!

!
A Note on The Strong Ground Motions and Behavior of
Buildings During 26th Oct. 2015 Afghanistan–Pakistan
Earthquake

!
!
!
December 2015

Presented to Earthquake Engineering Center, UET Peshawar

Peshawar, KP.
 !

!
UET!
!

A Note on The Strong Ground Motions and Behavior of

Buildings During 26th Oct. 2015 Afghanistan–Pakistan
Earthquake

Prepared by

Dr. Naveed Ahmad, PhD, P.E. (Structures)

Asst. Professor & Postgraduate Advisor – Earthquake Engineering
Earthquake Engineering Center | Department of Civil Engineering
UET Peshawar, KP.

Signature:_____________________
Date: 13/12/2015

Prepared for
Director, Earthquake Engineering Center, UET Peshawar.
Contents of Report
Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 2
Background ......................................................................................................... 3
Observed Ground Motions................................................................................. 4
Acceleration Time History Records ................................................................................... 4
Acceleration Response Spectrum ..................................................................................... 4
Displacement Response Spectrum ................................................................................... 8
Observed Behavior of Buildings ....................................................................... 9
Adobe & Stone Masonry Structures .................................................................................. 9
Brick Masonry Structures .................................................................................................. 9
Reinforced Concrete Structures ...................................................................................... 10
Conclusions: Lessons Learnt.......................................................................... 10
Ground Motions .............................................................................................................. 10
Buildings Performance .................................................................................................... 11
References ........................................................................................................ 12

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

th
26 October 2015 Afghanistan-Pakistan Earthquake | © Dr. Naveed Ahmad 1/15
Executive Summary

This report presents a brief note on the 26th October 2015 Afghanistan-Pakistan
Mw 7.5 earthquake, in reference to the ground motions observed in KP Pakistan
and preliminary reconnaissance surveys conducted on the behavior assessment
of structures in KP Pakistan subjected to the event. The ground motions
acceleration is recorded in Peshawar and D.I. Khan by the National Center of
Excellence in Geology, University of Peshawar, KP. The buildings damage
assessment is carried out by the structural expert team of the Earthquake
Engineering Center of UET Peshawar in the most affected regions in KP
Pakistan (Abbottabad, Chitral, Dir, M0hmand Agency, Peshawar, Shangla,
Swat), to understand the performance of structures against the earthquake
induced ground motions and derive lessons learned from the earthquake event.

th
26 October 2015 Afghanistan-Pakistan Earthquake | © Dr. Naveed Ahmad 2/15
Background

On Monday the 26th October 2015 at 02:09 PM (Pakistan Standard Time), an

earthquake of Mw 7.5 occurred in the Hindu Kush Mountains, at an intermediate
depth of about 210 km, within 48 km SSW of Jarm Afghanistan that was followed
by numerous aftershocks. The earthquake shaking has been felt significantly in
Afghanistan, Pakistan and neighboring countries even at large distances (Figure
1) and observed to be one of the most damaging earthquakes in Pakistan.

This earthquake has caused widespread destruction in Afghanistan and northern

side of Pakistan. In Pakistan alone, the event resulted into the deaths of 232
people and injured other about 1500 people. The earthquake significantly
affected structures and infrastructures: about 10 million building structures are
damaged, which also included about 1400 school buildings (PDMA, 2015).

Figure 1 Ground shaking severity, in terms of PGA, calculated and observed (in terms of
th
intensity) for the 26 October 2015 Afghanistan-Pakistan earthquake (USGS 2015).

th
26 October 2015 Afghanistan-Pakistan Earthquake | © Dr. Naveed Ahmad 3/15
Observed Ground Motions

The strong ground motions recorded in Peshawar and D.I. Khan districts of KP
by the NCEG (NCEG 2015) are considered and analyzed for the engineering
characterization and derivation of strong-motion parameters using signal
processing and analysis software SeismoSignal (SeismoSignal 2015).

Acceleration Time History Records

Figure 2&3 shows the corrected acceleration time histories of ground motions
recorded in Peshawar (280km source-to-site epicentral distance) and DI Khan
(514km source-to-site epicentral distance). The time histories are processed
applying the baseline correction and Butterworth Bandpass filtering (0.01-50 Hz).
In Peshawar, peak ground acceleration of 0.05g is observed on the horizontal
east component with bracketed time duration of 61.12sec, 0.053g is observed on
the horizontal north component with bracketed time duration of 58.05sec and
0.038g is observed on the vertical component with bracketed time duration of
73.47sec. In DI Khan, peak ground acceleration of 0.026g is observed on the
horizontal east component with bracketed time duration of 75.03sec, 0.036g is
observed on the horizontal north component with bracketed time duration of
75.38sec and 0.015g is observed on the vertical component with bracketed time
duration of 120.59sec.

Acceleration Response Spectrum

The acceleration time histories are used for the acceleration and displacement
response analysis of elastic single degree of freedom oscillators (SDOF) with 5%
damping to construct acceleration and displacement response spectrum for
ground motions. The time period range 0 to 4.0 sec of SDOF systems is
considered for the derivation of acceleration spectrum and time period range 0 to
10.0 sec of SDOF systems is considered for derivation of displacement response
spectrum. Figure 4&5 shows the calculated acceleration response spectrum,
Figure 6&7 shows the calculated displacement response spectrum.

In Peshawar, a maximum response acceleration of 0.215g is observed at the

predominant period of 0.38sec on the horizontal east component, 0.174g is
observed at the predominant period of 0.28sec on the horizontal north
component and 0.124g is observed at the predominant period of 0.18sec. Both
the horizontal components acceleration spectrum shows peaks around 1.5sec
and 2sec, which point to the presence of basin effects.

th
26 October 2015 Afghanistan-Pakistan Earthquake | © Dr. Naveed Ahmad 4/15
 0.05
PGA = 0.05g
0.04

0.03

0.02
Acceleration (g)

0.01

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

-0.04

-0.05

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Time (sec)

(Horizontal East Component)

PGA = 0.05g, Bracketed Duration = 61.12sec

0.05
PGA = 0.053g
0.04

0.03

0.02
Acceleration (g)

0.01

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

-0.04

-0.05

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Time (sec)

(Horizontal North Component)

PGA = 0.053g, Bracketed Duration = 58.05sec

0.05

0.04
PGA = 0.038g
0.03

0.02
Acceleration (g)

0.01

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

-0.04

-0.05

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Time (sec)

(Vertical Component)
PGA = 0.038, Bracketed Duration = 73.47sec

Figure 2 Acceleration time histories of ground motions recorded in Peshawar.

th
26 October 2015 Afghanistan-Pakistan Earthquake | © Dr. Naveed Ahmad 5/15
 0.05

0.04

0.03
PGA = 0.026g
0.02
Acceleration (g)

0.01

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

-0.04

-0.05

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Time (sec)

(Horizontal East Component)

PGA = 0.26g, Bracketed Duration = 75.03sec

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02
Acceleration (g)

0.01

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

-0.04
PGA = 0.036g
-0.05

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Time (sec)

(Horizontal North Component)

PGA = 0.036g, Bracketed Duration = 75.38sec

0.05

0.04

0.03
PGA = 0.015g
0.02
Acceleration (g)

0.01

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

-0.04

-0.05

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Time (sec)

(Vertical Component)
PGA = 0.015, Bracketed Duration = 120.59sec

Figure 3 Acceleration time histories of ground motions recorded in DI Khan.

th
26 October 2015 Afghanistan-Pakistan Earthquake | © Dr. Naveed Ahmad 6/15
In DI Khan, a maximum response acceleration of 0.144g is observed at the
predominant period of 0.64sec on the horizontal east component, 0.092g is
observed at the predominant period of 0.40sec on the horizontal north
component and 0.052g is observed at the predominant period of 0.14sec. The
peaks observed in acceleration response spectrum of Peshawar at longer period,
which is due to basin effects, are not clearly observed for ground motions
observed in DI Khan.
0.25
Tp = 0.38 Sec, SA = 0.215g East Component
North Component
Tp = 0.28 Sec, SA = 0.174g Vertical Component
0.2

Tp = 0.18 Sec, SA = 0.124g

Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Time Period (sec)

Figure 4 Acceleration response spectrum of ground motions recorded in Peshawar.

0.25

East Component
North Component
Vertical Component
0.2

Tp = 0.64 Sec, SA = 0.144g

Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.15

Tp = 0.40 Sec, SA = 0.092g

0.1
Tp = 0.14 Sec, SA = 0.052g

0.05

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Time Period (sec)

Figure 5 Acceleration response spectrum of ground motions recorded in DI Khan.

th
26 October 2015 Afghanistan-Pakistan Earthquake | © Dr. Naveed Ahmad 7/15
Displacement Response Spectrum
In Peshawar, a maximum response displacement of 84.66mm is observed at
the predominant period of 2.32sec on the horizontal east component, 110mm is
observed at the predominant period of 3.48sec on the horizontal north
component and 38.32 is observed at the predominant period of 5.88sec. In DI
Khan, a maximum response displacement of 63.45mm is observed at the
predominant period of 6.70sec on the horizontal east component, 57.42mm is
observed at the predominant period of 5.36sec on the horizontal north
component and 65.68mm is observed at the predominant period of 6.16sec.
120
Tp = 3.48 Sec, SD = 110mm
East Component
North Component
Tp = 2.32 Sec, SD = 84.66mm
Vertical Component
100
Spectral Displacement (mm)

80

Tp = 5.88 Sec, SD = 38.32mm

60

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time Period (sec)

Figure 6 Displacement response spectrum of ground motions recorded in DI Khan.

120

East Component
North Component
Vertical Component
100

Tp = 6.70 Sec, SD = 63.45mm

Tp = 6.16 Sec, SD = 65.68mm
Spectral Displacement (mm)

80

Tp = 5.36 Sec, SD = 57.42mm

60

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time Period (sec)

Figure 7 Displacement response spectrum of ground motions recorded in DI Khan.

th
26 October 2015 Afghanistan-Pakistan Earthquake | © Dr. Naveed Ahmad 8/15
Observed Behavior of Buildings

In response to the damaging effects of earthquake event, the structural expert

team visited various identified districts in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Abbottabad,
Chitral, Dir, Mohmand Agency, Peshawar, Shangla, Swat) for preliminary
damage assessment of buildings. The structural lessons learnt from the field
observations in KP, on the seismic behavior and performance of buildings, are
briefly described.

Adobe & Stone Masonry Structures

Rubble stone masonry structures in dry condition or mud mortar and adobe/mud
structures performed very poorly in this earthquake and have shown severe
damages, partial and total collapses. It is due to the low strength of materials and
poor construction practice (not using any confining beam and column elements).
Furthermore, due to raining few days before the earthquake event, these
structures were in wet condition when subjected to ground motion shaking, thus
possesses less strength. Topographic effects at ridges have also played role in
amplifying ground motions and increasing time duration of shaking, because of
focusing of seismic waves. These observations are primarily made in the
mountainous region of Dir, Mohmand Agency, Chitral and Swat. During the field
survey, it was observed that the building owners have re-constructed their
damaged and collapsed building using the same building materials (stone and
mud) and construction practice, thus, retaining the risk for future events.

Brick Masonry Structures

Brick masonry structures of very old construction, 70-80 years older, also
performed very poorly in Peshawar, due to building materials deterioration
because of aging. These buildings have shown severe damages and roof
collapses. However, the same structures where timber-framing laces were used,
performed well and the structures remain intact. These observations were made
in Peshawar, particularly in Awqaf buildings.

Brick masonry and brick masonry confined structures have performed poorly and
have shown severe damages in case of ground motion amplification on alluvium
soil due to local site effects or due to localized foundation settlement. Poor
performance of confined masonry structures was also observed due to improper
construction of these structures, particularly confining elements were built before

th
26 October 2015 Afghanistan-Pakistan Earthquake | © Dr. Naveed Ahmad 9/15
the masonry walls and no toothing of RC elements to masonry walls has been
carried out. These observations have been made in Upper Dir and Malakand.

Reinforced Concrete Structures

The recently constructed reinforced concrete structures in KP are those primarily
designed to the building code of Pakistan (BCP 2007, UBC 97), which are
detailed as per the ACI-318 recommendations (ACI 318-05/08). These structures
have performed very well, as per the expectation, during the earthquake. In few
cases, damages like horizontal and vertical cracks have been observed in these
structures at the infill-frame interfaces and minor diagonal cracks have been
observed in masonry infill, primarily in regions where ground motions were
amplified due to local site conditions. Similar observations have been made in the
valley of Abbottabad.

In case of reinforced concrete structures deigned to gravity or undersigned,

damages have been observed also in the structural members, particularly in the
columns. The damages in these structure types are aggravated due to local site
effects. These observations have been made in Peshawar.

Conclusions: Lessons Learnt

The following conclusions are drawn from the earthquake ground motions and
observed building performance during the earthquake event.

Ground Motions
• Despite the large source-to-site distance and deep nature of the
earthquake source (hypocenter), significant ground motions have been
observed in KP Pakistan in this earthquake, which is due to the large size
of the earthquake releasing high seismic energy.
• Due to the large frequency contents of seismic waves, the ground shaking
observed in Peshawar has been amplified at various fundamental
frequencies of the site.
• Amplification at longer periods (around 1.5sec and 2.2/2.3sec) point to the
presence of basin effects in Peshawar, which are an important
observation particularly for the design of long period structures like bridges
and tall buildings. The basin effects at Peshawar may be more
pronounced in case of large and deep earthquakes in the near vicinity,
which can pose more risk on long period structures.

th
26 October 2015 Afghanistan-Pakistan Earthquake | © Dr. Naveed Ahmad 10/15
Buildings Performance
• The high amount of building collapses observed in this earthquake event,
despite the moderate shaking severity, point to the very high vulnerability
of building stock in the KP Province of Pakistan.
• Many buildings of non-engineered (adobe & rubble masonry) and semi-
engineered (brick masonry & confined masonry) constructions have
incurred severe damages and experienced partial and total collapses and
performed poorly in case of ground motion amplification due to soft-soil
conditions and topographic effects (ridges effects). This point to the
importance of site-soil & site-topography consideration in the design and
construction of structures. The poor performance of confined masonry
buildings also attributed to the improper construction practice – no toothing
was observed between column and masonry i.e. confining columns were
built first and masonry after. However proper confined masonry
construction requires building the masonry wall first, after placing
reinforcement skeleton for confining columns, and then poor concrete for
columns later.
• Significant amount of medium to good quality constructions (brick masonry
buildings) have performed very poorly in case of local differential
settlement due to local soil failure, which was primarily due to improper
drainage and blockage, causing water ponding, that kept the foundation
soil wet for years and resulted in the foundation soil to loose its shear
strength capacity for carrying vertical and lateral loads. This calls for
attention to improve building drainage systems.
• Buildings designed to the recent seismic building code of Pakistan & UBC-
97 and detailed as per the ACI recommendations have performed up to
the expectations, even in case of ground motions amplification. However,
damage to infill walls have been observed, which calls for using soft
(flexible) infill in these structures. Furthermore, pounding effects in these
structures have been observed which calls for attention in future designs
to use soft joint filler in expansion joints to minimize hammering effects
during earthquake.

Acknowledgement: The author is thankful to Prof. Dr. Tahir, Director of the National
Center of Excellence in Geology, University of Peshawar for kindly providing the strong-
motion data recorded in Peshawar and DI Khan. The author thank the contributions of
postgraduate students of the Department of Civil Engineering of UET Peshawar, who
conducted survey for building damage assessment and reported their findings in terms

th
26 October 2015 Afghanistan-Pakistan Earthquake | © Dr. Naveed Ahmad 11/15
of photos and field observations. The author would like to thank the following in
particular, for their valuable contributions:
Engr. Nouman Khan, United Arab Emirates University (UAEU), Al Ain Dubai, UAE.
Engr. Noor Ullah, MSc Scholar, Structural Engineering, UET Peshawar.
Engr. Irshad Khan, MSc Student, Structural Engineering, UET Peshawar.

References
!
ACI-318-05/08 (2005/2008) “Building code requirements for structural concrete
(ACI 318-05) and commentary (ACI318R-05/08),” Technical Report,
American Concrete Institute (ACI), P.O.Box. 9094, Farmington Hills,
Michigan, USA.
BCP (2007) “Building code of Pakistan: Seismic Provisions-2007,” Technical
Report, Ministry of Housing and Works, Islamabad, Pakistan.
NCEG (2015) “Acceleration time history records for D.I. Khan and Peshawar”,
National Center of Excellence in Geology (NCEG), University of
Peshawar, Peshawar, KP.
PDMA (2015) “Damages and Relief Report – Report on damages and
compensation due to 26th October 2015 earthquake”, Provincial Disaster
Management Authority (PDMA), Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,
Peshawar, KP.
SeismoSignal (2015) “SeismoSignal: A software for processing and analyzing
earthquake strong-motion data”, Earthquake Engineering Software
Solutions, Pavia, ITALY.
USGS (2015) “M7.5 – 45 km E of Farkhar, Afghanistan”, United States
Geological Survey (USGS), USA.
(URL: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us10003re5#)
UBC (1997) “Uniform building code”, International Council of Building Official,
Whittier, CA, USA.

th
26 October 2015 Afghanistan-Pakistan Earthquake | © Dr. Naveed Ahmad 12/15
Figure 8 Damages observed in adobe and rubble stone masonry structures – most likely damage
mechanisms. Form top to bottom: corner damages, delamination, partial wall collapse and total
structural collapse.

th
26 October 2015 Afghanistan-Pakistan Earthquake | © Dr. Naveed Ahmad 13/15
Figure 9 Damages observed in brick masonry buildings – most likely damage mechanisms. Form
top to bottom: in-plane wall damages due to local settlement, damage to slab and continuous
wall at expansion joints in the slab, in-plane shear damages in loadbearing walls and damages
observed in confined brick masonry building due local site effects.

th
26 October 2015 Afghanistan-Pakistan Earthquake | © Dr. Naveed Ahmad 14/15
Figure 10 Damages observed in reinforced concrete buildings – most likely damage
mechanisms. Form top to bottom: flexure cracking in gravity/under-designed RC structures,
pounding at the expansion joints, in-plane shear damages in masonry infill and horizontal
cracking at roof diaphragm movement.

th
26 October 2015 Afghanistan-Pakistan Earthquake | © Dr. Naveed Ahmad 15/15