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: Towards Disaster Resilient Kathmandu Valley (Building)

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
February 14, 2018
Final Public Seminar
Towards Disaster Resilient KV (Building)
JICA Project Team
Akira Inoue

2. Towards Disaster Resilient Kathmandu Valley (Building)
2
CONTENTS
Damage control
1. Building damage
2. Damage control of structure
3. Seismic assessment of existing building
Lessons learned from 2015 Gorkha Earthquake
4. Joint mortar of brick masonry
5. Structural type
6. Damage observation of RC engineered construction in KV
7. Acceleration response spectrum for high-rise building in KV
Seismic performance
8. Seismic performance of a sample building
9. Required strength and ductility for a building
Seismic retrofit
10. Method of seismic retrofit, Retrofitting Guidelines 2016
11. Change of seismic design code in Japan
12. Dissemination of seismic retrofit in Japan
13. Ratio of public buildings with earthquake resistant capacity in Japan
Summary
14. Compliance and capacity building---- new building construction
15. Promotion of seismic retrofit---- existing buildings
Conclusion

3. What is the building damage and impacts caused by 2015 Gorkha
earthquake?
⇒Loss of asset, loss of life and evacuation were observed.
3
Retrofitted school building
of brick masonry
No or minor damage ⇒
can continue the school lesson
Collapse ⇒
Loss of life, loss of asset
Heavy damage ⇒ Loss of asset, no function as a school, no
use as an (public) evacuation facility.
Masonry school building (retrofitted)
RC residential building
RC school building
Low construction quality
Crack of brick wall
with mud mortar
joint
Brick masonry residential
Moderate damage ⇒ continue to
stay, repair is required.
Under
demolition
Soft
storey
Heavy damage ⇒under demolition,
loss of asset, evacuation is needed.
RC residential building

4. Damage Grade (external view):
What is the acceptable Damage Grade (EMS98) for buildings?
4
⇒ For life safety, it will be up to DG 3 (General private buildings, prevent Damage
Grade 4 and more. Ref. Effective PGA 200 to 300gal, Scenario Earthquake CNS-1)
⇒ For immediate occupation, it will be up to DG 2 (Essential public building,
prevent Damage Grade 3 and more. )
EMS981) DAMAGE GRADE FOR MASONRY BUILDING BASED ON EMS-98
Grade 1: Negligible to slight
damage
Structural damage: No
Non-structural damage: Slight
Hair-line cracks in very few walls.
Fall of small pieces of plaster only.
Fall of loose stones from upper parts of buildings in very few
cases.
Grade 2: Moderate damage
Structural damage: Slight
Non-structural damage: Moderate
Cracks in many walls.
Fall of fairly large pieces of plaster.
Partial collapse of chimneys.
Grade 3: Substantial to heavy
damage
Structural damage: Moderate
Non-structural damage: Heavy
Large and extensive cracks in most walls.
Roof tiles detach.
Chimneys fracture at the roof line; failure of individual
non-structural elements (partitions, gable walls).
Grade 4: Very heavy damage
Structural damage: Heavy
Non-structural damage: Very heavy
Serious failure of walls; partial structural failure of roofs and
floors.
Grade 5: Destruction
Structural damage: very heavy
Total or near total collapse.
the Project for Assessment of Earthquake Disaster Risk for the Kathmandu Valley in Nepal
Interim report
Damage grade for reinforced concrete (RC) building based on EMS-98
Classification of damage to buildings of reinforced concrete
Grade 1: Negligible to slight
damage
Structural damage: No
Non-structural damage: Slight
Fine cracks in plaster over frame members or in walls at the
base.
Fine cracks in partitions and infills.
Grade 2: Moderate damage
Structural damage: Slight
Non-structural damage: Moderate
Cracks in columns and beams of frames and in structural
walls.
Cracks in partition and infill walls; fall of brittle cladding and
plaster.
Falling of mortar from the joints of wall panels.
Grade 3: Substantial to heavy
damage
Structural damage: Moderate
Non-structural damage: Heavy
Cracks in columns and beam column joints of frames at the
base and at joints of coupled walls.
Spalling of concrete cover, buckling of reinforced bars.
Large cracks in partition and infill walls, failure of individual
infill panels.
Grade 4: Very heavy damage
Structural damage: Heavy
Non-structural damage: Very heavy
Large cracks in structural elements with compression failure
of concrete and fracture of re-bars; bond failure of beam
reinforced bars; tilting of columns.
Collapse of a few columns or of a single upper floor.
Grade 5: Destruction
Structural damage: very heavy
Collapse of ground floor or parts (e.g. wings) of buildings.
DG 1
DG 2
DG 3
DG 4
DG 5
Masonry RC

5. 5
Damage grade Ⅲ Damage grade Ⅳ
[Source: “Standard of Judgment of Damage Grade and Guidelines of
Recovery Engineering for Damaged Buildings, 2001”,
The Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (written in Japanese)]
Damage grade V
⇒ For life safety, it will be up to DG III or beginning of DG IV. For immediate occupancy to DG II.
Idealized load- deflection curve of a structural member and a guide of damage grade
Horizontal deflection
Horizontal
load
Horizontal
shear force
Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅴ
Crack occurrence
Yield of main re-bar
Compressive failure of
covering concrete
Buckling of main re-bar,
compressive failure of core
concrete
Damage grade
Horizontal
load
Horizontal deflection (flexural members)
Residual horizontal
strength
Residual vertical
strength
No deterioration
No deterioration
Deterioration
Deterioration
No strength
RC ductile failure
(flexural failure)
Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅴ
Crack occurrence
Flaking of covering
concrete, enlargement of
shear cracks
Rupture of shear
reinforcement, buckling of
main re-bar
Damage grade
Horizontal
load
Horizontal deflection (shear members)
Residual horizontal
strength
Residual vertical
strength
No deterioration
No deterioration
Deterioration
Deterioration
No strength
No strength
RC brittle failure
(shear / high axial force ratio)
(Unreinforced) Masonry
Controlling damage (of structure):
What is the requirement for life safety/immediate occupancy?
Damage grade IV
Qu
Brick wall
RC column
(1/500)
Story deflection angle
Horizontal
strength
I II II IV V

6. Existing buildings:
How about the seismic performance of existing building?
⇒ Seismic retrofit is recommended for some buildings.
Seismic assessment of private/public buildings, and design PGA of IS 1893-1(2002) ,
6
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 221 2 3 7 9 4 5 6 8 10 11
EstimatedPGA(gal)causingheavystructuraldamage
Adobe(x,y)
Residential
Brick/mud(x,y)
Residential
Brick/cement(x,y)
Residential
Brick/cement(x,y)
School
Brick/mud(x,y)
Historical
RCnon-eng.(x,y)
Residential
RCeng.(x,y)
Residential
RCeng.(x,y)
High-riseresi.
RCeng.(x,y)
Hospital
RCeng.(x,y)
Governmental
RCeng..(x,y)
Localgovernmental
Observed PGA by 2015 Gurkha Earthquake
Design PGA by IS 1893-1 (2002)
PGA by CNS-1 at the
center of KV
PGA by CNS-1
at the center
of KV
PGA by CNS-2
at the center
PGA by CNS-2 at the
center of KV
Masonry RC
Essential public bldg Essential public bldg
Estimated PGA causing
heavy damage of building
Photos by ESS
Peak Ground Acceleration (cm/sec2, gal)
shows the maximum horizontal ground
acceleration.
Average PGA of 2015 Gorkha is 157gal.
Design PGA of IS is 180gal.
PGA of CNS 1

7. 7
Brick masonry with cement mortar joint Bhaktapur
municipality + LSMC (Ward 1~22)
Brick masonry with mud mortar joint Bhaktapur
municipality + LSMC (Ward 1~22)
Adobe Bhaktapur municipality + Lalitpur sub-metropolitan
city (LSMC) (Ward 1~22)
Additional information for Adobe
Masonry:
What is the difference of mortar joint type for masonry?
⇒Mud mortar is much vulnerable than cement mortar, damage survey result.

8. Engineered or non-engineered:
Are existing buildings engineered construction?
8
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)
DamageratioofGrade4+5
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 200 400 600 800
Masonry 1 Masonry 2 Masonry 3 Masonry 4 RC 1 RC 2
Peak ground acceleration (PGA: cm/sec2, gal)
DamageRatioofGrade4+5
⇒Engineered construction following Codes (NBC and/or IS) is strictly recommended.
Damage ratio of each structural type as an average estimation is shown.
b) for perimeter area of the Valley
(predominant period of the ground 0.3sec< Tg ≤ 1.5sec)
a) for general (center) area of the valley
(predominant period of the ground, Tg > 1.5sec & Tg ≤0.3sec)
Damage function
Smaller Damage
at same PGA
Smaller Damage
at same PGA

9. How to proceed “BBB” for pilot municipalities?
(Lalitpur (LSMC), Bhaktapur, and Budhanilkantha )
9
133
31 36
6340
1796
3265
1744
140
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
NumberofBuildings
BuildingRatio(%)
Building Ratio (%) Number of Buildings
Bhaktapur Municipality
13,485 buildings
331
24 49
7413
11364
25660
1255 388
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
24000
28000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
NumberofBuildings
BuildingRatio(%)
Building Ratio (%) Number of Buildings
Lalitpur Metropolitan
46,484 buildings
508 111 20
1032
2899
726
10395
266
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
NumberofBuildings
BuildingRatio(%)
Building Ratio (%) Number of Buildings
Budhanilkantha Municipality
15,957 buildings
⇒ Vulnerable buildings and /or essential buildings will have the priority of
retrofit or re-build.
Building ratio and numbers of each structural type
Source:USAID/NSET

10. 10
RC engineered building:
What damage was observed and how about IS 1893(1) 2016?
Soft storey–
vertical irregularity,
Construction quality
Non-structural wall–
horizontal deflection of
High-rise RC
⇒IS 1893(1) 2016 (earthquake resistant design code) includes some countermeasures.
Table: Major change of the Revision of IS 1893(1) 2016
Acceptable to apply.
Note: IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures,
Part 1 General Provisions and Buildings (Sixth Revision)
IS 1893 (Part 1) 2016 IS 1893-(1)2002
Design horizontal
seismic coefficient Ah
No change Z*I*Sa/(2*R*g)
Seismic zone factor, Z No change V (5), Z=0.36
Design acceleration
spectrum
Natural period up to 6sec.
(Note: It is necessary to pay
attention to apply in KV)
Natural period up to 4sec.
Design acceleration
coefficient (Sa/g)
Max. 2.5 (no change), and two
types
Max. 2.5
Response reduction
factor, R
No change for general.
Added: Flat slab with structural
wall R=3.0 with note
RC building with special
moment resisting frame
(SMRF), R=5.0 and others
Importance factor, I 1.2 for residential building with
occupancy > 200, and others
(1.5, 1.0)
1.0 for residential building,
others 1.5 and 1.0.
Load combination 1.5(DL+/-(ELx+/-0.3Ely))
and other combination
1.5(DL+/-EL)
and other combination
Masonry infill walls for
frame buildings
Effect (strength) is (can be)
considered.
Not considered.
Open (soft) storey due
to discontinuation of
(URM) infill
Design of frame (strength
increase) is required.
Weak storey.
Deformation (Storey
drift limitation)
No change. Storey drift < 0.004 of storey
height under base shear .

11. 11
High-rise building (constructed up to 17 storied in KV):
What is the acceleration response spectrum in KV?
IS 1893-1(2002),
Fig. Average response coefficient
NBC 105, Figure. Basic seismic coefficient
Suggested to
increase
Suggested to
increase
Suggestion
⇒The response at the range of high-rise RC (long period) is bigger than
present value (due to very deep soft ground).
Acceleration response spectrum by 8 waves of 2015 Gorkha E. at the Valley was calculated.
b) TVU, PTN and THM
a) KATNP and DMG
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
TVU_EW PTN_EW THM_EW
TVU_NS PTN_NS THM_NS
Building Period (sec)
ResponseAcceleration(cm/sec2,gal)
IS 1893 (Design elastic
response)
Sa,
h=5%
These will not
be used.

12. Seismic performance (strength x ductility) :
What is the quantitative seismic performance of a sample building?
12
1. Pushover analysis (1/2)
Concrete: M15N/mm2 (cube) = Fc13 (cylinder)
Re-bar : fy= 250N/mm2 is supposed.
Main, 4T16 Tie, T8@100 at end Main, 3T16 Top & bottom
Typical Column Typical Beam Material
(270mmx270mm, L1) (240mmx330mm)
(230mmx230mm, L2 & L3)
Framing Plan (unit: cm)
Building information
NBC 205: Reinforced Concrete Buildings without Masonry
Infill
X
Y

13. 13
Storey deflection angle
Storeyshearforce(kN)
(AhxW=0.09xW=480kN)
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Attic
Plastic hinge formation of a frame
Plastic hinge formation of a frame Storey deflection angle
Storeyshearforce(kN)
(AhxW=0.09xW=480kN)
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Attic
1. Pushover analysis (2/2)
Storey
height,
h
Storey
deflection,
δ
GFL
1FL
2FL
Q
W
Base shear coefficient, C= Q (base shear force)/ W (total building weight)
Storey deflection angle, R= δ(horizontal storey deflection)/ h (storey height)
Storey
height,
h
Storey
deflection,
δ
GFL
1FL
2FL
Q
W
Incremental
seismic load
Incremental
seismic load
Seismic performance (strength x ductility) :
What is the quantitative seismic performance of a sample building?
This frame has reasonable ductility based on the
separate assessment.

14. 14
Conditions:
1) Restoring force characteristics: Shear type Tri-linear model based on push-over analysis.
2) Stiffness and strength of brick wall infill is not considered.
3) Damping constant 4% is assumed. Stiffness proportional type is used.
Tangential proportional type is not used.
2. Time history response analysis (1/2)
Input data (each direction at each storey ):
Height(cm) Weight(kN) Stiffness
(kN/cm)
Shear at
kink (kN)
Stiffness
degrading
Shear at 2nd
kink(kN)
Stiffness
degrading
Model:
Shear type with degrading tri-linear model, (RC frame without brick wall infill)
KTP NS KTP EW DMG NS DMG EW PTN NS PTN EW THM NS THM EW
PGA 161 155 174 124 151 129 150 134
Input PGA of 2015 Gorkha Earthquake observed inside of the KV
Natural period (result)
T1= 0.82sec. T2= 0.33sec. T3= 0.22sec. (Stiffness of brick wall is not considered.)
Base shear coefficient, C= Q (base shear force)/ W (total building weight)
Storey deflection angle, R= δ(horizontal storey deflection)/ h (storey height)
PGA: Peak Ground Acceleration (cm/sec2, gal)
Seismic performance (strength x ductility) :
What is the quantitative seismic performance of a sample building?

15. 15
KTP NS,
KTP EW,
DMG EW,
DMG NS,
PTN NS,
PTN EW,
THM NS,
THM EW
2. Time history response analysis (2/2) - Result: X direction
Max. storey deflection angle
Max. response ductility ratio
Numberofstorey
Response ductility ratio
Max. storey shear coefficient
Numberofstorey
Storey shear coefficient
Restoring force characteristics and
max. response
Storeyshearforce(kN)
Storey displacement (cm)
Seismic performance (strength x ductility) :
What is the quantitative seismic performance of a sample building?
Numberofstorey
Storey deflection angle (rad.)
Max. storey deflection angle
Storey
height,
h
Storey
deflection,
δ
GFL
1FL
2FL
Q
W
RESULT is shown by an ANIMATION.
⇒Slow and big movement of the ground.
Some damage of a ductile frame at ground storey.

16. How much strength and ductility is required for a building?
⇒ Design base shear x L.F. 1.5 seems reasonable against PGA 180gal (IS 1893 2002).
(Criteria of buildings in Japan: Accept damage but no collapse against PGA 300~400gal,
strength co. ≥ 0.3 for ductile RC frame)
16
Observed PGA of Gorkha E. (average PGA=147gal, 80kine) PGA 180gal of Gorkha E.
PGA 300gal of Gorkha E.) PGA 400gal of Gorkha E.
⇒ Variation of the response is big
Design base shear coefficient
IS 1893-2002
Masonry V (Q)/W ≥ 0.32
(Ordinal RC ≥ 0.16)
Ductile RC ≥ 0.09
excluding load factor, 1.5
Over strength factor ?
Base shear coefficient= horizontal shear force at GFL/ building weight
Storey
height,
h
Storey
deflection,
δ
GFL
1FL
2FL
Q
W

17. Seismic retrofit:
How to promote/disseminate seismic evaluation and retrofit?
⇒Seismic Retrofitting Guidelines 2016 published, MOUD,DUDBC, UNDP
⇒It will need more capacity building for practical engineers.
17
Code: NBC 105, IS 1893-2002, FEMA 310
Performance level:
Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety, Collapse Prevention
Methodology: Shear and axial stress check of column,
Check of strong column and weak beam
Vulnerability analysis : Engineered, Non Engineered
Example: Column jacketing, RC wall, etc.
Strength based approach by STAAD. Static Pushover by SAP
2000, Capacity spectrum, Performance point, Base shear (V)
and Roof Displace. (D). Analysis by ETABS
Note: 1) V-D relation by Pushover analysis, need
attention for non-engineered and with soft storey .
2) How about the ductility of RC wall/ steel braced
frame for the use with ductile column? 3) Is the load
factor (1.25~1.5) not necessary to consider?
Code: FEMA356 (FEMA+ ASCE, 2000), ATC 40
Damage patterns :
Category of damage: Wall and floor
Damage typology Wall: Shear in-plane, Vertical crack,
Crack at corner, Out-of-plane, others Height/thickness
ratio, Stiffness of diaphragm
Analysis method : 1. Linear static, 2. Linear dynamic, 3.
Non-linear static, 4. Non-linear Dynamic
Acceptance criteria: Strength and Story drift(FEMA356)
Retrofitting of Different Elements: Roof, Floor, Wall
Different Techniques: Ferro cement, Grouting, Jacketing,
Seismic band and belt,
Example: Strength based analysis, Non-linear dynamic
process, finite element model,
Non-linear analysis: Pushover by SAP 2000
Note: Examples are1 storied and 2 storied building.
ADOBE MASONRY RC
Masonry structure RC structure

18. Construction quality:
Is proper reinforcing bar work applied for RC construction?
⇒Ideal column ties and beam ties (shear reinforcing bar) are shown.
Stake holder’s understanding for the quality and cost is required.
18On the way to damage survey of buildings at Kokhana, 2016/05/11

19. Design code revision:
How about the revision of seismic design code in Japan?
19
RC
column
Non-structural
RC wall
Slight damage
Minor (structural)
damage
Moderate (structural)
damage
Heavy (structural)
damage
Collapse
c) Classification of damage grade
a) RC general buildings (total 3,517= 635+ 1,209+ 1,673) b) RC with a soft storey (total 377= 47+ 144+ 186)
Table: (Heavy + Collapse) damage ratio of RC due to
1995 Hyogoken Nanbu (Kobe) E. AIJ
Construction period ~1971 1971~1981 1981~
RC without soft storey
3,517 buildings
9% 4% 1%
RC with soft storey
377 buildings
25% 23% 4%
Figure: Damage ratio of each damage grade and constructed year
Damage survey of all RC buildings at the highest intensity area of
1995 Kobe Earthquake.
⇒ Following the Building Standard Law is mandatory and strict
penalty is imposed against the violation.
⇒Heavy damage ratio has reduced clearly after 1981.

20. Promotion of Seismic retrofit:
How the seismic retrofit has been disseminated after 1995 Kobe
(Hyogoken- Nanbu ) Earthquake in Japan?
20
⇒ Seismic Retrofit Promotion Law is enforced in 1995 in Japan.
(Target: Existing public and private buildings constructed before 1981)
⇒Seismic Retrofit Promotion Plan by Local Governments is prepared.
(Priority of building, target, policy, dissemination and incentive (tax, subsidy),
technical / financial support, budget) , responsibility and cooperation.
University building
(steel framed brace method)
Higher secondary school building
(steel framed brace method)
Governmental building (base isolation method)
Residential building Upper secondary school
building
(steel framed brace and RC column method)

21. Seismic resistance:
What is the ratio of public buildings with earthquake resistant capacity of present
Seismic Code (1981) in Japan?
⇒ 70 to 80% of public schools/ hospitals /governmental facilities have resistance
capacity as of 2010, 13.
21
Kindergarden
Secondary school, lower secodary school
Upper secondary school
51,021bldgs (41.1%) 40,083 bldgs (32.2%) 33,134bldgs (26.7%)
73.3%
2,084bldgs (41.9%) 1,209 bldgs (24.3%) 1,683 bldgs (33.8%)
66.2%
72.9%
13,010bldgs (42.0%) 9,557bldgs (30.9%) 8,383bldgs (27.1%)
Legend
Buildings constructed after
1982, and have sesimic
capacity
Buildings constructed before
1981, and retrofitted
Buildings constructed
before 1981, not retrofitted
or not assessed
56.2% 30.1% 12.6%1.1%
All buildins satisfy
building law
Partial buildings
satisfy building law
Unknown
All buildins not satisfy
building law
Survey Results of Public Schools for Seismic Retrofitting
Ministry of Sciense and Education, Apr. 2010
Survey Results of Hospitals for Seismic Retrofitting
Ministry of Labour and Wellfare, Jan. 2010
Hospitals
Existing
building (A)
Building with
earthquake resistance
capacity (B)
Earthquake
resistance rate
(B/A) %
Building without
countermeasures for
earthquake resistance
Governmental
facility
9,493 6,681 70.4 2,812
Educational facility 136,535 15,086 80.3 21,492
Medical facility 10,234 7,790 76.1 2,444
Table Earthquake resistance rate of building (governmental, educational and medical facilities)
Figure Seismic retrofit of public buildings in Japan
Source: Accounting
Audit Institute
(year 2013)

22. Seismic Resistance:
How long did it take for seismic resistance of public school in Japan?
22
73,166
70,167
67,068
63,101
59,295
53,636
47,949
41,206
33,134
22,911
18,508
13,412
8,956
5,212
44.5%
46.6%
49.1%
51.8%
54.7%
58.6%
62.3%
67.0%
73.3%
80.3%
84.8%
88.9%
92.5%
95.6%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
残棟数
耐震化率
Earthquakeresistance
Earthquake
resistance
rate
Number of
remaining
buildings
Numberofremainingbuildings
Source: MEXT, 2016
⇒20years of dissemination, incentive, various support by the Governments.
Progress of Seismic Resistance of Public School Buildings in Japan.

23. 23
Process of seismic design and construction
Summary(1/2) : Towards Disaster Resilient Kathmandu Valley (Building)
Towards problem solving of new buildings (RC and Masonry)
Any international codes with
higher standard, such as
⇒Capacity building of Engineers
■ Designation of design code by Designers
■ Capacity building of engineers
(training, workshop, OJT)
■ Orientation for Owner on quality
construction
■ Quality control at construction sites
by contractor/ construction supervisor
■ Training of Mason, workers
⇒Quality of seismic resistance
■ Strict implementation of the process
of Building permit/ Occupation
permit by Local governments
■ Compliance of the process by
stakeholders
■Capacity building of Government
Engineers (training, workshop, OJT)
NBC-105
IS 1893 (1) 2002
IS 1893 (1) 2016
Seismic design of buildings in
Nepal, 1994
As the minimum requirement.
Criteria for Earthquake Resistant
Design of Structures, 2002, 2016
Seismic design of building
Construction
Occupancy
Seismic design code
Building permit

24. Summary(2/2) : Towards Disaster Resilient Kathmandu Valley (Building)
Towards problem solving of existing (public and private) buildings
24
A flow of seismic evaluation/ retrofit and re-build
⇒Retrofit promotion:
■ Promotion plan by the Central and
Local governments
■ Dissemination to stake holders by
Central/ local governments
■ Financial support (loan, tax, subsidy)
■ Capacity building of engineers
(training, workshop, OJT)
Seismic evaluation
(with Survey work)
Retrofit plan and rough cost estimation
Re-build
Seismic retrofit design and construction
Is cost
reasonable?
20~30% of new construction cost?
Occupancy
Is performance
acceptable?
No
No
Yes
Yes
Retrofitting
Guidelines 2016
Retrofitting
Guidelines 2016
Occupancy
Seismic Retrofitting Guidelines
of Buildings In Nepal, 2016

25. Conclusion
Towards Disaster Resilient Kathmandu Valley (Building)
Earthquake damage :
• Target is to mitigate the loss of life, asset, and evacuation. Immediate occupancy for
essential public buildings.
Seismic performance and PGA:
• Design load and L.F. of IS 1893 (1) 2002 will be reasonable against design PGA 180gal.
• Average PGA of 2015 earthquake is 150gal, and CNS 1 is much higher.
• Increase of design seismic load for high-rise building is required.
Design code: Designation of design code by Designers.
• NBC-105 (as the minimum requirement),
• IS 1893 (1) 2002, IS 1893 (1) 2016 (to start from public buildings?)
• Capacity building of engineers (training, workshop, OJT) is required.
New construction :
• Strict implementation of the process of Building permit/ Occupation permit by Local
governments.
Construction quality :
• Orientation for Owner on quality construction. Training of Mason, workers
Seismic retrofit of existing buildings:
• Retrofitting Guidelines 2016 issued, continuous capacity building of engineers required.
(Column jacketing: Guidelines 2016. The use of steel braced frame is also suggested)
• Promotion/ dissemination plan by the Central and Local governments is recommended.