CNS-1 CNS-2 CNS-3
spot 982 1,921 3,496 5,161
spot/km 0.84 1.65 3.00 4.42
Damage WN CNS-1 CNS-2 CNS-3
spot 124 255 460 676
spot/km 0.18 0.36 0.66 0.97
Power Distribution Network
44

12. Power Pole
Seismic HazardSeismic Hazard
Building Damage RatioBuilding Damage Ratio
Procedure of Damage Estimation for Power Network
45
Number of Power Pole
Damage
Electricity
Network
Electricity
Network
Pole Failure Rate due to
seismic shaking[%]
Pole Failure Rate due to
seismic shaking[%]
Pole Failure Rate due to
building collapse [%]
Pole Failure Rate due to
building collapse [%]
Damage Assessment Procedure for Power Pole
Estimation of Power Pole Damage
46
Total number of poles in KV : 190,851
Damage WN CNS-1 CNS-2 CNS-3
No. of pole 1,327 3,991 9,156 13,992
Ratio 0.7% 2.1% 4.8% 7.3%
Telecom Network (BTS)
47
Damage Estimation Method for Rooftop BTS Tower
48
Ground Shaking
No damageDamage
No damageDamage No damageDamage
Not Function
Not
Function
Function
Not
Function

13. Damage Estimation of Rooftop BTS Tower
49
Damage WN CNS-1 CNS-2 CNS-3
No. of BTS 43 143 372 601
Ratio 4.1% 13.7% 35.7% 57.6%
Total number of BTS tower : 1,043
→ Human Casualty
50
Procedure of Human Casualty Estimation
PGA
distribution
Building
inventory
Building
damage
Number of
death
Number of
injured
Injured
Rate
Scenario
earthquakes
Damage
function
Population
distribution
Death
Rate
51
Earthquake Occurrence Scenes
2016 Daytime (12:00)Weekday
Night (2:00)
Weekend Daytime (18:00)
Weekday
Weekend
Inside Bldg. : 70%
Inside Bldg. : 100%
Inside Bldg. : 90%
Scene Features of Damage
Night
More human casualty occur
Difficult for speedily evacuation, especially in winter or rainy season,
which may enlarge human casualty
Weekday
Daytime
More human casualty happen in office and commercial facilities, rather
than in home
A large number of people who have to stay in office, commercial facilities
due to transportation problem
Weekend
Daytime
Minimum number of human casualty than the other scenes
May cause delay on search and rescue due to the difficulty of personnel
mobilization
52

14. Results of Death Estimation
53
Scenario
Earthquake
Earthquake Occurrence Scene
Weekend (18:00) Weekday (12:00) Night
WN 2,123 0.08% 2,784 0.10% 3,034 0.11%
CNS-1 6,393 0.23% 8,282 0.30% 9,133 0.33%
CNS-2 15,526 0.56% 19,959 0.72% 22,179 0.80%
CNS-3 25,008 0.90% 31,956 1.15% 35,726 1.28%
Total population: 2,786,929
Results of Injured Estimation
54
Scenario
Earthquake
Earthquake Occurrence Scene
Weekend (18:00) Weekday (12:00) Night
WN 8,316 0.30% 10,905 0.39% 11,880 0.43%
CNS-1 25,036 0.90% 32,435 1.16% 35,766 1.28%
CNS-2 60,803 2.18% 78,168 2.80% 86,861 3.12%
CNS-3 97,940 3.51% 125,152 4.49% 139,914 5.02%
Results of Evacuee Estimation
55
Scenario
Earthquake
Earthquake Occurrence Scene
Weekend (18:00) Weekday (12:00) Night
WN 279,942 10.0% 285,850 10.3% 279,031 10.0%
CNS-1 645,483 23.2% 652,798 23.4% 642,743 23.1%
CNS-2 1,202,734 43.2% 1,206,530 43.3% 1,196,080 42.9%
CNS-3 1,624,032 58.3% 1,619,792 58.1% 1,613,314 57.9%
Death Distribution (CNS-1, Night)
56
Death Distribution Death Ratio Distribution

15. Human Casualty due to School Building Damage
57
→ Economic Loss
58
Coverage Sectors for Economic Loss Estimation
Direct damage
Indirect
damage
Tourism
Agriculture
Small and medium-
size enterprise (SME)
Commerce
Building Road Bridge
Water supply Power Communication
Quantitative
Evaluation
59
Note: Quantitative evaluation of indirect loss is difficult because the correlation of indirect
loss cannot be evaluated definitely, thus indirect loss is principally conducted by qualitative
evaluation. As the tourism sector is an important source of foreign exchange earnings, the
decreased amount of production in tourism sector due to the retarded production activities
from earthquake damage is evaluated quantitatively.
Direct Loss Due to Building Damage
Unit: Million NPR
60
Scenario
Ground
Motion
All
Building
School
Government
building
Health
Facility
Historical
Architecture
CNS-3 1,098.353 134,932 22,708 232,782 2,377
CNS-2 761,531 98,171 16,514 165,683 2,267
CNS-1 371,003 51,231 8,669 68,588 1,925
WN 132,999 20,462 2,444 22,534 1,321
Remarks: Director loss of all building includes that of school, government building and health facility.

16. Direct Loss of Infrastructure and Lifeline
Unit: Million NPR
52.2% 34.7%
51.9%
61
Scenario
Ground
Motion
Road Bridge
Water
Supply
Sewage
Power
Distribution
Mobile
BTS
Total
CNS-3
2,878 1,914 191 290 197 1,142 6,612
43.5% 28.9% 2.9% 4.4% 3.0% 17.3% 100.0%
CNS-2
1,620 1,359 129 200 129 707 4,144
39.1% 32.8% 3.1% 4.8% 3.1% 17.1% 100.0%
CNS-1
471 898 71 135 56 272 1903
24.8% 47.2% 3.7% 7.1% 2.9% 14.3% 100.0%
WN
0 377 36 76 19 82 590
0.0% 63.9% 6.1% 12.9% 3.2% 13.9% 100.0%
Direct Loss of Building & Infrastructure
99.6%
99.5%
Unit: Million NPR
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000
WN
CNS-1
CNS-2
CNS-3
Building
Infrastructure
99.5%
99.5%
99.4%
1,104,965
765,675
99.6%
371,275
133,589
62
Procedure for Indirect Loss
Occurrence of
an earthquake
Decline
in
Tourists
Job loss
in
Tourism
sector
Decline
of tourist
spending
Decline of
Foreign
exchange
earning
Decline
of
GDP
63
Decline of Number of Tourists
64
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
WN
CNS-1
CNS-2
CNS-3
400,000
640,000
560,000
480,000
440,000
640,000
560,000
480,000
440,000
Before
Earthquake
After
Earthquake
(within 1 year)
After
Earthquake
(after 12 months～
within 24 months)
After
Earthquake
(after 24 months～
within 36 months)
800,000
480,000
320,000
280,000
Unit: Tourists
Note: Estimated based on the tourism stats of Nepal

17. Impact on GDP by Tourist Sector
Note: Estimated based on the data of Ministry of culture, Tourism & Aviation
65
2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120
2,075
2,066
2,059
2,055
2,020
2,040
2,060
2,080
2,100
2,120
2,140
WN CNS-1 CNS-2 CNS-3
Before Earthquake
After Earthquake2.15% decrease
2.53% decrease
2.88% decrease
3.09% decrease
Unit: Billion NPR
Remarks: This impact for GDP does not include the impact due to other industry except
for tourism industry , therefore actual impact for GDP is estimated bigger than this estimation.
→ Conclusions
66
Damage Characteristics of Scenario Earthquakes
Central Nepal south scenario earthquake will damage more
than Gorkha earthquake.
Large number of buildings in KV are highly vulnerable,
including school, hospital and government buildings.
Risk of building damage and human casualty will be
increased in future if no measure is taken to strengthen
building seismic performance.
Although infrastructure and lifeline system had no significant
damage in Gorkha earthquake, there will be more damages
when strong earthquake happens.
The new water supply network (under construction)
significantly reduces the risk with respect to the existing one.
The majority of the damage of rooftop BTS will be by the
building damage.
67
Utilization of Risk Assessment Results in this Project
The risk assessment results will be utilized for the municipal
disaster risk reduction and management plan for the three
pilot municipalities within this project and could be used for
the same purpose for the whole KV.
The risk assessment results provide basic information for
determining the risk reduction target based on the time
span and available budget, technology, etc.
The results of human casualty provide the useful
information on the stockpiling of water, food, emergency
materials as well as securing the evacuation routes and
spaces.
68

18. Recommendations
Results of risk assessment depends largely on results of
seismic hazard.
Three ground motion levels of Central Nepal South (CNS)
Scenario Earthquake were targeted for risk assessment
due to the uncertainties in the estimation of future
ground motion. Further research on Gorkha earthquake
is necessary. Should be updated for new findings.
Building inventory for whole KV is not existed and data for
infrastructure and lifeline networks is not completely
maintained.
Development and its regular updating of GIS database of
buildings, infrastructure and lifeline network is very
important for the development of disaster risk reduction
and management plan and routine maintenance works.
69
Recommendations (cont.)
Large number of buildings, including school, health facilities
and government buildings, are estimated to suffer heavy
damage for the scenario earthquakes. Strengthening of
buildings is a big issue for both new and existing buildings.
NBC, specially NBC 105, has to be revised.
Enforce NBC for all new buildings
Promotion of seismic strengthening of existing buildings, via.
retrofitting or reconstruction through policy, legal means,
budget arrangement, technology development as well as
public awareness.
For seismic risk reduction, risk assessment for whole Nepal is
considered necessary. Has to be started immediately for other
Metro city like Pokhara, Chitwan, etc.
Based on the risk assessment results, the government
organizations and utility companies could make their Business
Continuity Plan (BCP). 70