The Final Seminar of the Project for Assessment of Earthquake Disaster Risk for the Kathmandu Valley in Nepal was held on 14 February 2018. The public seminar was held three times during the project. The Final Seminar, “ Understanding Disaster Risks and Moving Towards DRR and Resilience”, presented on the activities and accomplishment of the project, construction of robust and resilient society against natural disaster risk. Thank you all for your support and enthusiastic participation in this seminar. Presentation: Overview of Risk Assessment Results

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
14 February 2018
Final Seminar
- Understanding Disaster Risks and Moving
Towards DRR and Resilience -
Overview of Risk Assessment Results
Suman Salike, SDE, MoUD

2. CONTENTS
→ Procedure of Seismic Risk Assessment
→ Ground Motions Used for Risk Assessment
→ Building Damage
→ Damage of Infrastructure and Lifeline
→ Human Casualty
→ Economic Loss
→ Conclusions and Recommendations
2

3. → Procedure of Seismic Risk Assessment
3

4. 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)
4

5. Seismic 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 5

6. Target of Seismic Risk Assessment
Building Road Bridge
Water & Sewage Power & Communication Human and Economic Loss
6

7. → Ground Motions Used for Risk Assessment
7

8. Scenario Earthquakes
Thomas Ader et al. 2012
2015 Gorkha Earthquake
8
(1) Far-Mid Western Nepal
M=8.6
(2) Western
Nepal
(3) Central Nepal South
M=7.8
M=7.8
1934 Bihar Earthquake

9. Ground Motion for Risk Assessment
9
Gorkha Earthquake
Scenario Earthquake
Fault Model
(1)
(2)
(3)
CNS-2/CNS-1 ≅ 1.5
CNS-3/CNS-1 ≅ 2.0
Four Ground
Motions for Risk
Assessment

10. Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)
WN
CNS-1 CNS-2 CNS-3
Gorkha earthquake
(estimated for verification)
10
150 - 200
150 - 400
150 - 200
300 - 800250 - 600

11. Intensity (MMI)
WN
CNS-1 CNS-2 CNS-3
11
Gorkha earthquake
(estimated for verification)

12. → Building Damage
12

13. 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 Definition
European Macroseismic Scale (EMS) 1998
13

14. Procedure of Building Damage Assessment
Damage Function
Building Damage
PGA
∑All Buildings
14
Ground Motion (PGA)
DamageRatio
Building Inventory
DL4+5
DL3+4+5
DL2+3+4+5

15. 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
15
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

16. Estimation of Building Inventory in 2015
Total Number: 444,554 16
 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

17. Estimation of Baseline Inventory (2016) 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
17
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
8% building damage of Gorkha earthquake

18. Building Damage Estimation (Baseline inventory)
18
Number and Ratio of Building Damage of KV
(Heavy damage)
(Moderate damage)
(Slight damage)

19. Building Damage Distribution for Baseline Inventory
19
Building Damage
Distribution
Building Damage Ratio
Distribution
CNS-2CNS-2

20. School Building Damage (Number & distribution)
20
Damage Distribution (CNS-2)
Scenario
Earthquake
Damage Level
Total (5,731)
Slight Moderate Heavy
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

21. Health Facility Building Damage (Number & distribution)
21Damage Distribution (CNS-2) Damage by Structure Type
Scenario
Earthquake
Damage Level
Total (584)
Slight Moderate Heavy
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%

22. Government Building Damage (Number & distribution)
22
Scenario
Earthquake
Damage Level
Total (478)
Slight Moderate Heavy
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

23. Building Inventory Assumption for 2030
RCE
Existing : No change
New : 46% BMC
54% RCE
Case 0, same as 2016
Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
Case 2Case 1
23
Bldg. at 2016: 444,554
Bldg. at 2030: 606,506
(New bldg.: 161,592)
Existing : Non S/BMC to BMC
New : Same as Case-1
Existing : Non S/BMC to BMC
RCNE to RCE
New : Same as Case-1
Existing : 50% S/BM to RCE
30% RCNE to RCE
New : 23% BMC
77% RCE
Existing : 70% S/BM to RCE
50% RCNE to RCE
New : 14% BMC
86% RCE
RCNES/BMC

24. Building Damage Estimation (2030)
24
Inc. cost: 5,694/year mil. NPRInc. cost: 88,079/year mil. NPR
Inc. cost: 63,925/year mil. NPR
Inc. cost: 21,373/year mil. NPR
Inc. cost: 10,599/year mil. NPR
Increment cost = Cost of Case-x – Case-0

25. → Damage of transportation Infrastructure
and Lifeline
Road
Bridge
Water Supply Pipeline
Power Distribution Network
Telecom Network (BTS)
25

26. Road
26

27. Hazardous Road Segment of Road Network
Potential area of
Landslide
Potential area of
Liquefaction
Road Network
Hazardous road segment is identified by comparing the road network with
the potential landslide and liquefaction sites
27
Possible road damage by Liquefaction
Possible road damage by landslide

28. Hazardous Road Segment (CNS-2)
28
By landslide
98.5 km
1.7%
274.9 km
4.7%
Blockage of emergency roadProbability of blockage
By liquefaction

29. Bridge
29

30. Main Mode of Bridge Damage
30
Bridge Fall
http://www.ktr.mlit.go.jp
http://www.city.yokohama.lg.jp
Shear Failure of Pier
Bending Failure of Pier
https://www.hanshin-exp.co.jp

31. Bridge Inventory
31
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

32. Bridge Damage Estimation (Number and distribution)
32
Damage WN CNS-1 CNS-2 CNS-3
Heavy 0 1 12 32
Moderate 2 21 27 11
Slight 18 17 6 2
Total of 45 multi-span RC substructure bridges are assessed

33. Water Supply Pipeline
33

34. 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 Hazard
Water Supply
Network
34

35. 35
Water Supply Pipeline Network
Existing Network Planned Network
(under construction)

36. 36
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

37. Power Distribution Network
37

38. Power Pole
Seismic Hazard
Building Damage Ratio
Procedure of Damage Estimation for Power Network
38
Number of Power Pole
Damage
Electricity
Network
Pole Failure Rate due to
seismic shaking[%]
Pole Failure Rate due to
building collapse [%]
Damage Assessment Procedure for Power Pole

39. Estimation of Power Pole Damage
39Total number of power pole : 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%

40. Telecom Network (BTS)
40

41. Damage Estimation Method for Rooftop BTS Tower
41
Ground Shaking
No damageDamage
No damageDamage No damageDamage
Not Function
Not
Function
Function
Not
Function

42. Damage Estimation of Rooftop BTS Tower
42
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

43. → Human Casualty
43

44. 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
44

45. 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
45

46. Results of Death Estimation
46
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
Death of Gorkha
earthquake: 1,751
(Nepal DRR portal)

47. Results of Injured Estimation
47
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%
Injured of Gorkha
earthquake: 13,102
(Nepal DRR portal)
Total population: 2,786,929

48. Results of Evacuee Estimation
48
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%
Total population: 2,786,929

49. Death Distribution (CNS-1, Night)
49
Death Distribution Death Ratio Distribution

50. → Economic Loss
50

51. 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
51
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.

52. Direct Loss of Building, Infrastructure and Lifeline
Unit: Million NPR
52
Scenario
Ground
Motion
General
Building
School
Government
building
Health
Facility
Historical
Building
Total
CNS-3 705,554 134,932 22,708 232,782 2,377 1,098.353
CNS-2 478,896 98,171 16,514 165,683 2,267 761,531
CNS-1 240,590 51,231 8,669 68,588 1,925 371,003
WN 86,238 20,462 2,444 22,534 1,321 132,999
General Building: Building other than School, Government, Health Facility and Historical building
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
CNS-2 1,620 1,359 129 200 129 707 4,144
CNS-1 471 898 71 135 56 272 1903
WN 0 377 36 76 19 82 590

53. Comparison of Direct Loss and GDP
99.6%
99.5%
Million NPR
99.6%
53
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000
WN
CNS-1
CNS-2
CNS-3
GDP in Kathmandu Valley
Direct damage amounts
657,200
1,104,965
168% of GDP
765,675
117% of GDP
371,275
56% of GDP
133,589
20% of GDP
Source of GDP of KV: The share of Kathmandu Valley in the National Economy, Nepal Rastra Bank, July 2012

54. Comparison of Building Direct Loss of Scenario
Earthquake with Gorkha Earthquake
54
Gorkha earthquake: Total physical damage: 517,434
Among them: Social (building) : 355,028
Infrastructure : 52,460
Others : 109,946
KV only (building): 48,588
BuildingDirectLoss
Million NPR
Based on PDNA report
Scenario/Gorkha

55. Procedure for Indirect Loss of Tourist Industry
Occurrence of
an earthquake
Decline
in
Tourists
Job loss
in
Tourism
sector
Decline
of tourist
spending
Decline of
Foreign
exchange
earning
Decline
of
GDP
55

56. Decline of Number of Tourists
56
Before
Earthquake
After
Earthquake
(within 1 year)
After
Earthquake
(12 - 24 months)
Note: Estimated based on the tourism stats of Nepal
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
WN
CNS-1
CNS-2
CNS-3
800,000
480,000
320,000
280,000
400,000
640,000
480,000
440,000
560,000

57. Impact on GDP by Tourist Sector
Note: Estimated based on the data of Ministry of culture, Tourism & Aviation
57
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 Earthquake
2.15% decrease
2.53% decrease
2.88% decrease
3.09% decrease
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.

58. → Conclusions and Recommendations
58

59. Damage of Scenario Earthquake
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 caused by
the building damage.
59

60. 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 regular updating of GIS database of
buildings, infrastructure and lifeline network is very
important for the development of disaster risk reduction
and management plan (DRRMP) and routine maintenance
works. 60

61. Recommendations (cont.)
 Large number of buildings, including school, health facilities
and government buildings, are estimated to suffer heavy
damage for the scenario earthquakes.
NBC, specially NBC 105, has to be revised.
Enforce NBC for all new buildings
Promotion of retrofitting or reconstruction of existing
buildings through policy, budget arrangement, technology
development as well as public awareness.
Seismic 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).
61