Discussion paper

Restoring Heritage buildings damaged after the 2015 earthquakes

Definitions

To rehabilitate, to recondition, to restore, to renovate, to refurbish, to rebuild, to

reconstruct are all words which mean to return a building to its former condition; after the
2015 earthquake this implies returning the building to it’s same condition before the
earthquake but without any structural strengthening or retrofitting; generally such actions
relate to the whole building

Conservation of cultural heritage is the protection and restoration of cultural heritage,

including works of art and architecture, as well as archaeological and historical artifacts.
Conservation or restoration and means returning the building to its former condition.

To repair a building is to restore a building to sound condition after damage; after the
2015 earthquake this implies restoring just the damaged areas of the building to a sound
condition

To structurally strengthen or to retrofit a building is to introduce new, additional

elements to the structure of building so that the building can better resist seismic events;
in effect such actions improve the former condition of the building

Introduction

The 2015 earthquakes destroyed or damaged a very significant portion of the cultural
heritage buildings in the Kathmandu Valley.

This paper discusses the options for policy makers in responding to the devastation and
these options can be broadly categorized as:

a) to repair what can be repaired and to restore what needs to be restored back to the
former condition without strengthening or retrofitting;

b) to structurally strengthen and retrofit all buildings; and

c) a mixture of restoration and strengthening which encompasses the true and complete
meaning of the word conservation – that is the protection and restoration of cultural
heritage where protection means the inclusion of structural strengthening so that the
heritage can better resist future earthquakes but is credible in presentation

The Options for Policy Makers

All options in response to earthquake damage have costs which will ultimately guide any
decisions on the type of response. The 2015 earthquake damage has seen the pledging of
funds by international donors to respond to the destruction and an opportunity to decide
on an overall approach primarily dictated by the perception of risk of another major
earthquake; earthquakes of the magnitude of the 2015 earthquake and higher, such as
1934, are almost certain to happen but the question of when is unknown.

a) Repair and Restoration

This is the historic practice in the Kathmandu Valley where generally the guthis, under
the overall direction of the Department of Archaeology, repair and restore any structures
using vernacular historic methods and executed by local craftsmen. As most of the
heritage is still culturally alive, rather than historical, buildings have been constantly
repaired and restored over the centuries

This is the option with the lowest cost and requires the least inputs; it is essentially a
sustainable approach through time but an approach that accepts that these buildings will
suffer damage, and sometimes destruction, frequently.

The response by GoN to the 2015 earthquakes has been to request funds from
international donors to deal with the devastation. In doing so the GoN is effectively
stating that this historic approach of repair and restoration, a sustainable approach
requiring the least amount of money, is not the preferred option and but it has not decided
whether or not the strengthening of the buildings is necessary.

Such an approach demands international funds and infrequent earthquakes. This is a risky
proposition; what would happen if the buildings were merely repaired and restored using
these funds requested by government but that an earthquake in 5 to 10 years time again
destroys all the buildings leaving GoN having to again approach donors who will surely
raise significant questions as to why the restored buildings were not better protected i.e.
properly conserved.

The frequency of earthquakes is not yet possible to determine and the past records are the
only guide available. Such records show for example that in the space of just over 24
years from 1810 – 1834 C.E. 4 earthquakes of large magnitude hit the Kathmandu
Valley. In a similar scenario in the future, GoN would not be able to rely on donor funds
for repair and from this emerges two options:

(i) take the funds now and if there are large earthquakes in the near future and no
funding was forthcoming from the donors accept that the policy would be to return to the
historic repair and restoration system with some financial support from GoN. The level
of such support would depend on the demands from other sectors; or

(ii) use the funds that have and are being made available to strengthen the
buildings for better seismic resilience so that future damage may be limited and any
damage repair and restoration can be funded solely by GoN. The degree of strengthening
is of course governed by cost.

b) To Structurally Strengthen or Retrofit Damaged buildings

This option makes the building stronger than the building that was damaged in the 2015
earthquake and better able to resist future earthquakes.

Retrofitting any building for seismic resistance will never achieve the same level of
performance as a new building designed in accordance with seismic principles. Hence, if
the objective is to achieve seismic resilience above all else then all buildings should be
demolished and re-built to such standards. This would minimise future costs,
comparatively speaking. In this sub-option, new construction rather than retrofitting and
strengthening, the architectural conservation will not be authentic but it can be made to
be credible to fulfill the role of the building in it’s living heritage role within the
community.

Prior to any retrofitting or structural strengthening interventions, the level of damage and
the viability of the structure of the building has to be assessed. Under current GoN
guidelines for damage assessment post 2015 earthquake, the first step is a visual
inspection which takes into consideration the seismic clauses of NNBC. All damaged
buildings in the heritage sector will be masonry, mass masonry and timber
framed/masonry infill wall structures; all such buildings will be condemned under GoN
guidelines and new builds will be recommended. Such assessments can be done in a day
or two and are of low cost.

Any more detailed assessement of damage and viability of the structure require
investigation and testing, all of which have significant costs. The assessment would
include, amongst other tests:

- soil bearing capacity of the site

- foundation investigations: depth, width, materials etc
- sheer strength of masonry
- effects of damp on masonry structures and timber frames
- integrity of structure
- strength of structural elements, where, in the case of timber structures, the
elements may be buried within the structure requiring sophisticated equipment to
make an informed assessment
- etc.

The greater the level of survey investigation, the more accurate the understanding of the
building and the better the modeling required to determine any retrofitting interventions;
and of course the greater the cost suggesting that such level of investigation should be
limited to the most important heritage buildings.

The interventions themselves depend upon what level of performance is required by the
building post retrofit. If the building is required to be resistant to an earthquake of the
greatest magnitude that has hit the valley, the 1934 earthquake, the retrofit interventions
will be much higher than say interventions which will accept, but limit, damage but avoid
collapse. Again, primarily a question of cost

c) Conservation: the restoration and protection of cultural heritage where

protection means provision of additional strengthening elements to protect the
structure in future

This option has been proved successfully where buildings so conserved survived the 2015
earthquakes.It should be clearly noted that almost all such examples were buildings
which were entirely reconstructed prior to the 2015 earthquakes.

A good example is the Chyasilinmandap in Bhaktapur which was conserved in the 1990s.
Investigations had revealed that the mandap was sitting on a 20 metre layer of gravel and
appropriate reinforced concrete foundations, amongst other interventions, were
constructed to protect the architectural heritage.

Similarly the 1970s conservation work in HannumanDhoka introduced concrete

ringbeams into the superstructure elements of heritage buildings.

The question of course for each building is can the necessary strengthening elements be
introduced without having to de-construct (as opposed to demolition) and then re-
construct the buildings. Each will have to be separately assessed and each will require
decisions on:

- the level of performance of the building during future earthquakes

- thecost of the interventions
- a compromise between structural strength and architectural conservation
- an acceptance that the conservation will not be authentic as per understood norms

Given the apparent choice of GoN to seek international funds, thus closing the
sustainable historic repair and restoration by communities themselves, GoN is effectively
choosing an approach which will provide “credible but not authentic” heritage where
costs will determine the level of performance in the next earthquake