Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2015 Nepal Earthquake Damage Assessment Survey PDF
2015 Nepal Earthquake Damage Assessment Survey PDF
2015 Nepal Earthquake Damage Assessment Survey PDF
O
n April 25, 2015, a moment magnitude (Mw) 7.8 Tribhuvan University (HU-TU) Stations KTP, PTN, THM,
earthquake occurred in Nepal.1 The earthquake and TVU located in Kathmandu. The geographic coordinates
caused more than 8000 fatalities.2 Another earthquake of these stations, peak ground velocity (PGV), and peak
of Mw 7.3 struck Nepal on May 12, 2015, resulting in ground acceleration (PGA) are listed in Table 1.
additional casualties.3 Through December 2015, over 400 The acceleration response spectra and displacement
aftershocks of magnitude 4 or larger occurred in Nepal since response spectra for 5% damping ratios are shown in Fig. 1
the first shock.4,5 It is estimated that over 500,000 buildings in and 2.8,9 The acceleration and displacement demands were
Nepal were completely destroyed and an additional 250,000 high for periods exceeding 3 seconds. Most buildings in
buildings were partially damaged.6 The total economic loss is Kathmandu are expected to have had shorter periods.
estimated to be approximately $5 billion.7
Following the earthquakes, ACI Committee 133, Disaster Damage Classification
Reconnaissance, deployed a team to survey reinforced Damage to structural elements and masonry infill walls
concrete buildings in Kathmandu. With the assistance of was classified using definitions proposed by Hassan and
17 volunteer civil engineers from Nepal, the Nepali Sozen,10 and Donmez and Pujol.11 Structural damage to
government, and a local engineering firm, the team conducted reinforced concrete buildings was classified as “collapse,”
the survey from June 15 to July 1, 2015, and collected data “severe,” “moderate,” or “light.” Buildings in which at least
from low-rise and high-rise reinforced concrete buildings. one floor or part of the floor lost its elevation were classified
Low-rise buildings with fewer than eight stories had, in as “collapses.” Damage to buildings with at least one
general, nonengineered structural frames and clay brick structural failure that rendered a structural element useless
masonry partition walls. High-rise buildings with eight or was classified as “severe damage.” Buildings without failures
more stories had engineered structural frames and clay brick but with structural elements with crack widths exceeding
masonry partition walls. 0.13 mm (0.005 in.) or structural elements with spalling of
A total of 146 low-rise reinforced concrete buildings and concrete were classified as having “moderate damage,” and
30 high-rise reinforced concrete buildings were surveyed. buildings with structural elements with hairline cracks not
Surveyed buildings were classified based on the level of exceeding 0.13 mm were rated as having “light damage.”
damage they sustained. Building coordinates, approximate Damage to masonry infill walls was also classified as “severe,”
building sketches, and photographs of structure and partitions “moderate,” or “light.” Damage to masonry walls was rated as
were collected for every building. Architectural layouts, “severe” if collapse or see-through cracks were observed.
structural drawings, and structural analysis models were also Large cracks in masonry walls and flaking of large pieces of
collected when available. plaster were rated as “moderate damage,” and hairline cracks
This article focuses on the methodology used in the survey in masonry walls were classified as “light damage.”
and highlights the key observations. It also provides a guide
on how to access and interpret the data from the survey. High-rise buildings
Thirty of the 70 high-rise buildings12 existing in
Ground Motion Kathmandu at the time of the earthquake were surveyed
Strong ground motion data from the April 25, 2015, (Table 2). The surveyed buildings were constructed between
earthquake were recorded by United States Geological Survey 2011 and 2015. The main goal of the high-rise building survey
(USGS) Station KATNP, and Hokkaido University and was to document building damage and collect building
Table 2:
Collected data for surveyed high-rise buildings
Latitude Longitude
(North), (East), No. of stories Height, Structural Masonry Column RC wall
Name deg deg above ground m damage damage area, % area, %
Ambe Residency Block 1 27.7301 85.3430 8 30.5 Light Moderate 1.62 0.53
Ambe Residency Block 2 27.7140 85.3450 8 30.5 Light Severe 1.62 0.53
Central Park Jasmine Block 27.6881 85.2972 14 45.0 Light Severe 3.16 0.50
Central Park Lily Block 27.6880 85.2972 14 45.0 Moderate Moderate 3.16 0.50
Central Park Tulip Block 27.7233 85.3369 14 45.0 Moderate Severe 3.16 0.50
Central Park Orchid Block 27.7226 85.3371 14 45.0 Light Moderate 3.16 0.50
Cityscape Tower 1 27.6499 85.3323 17 48.7 Light Severe 2.29 0.39
Cityscape Tower 2 27.6496 85.3323 12 45.8 Light Light 2.42 0.53
Cityscape Tower 3 27.6493 85.3321 14 45.8 Light Severe 2.49 0.53
Cityscape Tower 4 27.6493 85.3318 15 45.8 Moderate Severe 2.44 0.40
Classic Tower 27.6496 85.3268 7* — Light Moderate 2.30 0.70
Grand Tower 27.7308 85.3437 9 36.4 Moderate Severe 1.96 0.61
Kalash Tower 27.6943 85.3073 11 — Light Severe — —
KL Residency Block B 27.7112 85.3324 14 47.0 Light Moderate 1.60 0.43
KL Residency Block C 27.7112 85.3326 14 47.0 Light Light 1.60 0.43
KL Residency Block A 27.7039 85.3272 14 47.0 Light Moderate 0.91 1.13
Park Horizon Tower Sagarmatha 27.7403 85.3248 15 — Severe Severe 2.20 0.39
Park Horizon Tower Kanchanjunga 27.7401 85.3248 12 — Moderate Severe 1.94 0.41
Park Horizon Tower Makalu 27.7408 85.3250 15 — Severe Severe 1.97 0.43
Park Horizon Tower Annapurna 27.7399 85.3244 13 — Severe Severe 2.25 0.35
Prestige Apartment 27.7334 85.3413 12 32.5 Light Severe 2.08 0.43
Signature Apartment I 27.7301 85.3430 8 — Light Light — —
Signature Apartment II 27.6942 85.3072 8 — Light Severe — —
Silver City Apartment Tower 1 27.7040 85.3200 16 45.8 Light Severe 2.18 0.96
Silver City Apartment Tower 2 27.7042 85.3284 17 45.8 Light Severe 2.44 0.95
Sun City Tower I 27.6931 85.3713 17 54.3 Light Light 2.60 0.53
Sun City Tower J 27.6934 85.3712 17 54.3 Light Light 2.60 0.53
Sun City Tower A 27.6915 85.3708 17 — Light Light — —
Sun City Tower H 27.6931 85.3716 17 54.3 Light Light 2.60 0.53
Vibor Apartment 27.7118 85.3260 11 33.5 Light Light 1.34 0.34
Note: Column area and reinforced concrete (RC) wall area percentages were calculated, respectively, by dividing the total area of columns and the total area
of reinforced concrete walls in the ground story by the total ground floor area. Structural and masonry damage was classified using the criteria described in the
text; 1 m = 3.3 ft
*
Building was in construction at time of earthquake. Drawings showed more stories were planned.
Fig. 3: Damage was documented using photo logs: (a) arrows and numbers were marked on building plans to indicate camera locations,
orientations, and photograph numbers; and (b) example image in the photo log (IMG_0026) associated with the circled location on the
building plan
taken. Structural and masonry damage in the ground story of half the story height, and elements were classified as reinforced
each high-rise building were documented in detail. For stories concrete walls if any of their cross-sectional dimensions were
above the ground story, only damage to accessible key larger than half the story height. The mean column area was
structural elements was documented in the photo logs. 2.2% and the mean reinforced concrete wall area was 0.54%.
Figure 4 shows the locations of the 30 high-rise buildings The ratio of wall thickness to story height was also calculated.
that were surveyed and listed in Table 2. High-rise buildings
were ranked based on the severity of damage they sustained.
Buildings with structural and masonry damage were given
priority in the survey compared to buildings with masonry
damage only. However, buildings without structural damage
were surveyed to identify key parameters leading to
differences in damage levels.
Of the surveyed high-rise buildings, 10% (3/30) sustained
severe damage to reinforced concrete structural elements,
17% (5/30) sustained moderate damage to reinforced concrete
structural elements, and the remaining 73% (22/30) sustained
light damage to reinforced concrete structural elements. The
three high-rise buildings that were classified as having severe
structural damage had almost identical building layouts and
sustained similar shear failures in short beams located on the
exterior of the building (Fig. 5). Failures of short elements such
as captive columns and short beams are expected because shear
demand is directly proportional to nominal moment capacity,
and inversely proportional to length of the element.
Fig. 4: Map of Kathmandu Valley showing locations of surveyed
Table 2 shows the number of floors, approximate height,
high-rise buildings. Green squares represent buildings with light
percentage of column area, and percentage of reinforced structural damage, yellow triangles represent buildings with
concrete wall area for the surveyed buildings. Vertical moderate structural damage, and red circles represent buildings with
reinforced concrete elements were classified based on their severe structural damage. Locations of the USGS and HU-TU stations
dimensions. Elements were classified as reinforced concrete are marked with orange stars. Portions of the map are magnified to
columns if their cross-sectional dimensions were smaller than show overlapping building locations
Low-rise buildings
A total of 146 low-rise reinforced
concrete buildings were surveyed.
(a) (b)
These buildings had up to seven floors
Fig. 5: Shear failures were observed in short beams in Park Horizon Tower Annapurna: and were, in general, nonengineered
(a) overview of damage on multiple levels; and (b) detailed view of damage to a beam structures. The main goal of the low-rise
building survey was to document
building damage and collect building
plans or primary dimensions.
Architectural plans or structural drawings were not
available for 131 of the 146 surveyed buildings. For these,
approximate building sketches were generated using field
measurements. Information such as column and wall
dimensions as well as wall locations were also collected.
Architectural plans and/or structural drawings were available
for 15 buildings: Oriental Apartment Block 1A (Case ID:
17384), Block 2B (Case ID: 17390), Block 4D (Case ID:
17407), Block 5C (Case ID: 17397), Block 6C (Case ID:
17398), and Block 7C (Case ID: 17399); and Dhumbarahi
Apartment Block A (Case ID: 17490), Block B (Case ID:
17489), Block C (Case ID: 17491), Block D (Case ID:
17492), Block E (Case ID: 17493), Block F (Case ID: 17494),
Block G (Case ID: 17496), Block H (Case ID: 17497), and
Block I (Case ID: 17495). All information is available on
datacenterhub.org.
Photo logs were used to document damage, and damage
levels were recorded using the same criteria as for high-rise
buildings. Structural and masonry damage in the ground story
of each building was documented in detail. For stories above
the ground level, only damage to key structural elements was
documented. Observations regarding extent and type of
damage were also recorded in the photo logs.
Figure 7 shows the locations of the low-rise buildings
surveyed. Building surveys were conducted in areas with
higher damage concentration. Damage was found to be
concentrated near the foothills in the north and west side of
Fig. 6: Typical reinforcement detailing of reinforced concrete walls the Kathmandu Valley. Little to no damage was observed in
in surveyed high-rise buildings. Crossties have been offset to the center of the valley, where soil depths are deeper.
distinguish them from hoops In general, damage to structural elements comprised shear
Summary
Damage caused by the 2015 Nepal
earthquakes was found to be
concentrated near the foothills in the
north and west side of the Kathmandu
Valley. Little to no damage was observed
near the center of the valley. The clearest
Fig. 8: Wall Index (WI) values versus Column Index (CI) values for 135 low-rise buildings difference between these locations is the
surveyed. 95% of all points representing buildings with severe damage are bounded by the depth of soil deposits.
line drawn from 0.2% on the WI axis to 0.4% on the CI axis Only 10% (3/30) of surveyed high-
rise buildings sustained severe damage,
the surveyed building, including photographs, building and 46% (67/146) of the surveyed low-rise buildings
drawings, sketches, and structural analysis models; sustained severe damage. Low-rise buildings, in general, had
•• Photos, Videos, etc.: Photographs showing structural and nonengineered structural frames with limited deformation
capacity and toughness.
masonry damage;
•• Compiled by: Names of the individuals who compiled the All of the surveyed high-rise buildings contained
reinforced concrete walls. None of these reinforced concrete
data; and
•• Date: Date when the dataset was last modified. walls sustained critical structural damage. This observed
performance of reinforced concrete walls could be attributed
to the intensity of the ground motions, structural detailing of
the walls, or both.
The mean PI of low-rise buildings surveyed in
Kathmandu was 0.19%. This value is lower than the average
PI value for low-rise buildings surveyed after the 1999
Düzce (0.32%) and 2010 Haiti (0.24%) earthquakes.14 A plot
of CI versus WI for buildings surveyed in Kathmandu shows
that 95% of the plotted points representing low-rise
buildings with severe damage are bound by a line drawn
from 0.2% on the WI axis to 0.4% on the CI axis. This result
Center in Kathmandu.
All collected data are publicly available on
DataCenterHub, a public platform to help researchers
organize, share, and explore research data:
•• High-Rise Buildings at https://datacenterhub.org/
resources/242; and
Hiring the right people for •• Low-Rise Buildings at https://datacenterhub.org/
the right jobs has never resources/238.