Performanceof Heritage Structuresduringthe Nepal Earthquakeof April 252015

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/313100855
Performance of heritage structure during the M w 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal

earthquake
Article in Journal of Earthquake Engineering · November 2017

DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2017.1360225
CITATIONS READS
22 8,736
3 authors:
Apil K C Keshab Sharma

Tribhuvan University BGC Engineering Inc.
18 PUBLICATIONS 102 CITATIONS 53 PUBLICATIONS 633 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Bigul Pokharel
University of British Columbia - Okanagan
9 PUBLICATIONS 129 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Masters Thesis View project
Mechanism of post disaster recovery in developing nations. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Apil K C on 24 April 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Earthquake Engineering
ISSN: 1363-2469 (Print) 1559-808X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20
Performance of Heritage Structures during the

Nepal Earthquake of April 25, 2015
Apil KC, Keshab Sharma & Bigul Pokharel
To cite this article: Apil KC, Keshab Sharma & Bigul Pokharel (2017): Performance of Heritage
Structures during the Nepal Earthquake of April 25, 2015, Journal of Earthquake Engineering
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1360225
Published online: 01 Dec 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 69
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueqe20
Download by: [University of Alberta] Date: 05 December 2017, At: 09:49

JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1360225
Performance of Heritage Structures during the Nepal

Earthquake of April 25, 2015
Apil KCa, Keshab Sharmab, and Bigul Pokharelc
a
Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Pulchowk Campus, IOE, Lalitpur, Nepal; bDepartment of
Civil and Environ Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; cDepartment of Civil
Engineering, National College of Engineering, Lalitpur, Nepal
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper reports the structural failures and collapse of heritage Received 25 February 2017
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 09:49 05 December 2017
structures in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, during the 2015 Nepal earth- Revised 13 June 2017
quake, and presents preliminary findings regarding the causes of Accepted 24 July 2017
failures and collapses. Field reconnaissance was carried out immedi- KEYWORDS
ately after the main shock (Mw 7.8) on April 25 and the strongest Nepal Earthquake; Field
aftershock (Mw 7.3) on May 12. It was observed that the performance Observation; Heritage
of heritage structures was influenced by the combination of several Structure; Masonry Building;
factors, including structural and architecture type, configuration and Seismic Performance
structural deficiency, local site effects and ground-motion character-
istics, age and maintenance level, material quality, etc. It was
observed that dome structures performed very well, followed by
pagoda (tiered temple), and shikhara structures were found as the
most vulnerable structures. Moreover, it was observed that structures
that had been seismically retrofitted and well maintained appeared
to perform well. Some recommendations are made to improve the
seismic performance of the heritage structures in Kathmandu Valley.
1. Introduction
A destructive earthquake of moment magnitude Mw 7.8 hit central Nepal at 11:56 a.m. local time
on April 25, 2015, with the epicenter (N: 28°08ʹ49.2”; E: 84°42ʹ28.8”) near Baluwa village, about
77 km northwest of Kathmandu Valley, at a focal depth of approximately 15 km [United States
Geological Survey (USGS), 2015]. A tremor that lasted for 55 s was widely felt in Nepal and the
neighboring countries. After 17 days of the main shock, a large aftershock (Mw 7.3) occurred at
12:50 p.m. local time on May 12 in central Nepal and caused additional damage to northern
central Nepal. As of December 30, 2016, more than 465 aftershocks with a magnitude above 4
had been observed, 49 with a magnitude above 5 and five above 6 [National Seismological
Center of Nepal (NSC), 2016]. This earthquake was one of the most powerful seismic events
since the 1934 Mw 8.1 Nepal Bihar earthquake [Goda et al., 2015; Sharma et al., 2016]. A total of
800,000 buildings were severely damaged or collapsed [Chiaro et al., 2015; Sharma et al., 2016].
The Himalayan chain is one of the most active seismic regions in the world, because of
the faulting between the subducting Indian plate and the overriding Eurasian plate to the
north. Nepal is situated in the center of the Himalayan concave mountain chain, which is
CONTACT Keshab Sharma keshab@ualberta.ca Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Alberta, 9105 116 St Natural Resources Engineering Facility [NREF], Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2R3, Canada
Color versions of one or more of the Figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/UEQE.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 A. KC, K. SHARMA, AND B. POKHAREL
about 900 km long in the west–east (WE) direction and 200 km long in the north–south
(NS) direction. The Indian plate converges with the Eurasian plate at the rate of approxi-
mately 45 mm/year toward the north–northeast [Copeland, 1997]. Over the last few
centuries, earthquakes in 1810, 1833, 1866, and 1934 AD in Nepal have resulted in a
large number of casualties and caused extensive damage to heritage structures [Bilham
et al., 2001].
Heritage structures built in ageless time in Nepal are traditional and monumental
structures with historic and archeological importance. Most of the heritage structures in
Kathmandu Valley have brick masonry with or without timber reinforcement as the
principal load-bearing structural system. Several studies of past earthquakes have shown
that brick and stone masonry structures have suffered the maximum damage in moderate
to severe ground shakings [Parajuli et al., 2011; Sharma et al., 2016]. This is because of
their heavy weight and large stiffness resulting in short time periods and large amplifica-
tion of short-period waves in the earthquake motions. On the other hand, masonry has
very low tensile and shear strength and fails in a brittle manner [Jaishi et al., 2003].
According to the preliminary report of Department of Archaeology, this earthquake
affected as many as 745 monuments in 20 districts [Department of Archeology (DOA),
2016]. Out of them, 193 monuments were completely collapsed, 95 monuments partially
collapsed, and 517 monuments were partly damaged. The report revealed that 444
monuments were affected within the Kathmandu Valley only, out of which 83 monuments
collapsed from the base [Department of Archeology (DOA), 2016].
Some authors studied the performance of heritage structures in Kathmandu Valley
based on site-specific ground motions [Jaishi et al., 2003; Shakya et al., 2014; Parajuli
et al., 2011]. Sharma et al. [2016] reported the performance of building structures
during the 2015 Nepal earthquake. Gautam [2017] presented the lessons learned in
terms of the damage and survival of the heritage structures during the 2015 Nepal
earthquake. However, the behavior of heritage structures in Kathmandu Valley sub-
jected to a major earthquake has been poorly understood or investigated in the larger
academic milieu. Studies on the performance of heritage structures after major seismic
events is very important as an indispensable base to develop the most effective
approaches for their conservation, restoration, or retrofitting and, when appropriate,
to guide the revision and upgrade of building codes for new buildings so as to reduce
risks from future earthquakes, especially in developing regions of the world. For this
reason, post-earthquake reconnaissance activities that record the performance of heri-
tage structures and provide case studies have the same significance as any other
research activities for researchers, engineers, policy makers, and the society in general
of Nepal and other countries.
A field reconnaissance was carried out immediately after the main shock of the 2015
Nepal earthquake, and the observations were reported in the present paper. Field recon-
naissance was again conducted after the May 12 aftershock in all of the previously visited
areas; however, heritage structures were found to have survived with minor to no damage
during the Mw 7.3 May 12 aftershock. The objective of the field reconnaissance was to
record and analyze the damage patterns observed in the heritage buildings, mainly in
UNESCO heritage sites. This paper discusses the seismological aspects of the Nepal
earthquake, describes the classifications of heritage buildings in Kathmandu Valley
based on both structure and architecture, and elaborates on the performance of various
PERFORMANCE OF HERITAGE STRUCTURES DURING THE NEPAL EARTHQUAKE 3
Figure 1. Surface geology of Kathmandu valley with the surveyed locations and seismological station
(after Sakai [2001]). Surveyed sites: (1) Kathmandu Durbar square, (2) Patan Durbar square, (3)
Bhaktapur Durbar square, (4) Pashupatinath area, (5) Dharahara tower, (6) Swayambhunath, (7)
Changunarayan, (8) Bouddhanath Stupa, (9) Rani Pokhari, and (10) Kalmochan Ghat. Seismological
station: (11) Kanti path (KANTP).
heritage buildings during the earthquake. It also offers a number of case studies regarding
the performance of retrofitted heritage buildings.
2. Geological Features of Kathmandu Valley

Figure 1 shows the geologic map of Kathmandu Valley, where the majority of the
observations in the present paper are located. The sedimentary rocks of the valley base-
ment are largely covered by thick fluvio-lacustrine soils originated from the Pliocene to
Pleistocene epoch. The maximum thickness of the valley soil is about 550 m at the center
of the valley [Sakai et al., 2002]. As shown in Figure 1, the valley north soil consists of
typical riverbed layered deposit of clays, silts, sand, and gravels, whereas alluvial fan facies,
which are agglomerate of boulders and gravel with a clayey and silty matrix derived as
debris flows from the southern hill, are found in the valley south. Similarly, the central
basin consists of thick organic mud and black clay. Most of the heritage structures in
Kathmandu Valley are located on soft sedimentary soil deposits, which leads to larger
devastation even during a moderate earthquake. As the deposited sediments in
Kathmandu Valley are made up of clay, silt, sand, and gravel, the Valley is highly prone
to liquefaction [Subedi et al., 2012; Sharma et al., 2017a].
3. Ground Motions and Response Spectra

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has one seismological station at Kanti Path,
Kathmandu, and makes records obtained at this station (KATNP) publicly available.
The KATNP station is located in the core of the Kathmandu city (Figure 1), close to
Table 1. Key characteristics of the MW 7.8 main shock and the MW 7.3 aftershock
Time Focal depth NS EW Vertical Latitude Longitude
Station Date (local) (km) (cm/s2) (cm/s2) (cm/s2) (N°) (E°)
KATNP 4/25/15 11:56 15 164 158 184 28.15 84.71
KATNP 5/12/15 12:50 15 87 72 75 27.84 86.08
Figure 2. (a) Accelerograms at KANTP for the mw 7.8 main shock, (b) accelerograms at KANTP for the
mw 7.3 aftershock, (c) 5%-damped acceleration response spectra (ARS) of the accelerograms, (d) KANTP
station and range of earthquake epicenter to Kathmandu Valley [sharma et al., 2016].
the Kathmandu Durbar Square. Critical parameters for the April 25 main shock and the
May 12 aftershock are given in Table 1. Figure 2a and 2b show the EW, NS, and UD
(vertical) components of ground motion recorded at KATNP station. Figure 2 shows the
locations of the epicenter of the main shock and the Mw 7.3 aftershock, and the KATNP
station. The peak ground accelerations (PGA) of the main shock in the EW and NS
direction were 158 cm/s2 and 164 cm/s2, respectively. Similarly, the PGA of the aftershock
in the EW and NS directions were 72 cm/s2 and 87 cm/s2, respectively. Long-period (4–5
s) ground motion can be seen from the recorded accelerograms (Figure 2a and 2b), which
may be the result of the soft sedimentary basin effects [Sakai et al., 2002]. The PGA
recorded at KATNP station (~0.18 g) did not exceed the PGA estimates (0.3 g) with 10%
probability of exceedance in 50 years from the recent regional seismic hazard studies by
JICA [Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), 2002] and Ram and Wang [Ram
and Wan, 2011]; however, it is speculated that the local site effects might have contributed
Figure 3. Variation of the dominant period of ground of the Kathmandu Valley (after Paudyal et al.
[2012] and Rai et al. [2015]) with the surveyed locations and seismological station. Surveyed sites: (1)
Kathmandu Durbar square, (2) Patan Durbar square, (3) Bhaktapur Durbar square, (4) Pashupatinath
area, (5) Dharahara Tower, (6) Swayambhunath, (7) Changunarayan, (8) Bouddhanath Stupa, (9) Rani
Pokhari, and (10) Kalmochan Ghat. Seismological station: (11) Kanti Path (Kantp).
to the significant amplification of the motions in Kathmandu Valley and thus made the
effects of the earthquake more influential. It is important to highlight that the geometry of
the Kathmandu basin is similar to the Mexico City basin, which amplified the ground
motion during the 1985 Michoacán earthquake. The observed ground motion, as well as
the pattern of damage in Kathmandu Valley, indicates that the presence of the basin
significantly modified the ground motion. A seismic micro zonation study in Kathmandu,
conducted by Paudyal et al. [2012], indicated that the dominant period in the valley ranges
between 1–2 s, as shown in Figure 3.
The 5%-damped response spectra of the accelerograms for the Mw 7.8 main shock and
the Mw 7.3 aftershock are compared in Figure 2c. It is seen that the acceleration records
are broadband and contain the long-period components at 5 s, which might have resulted
from the effects of the deep soft sediment in the valley on the duration and amplification
of shaking. However, due to the lack of rock outcrop recordings, comparison between the
outcrop and ground surface responses is not readily available. The horizontal components
of the main shock and the aftershock show similar characteristics when the period is less
than 1 s. Moreover, it is seen that the NS component of the main shock has two
prominent peaks, one at about 0.47 s and another one at about 5 s. Both the EW and
NS components of the main shock have the secondary peaks at about 5 s, whereas the
aftershock components do not show the peaks at 5 s. The peaks at about 5 s of the main
shock components may be attributed to the main shock sources rather than the local site
effects as the aftershock components do not show any peaks at about 5 s [Parajuli and
Kiyono, 2015; Sharma and Deng, 2017]. Details of the characteristics of ground motions
recorded during the Nepal earthquake can be found in Parajuli and Kiyono [2015] and
Sharma and Deng [2017].
4. Structural Typology of Heritage Structure

It is difficult to generalize the overall description of the heritage structures, since many
conceptual differences occur within one basic style. However, three major distinct struc-
ture types were observed: 1) traditional brick masonry with timber frame structures, 2)
unreinforced brick masonry, and 3) stone masonry. Most of the heritage structures in
Kathmandu Valley were built using thick masonry walls with some traditional technology
of timber reinforcement. The brief description of each structural typology is presented
next.
4.1. Traditional Brick Masonry with Timber Frame Structures

Many heritage structures in Kathmandu Valley were constructed of traditional brick
masonry with timber frame structures, as shown in Figure 4 [Tiwari, 2009]. Such struc-
tures consist of timber frames with brick masonry and stones at the foundation level
(Figures 5 and 6). It presents connections between horizontal/vertical timber elements and
also between the timber columns and the stone elements, thereby improving the response
of the structure to lateral loads. The wall plate acting as a tie-beam (shown in Figure 7a)
runs throughout the perimeter of the wall, allowing a uniform distribution of the load
along the wall length. The floor rafter made of timber is then joined to the wall plate as
shown in Figures 7b and 8. The closely spaced timber struts are used to support the heavy
roof of the temple or other structures, as shown in Figure 9. These structures are largely
Hindu temples formed in a symmetrical and rectangular architectural plan with a set of
roofs one on top of the other. The details of traditional brick masonry with timber frame
structures can be found in Shakya et al. [2014].
Figure 4. Nyatapola temple, Bhaktapur (N: 27.671380°, E: 85.429404°).

Figure 5. Typical beam–column joint system in a timber-framed structure (after Shakya et al. [2014]).
Figure 6. (a) Details of timber wall plates and (b) floor system (after Shakya et al. [2014]).
4.2. Brick Masonry Structure in Lime or Mud Mortar

This typology corresponds to the load-bearing structures of masonry bricks with lime/
mud mortars (Figure 9). The wall thickness ranges from 300 mm to 600 mm and the brick
walls are most often exposed, and not plastered over. The wall structure commonly
consists of three layers [Thapa, 2011]. The outer faces of the walls are made of fired
clay bricks (water repellent) and the inner face is made of sun-dried bricks (amiable to
water), as shown in Figure 10. The core of the wall is made of very poor material such as
brick fragment, rubble, and mud. From the observation it was noted that the outer and
inner face wall layers were poorly connected with the middle core wall in many cases,
which made the wall very weak to withstand the lateral load during earthquake. There is
Figure 7. Details of wall plate and rafter joint in a timer-framed structure (after Shakya et al. [2014]).
Figure 8. Details of strut and rafter connection with roof components in a timber-framed structure
(after Shakya et al. [2014]).
Figure 9. Brick masonry structures: (a) temple before earthquake at Kalmochan Ghat, Thapathali (N:
27.691195°, E: 85.316047°) and (b) 203-feet high Dharahara tower before earthquake (N: 27.700486°, E:
85.312248°).
Figure 10. Typical cross-section of the wall in heritage structures (modified after Thapa [2011]).
no reinforcement tying the orthogonal walls coming together at the corners. While the low
ends of the roofs are supported by masonry walls, and the timber roof framing often runs
into the wall, the gable wall ends have no ties or bracing back to the roof framing [Tiwari,
2009].
This typology was also used in towers (Figure 10a) as well as in a diversity of temples.
Parajuli [2012] carried out research work to find out the mechanical properties of
traditional brick and mud mortar used in Nepalese heritage structures in Kathmandu
Valley. The results obtained by Parajuli [2012] are summarized in Table 2.
4.3. Stone Masonry Structure

Stone masonry in heritage structures in Kathmandu Valley is not very common. However, the
significance of stone masonry in the traditional heritages of Kathmandu valley can’t be
ignored, particularly on temples of shikhara style like Patan’s Krishna Mandir (Figure 11).
All parts of the structures are made using stone: from the basement steps, often enriched with
carved frames, to the central cell and the curvilinear tower, whose walls are constructed using
many individual and regularly hewn stones. The stones used at the corners are either inter-
locked or provided with iron clamps. The zone between the superstructure and the base of the
temple consists of walls, pillars, and pilasters as shown in Figure 11. The thickness of the stones
varies from 300 to 450 mm. The average thickness of the masonry wall is up to 1 m. Through-
stones are provided at regular intervals to strengthen the walls [Hardy, 2007]. The topmost
section of the column is the beam and these are the structural elements above the column of
Table 2 Mechanical properties of traditional masonry materials [Parajuli, 2012]

Shear
Density Young’s modulus Average compressive Average shear Poisson’s
Material (kg/m3) modulus (MPa) (MPa) strength (MPa) strength (MPa) ratio
Brick unit 1768 3874 1745 11.03 – 0.11
Mud mortar 1705 509 204 1.58 0.15 0.25
Wall 1768 509 204 1.82 0.15 0.25
Figure 11. Krishna temple, Patan (N: 27.673599°, E: 85.324931°).
the temple. The section below is the bracket supporting the beams and provides the bearing for
the beam as shown in Figure 12. The peristyle pillars and beams are monolithic. Stone is carved
by local craftsmen who use different types of chisel, specially adapted to carve the symbolic
decorative friezes, tabernacles, and pinnacles. Krishna Mandir, built during the eleventh to
thirteenth century, is one of the major examples of stone built with “unusual” shikhara style
with three stores over a three-stage plinth soaring to the height of 19.67 m [Tiwari, 2009].
5. Architecture of Heritage Structure

It is difficult to generalize the overall description of the temple styles since many conceptual
differences occur within one basic style. Pagoda (tiered) and shikhara-style structures are
common in Hindu temples while the stupa style is Buddhist. Developed in the different time-
frame of evolutionary architecture history, Kathmandu Valley is the ultimate living museum
Figure 12. Typical supporting elements (pillar, brackets, and beam) used in shikhara-style stone
masonry temple.
of traditional architecture. Differential architectures are observed not only in their material
selection but also with the conceptual up-gradation in evolution of time. Tiwari [2009] has
explored different aspects of Nepalese temples and analyzed their resilience toward physical
vulnerability, where he firmly believes and advocates on the resilience of traditional temple
architecture, which is the output of a series of learnings in history. This section briefly
presents three widely repeated heritage structures in Nepalese traditional architecture.
5.1. Pagoda (Tiered) Style

Nepalese Pagoda temples or often referred to as tiered temples.1 Built as structures reserved
for religious or spiritual activities, they began to appear extensively around the middle of the
fourteenth century during the Malla Dynasty [Shakya et al., 2012]. The major peculiarities of
such temple structures in comparison to other traditional masonry structures are their
considerable wall thickness, multitiered roof, box-type configuration, and considerable plinth
section and slenderness ratio (Figures 4 and 13). These structures are constructed using brick
masonry and timber members with tiles or metal roof coverings [Parajuli, 1986].
In case of multitiered pagoda, wall thickness of the masonry wall is not the same for
every tier, and it usually decreases from the ground story to the top floor. The thickness of
the masonry walls usually ranges from 500 to 750 mm and constructed in three layers in a
single cross section [Jaishi et al., 2003]. The outer layer of the wall is made up of fired clay
bricks with smooth finishing and the inner face is made of sun-dried bricks, while the
1
Some academicians in Nepal refuse to term Nepalese-tiered temple as pagoda style (Japanese/Chinese
temple architecture) as it fundamentally differs in the construction technology. Nepalese temples
basically avoid the central timber/support system, which is fundamentally used in Japanese pagoda.
The central portion is assigned for God’s location/sanctum in Nepalese tiered temples.
Figure 13. (a) Typical section of the pagoda-style temple and (b) wall system of Nepalese pagoda
temples (after Shakya et al. [2014]).
middle core is filled with brick fragment, rubble, and mud (Figure 10). The bonding
mortar inside the massive walls, which are not visible from the outside, has a significant
influence on the structural strength and capacity of the temples [Ranjitkar, 2006]. Typical
masonry wall system arrangements of multitiered pagoda are shown in Figure 13b.
Timber beams are used as wall plates, cross-beams, and rafters for the floors and roof of
Nepalese pagoda temples. The ambient vibration testing of a few pagoda temples of
Kathmandu Valley suggests that their fundamental vibration frequency ranges between
1.67 Hz and 3 Hz [Jaisi et al., 2003; Shakya et al., 2014]. Symmetrical plans, usually square
if not rectangular, make the structures less vulnerable to seismic load, whereas conical
mass distribution with a wide base gives greater strength to withstand most earthquakes
[Nienhuys, 2003; Shakya et al., 2015]. One interesting feature observed in most of the
tiered temples is its massive plinth, which avoids the shear at the foundation level, thereby
helping to redistribute shear forces throughout the structure, absorbing seismic jolts
[Nienhuys, 2003]. Narayan Temple in Kathmandu, Nyatapola Temple in Bhaktapur
(Figure 4), and Taleju Temple in Patan (Lalitpur) are some general examples of pagoda-
style temple.
5.2. Shikhara Style

Shikhara, a Sanskrit word translating literally to “mountain peak”, refers to the rising
tower in the Hindu temple architecture of Nepal and India (Figure 14). The shikhara
pattern of architectural temples consists of five to nine vertical sections forming a high
pyramidal or curvilinear tower-like structure and atop decorated by beautiful gajur
(pinnacle). Krishna Temple at Patan Durbar Square (Figure 11) and Bom-Bikateshwor
Shivalaya at Pachali, Kathmandu, are some famous shikhara-style structures in
Kathmandu Valley. Studied in a very few settings, the dynamic characteristic of the
shikhara-style structure is still poorly understood.
Figure 14. Typical section of the shikhara-style temple.
5.3. Stupa (Chaitya) Style

Stupas (Chaitya), dome-shaped structures, are erected as a Buddhist shrine and believed to
be containing the relics and remains of Buddha. The main components of a stupa are
shown in Figure 15a. The stupa dome has one, two, or three cylindrical terraces or basal
rings at the bottom, which sometimes form a plinth. At its top, the dome carries the
square chamber, which is a solid structure having a square plan. Then, one or more
cylinders, the spire, and the pinnacle consisting of a minaret and a crystal form the top of
dome. All these components, except the square chamber, are symmetric. The Bauddanath
Figure 15. (a) Typical section of the stupa-style temple, (b) example of stupa in Kathmandu; Buddha
Nath Stupa (N: 27.721395°, E: 85.361939°).
(Figure 15b) and Swoyambhunath stupas are famous stupa-style structures in Kathmandu
Valley. Stupa-style structure is believed to be a relatively stable structure because of the
symmetrical semispherical configuration. However, the seismic behavior of the stupa-style
structures in Nepal is still poorly understood.
6. Damage to Heritage Structures

This section is intended to present a panorama of heritage sites in Kathmandu Valley and
describes the typical damage that occurred to these treasured traditional structures. The
cultural heritage sites located in the Kathmandu Valley were also severely damaged in the
1934 earthquake and subsequently rebuilt [Rana, 1935; Pandey and Molnar, 1988;
Ranjitkar, 2006). The performances of some famous monuments during the 1934 earth-
quake and the 2015 earthquake are summarized in Table 3. Many of the heritage
structures in Kathmandu Valley that were destroyed or badly damaged by the 2015
earthquakes were located in the three main squares, which are also enlisted in
UNESCO’s heritage sites: Kathmandu Durbar Square, Patan Durbar Square, and
Bhaktapur Durbar Square. Durbar Square, consisting of an amalgamation of palaces,
temples, idols, courtyards, and many more, is surrounded by residential buildings,
which were originally constructed during the Malla era dating back to the fifteenth
century. These buildings do not have an explicit seismic-oriented design but were built
as a larger part of art, architecture, and culture. Thus, the seismic capability of these
structures is limited and not documented very well.
Other UNESCO sites, such as the Bauddhanath Stupa, were severely damaged; likewise
Swayambhunath and Chagnu-Narayan temples suffered some damages, while damage in
the Pashupatinath area was found very limited. Several other heritage structures such as
the Nine-story Dharahara tower, the Kalmochan Ghat temple, etc. collapsed or suffered
significant damages. Figure 1 shows the location of the major heritage sites in Kathmandu
Valley where the reconnaissance team visited to observe the damage pattern.
6.1. Kathmandu Durbar Square

Kathmandu Durbar Square is one of the pinnacles of Nepalese culture and artistic
endeavor, which is located in front of the old royal palace of the former Kathmandu
Kingdom. The Durbar Square was built at the time of Lichhavi Kings and underwent
various renovations and new additions till the Shah Dynasty. After the mega quake
sequences, around two-thirds of the structures collapsed, including Maju Dega Temple,
Trailokyamohan Narayan Temple, Kamdev Temple, Kasthamandap, Narayan Temple, and
Krishna Temple (Chasing Dega). Other structures also suffered various levels of damage.
Figure 16 shows the collapsed and partially damaged temples and palaces in Kathmandu
Durbar Square. The variation of damage of these structures might have been due to the
variation in the construction method built at various times from the twelfth to the
seventeenth century, maintenance history, and the present structural status of these
structures. In contrast, several other monuments sustained damage as well, including
Gaddi Baidak Palace, Nau-talle Durbar (nine-story Basantapur Durbar), Gopinath
Temple, Jagannath Temple, and Mahadev Deval.
Table 3 Performance of major heritage structures during the 1934 and 2015 earthquakes [Rana, 1935;
Pandey and Molnar, 1988; Shakya, 2000]
Heritage site/monument Year of construction 1934 earthquake 2015 earthquake
1. Kathmandu Durbar Square
Basantapur Durbar 1670 Heavily damaged Heavily damaged
Gaddi Baithak 1908 – Damaged
Gopinath Temple* – Heavily damaged
Jagannath Temple* 1560–1574 – Heavily damaged
Narayan Temple* 1563 – Collapsed
Jaishi Dewal* 1688 – Collapsed
Kasthamandap Seventh century – Collapsed
(renovated 1966)
Mahadev Dewal 1565 Collapsed –
Kumari Ghar 1757 – Undamaged
Mahabishnu Temple* 1638–1668 Collapsed –
Maju Dega* 1690 – Collapsed
Taleju Temple* 1565 Only the cupula tumbled Heavily damaged
Krishna Temple (Chasing Dega)* 1649 Collapsed
Kamdev Temple** – – Collapsed
Trailokyamohan Narayan* 1679 Heavily damaged Collapsed
2. Patan Durbar Square

Degu Tale* 1636 (renovated after Collapsed Undamaged
the fire event of 1665)
Royal Palace, Patan Renovated before the Minor damage Undamaged
2015 earthquake
Chyasing Dewal* 1724 Heavily damaged Damaged
Mahabouddha Temple* 1553 Only the foundation Survived Undamaged
Bishweshwar Mahadev * 1738 Collapsed –
Kumbheshwor Mahadev * 1851 (Renovated after Collapsed Damaged
the 1833 earthquake)
Mani Mandap Pati 1700* (Renovated in – Collapsed
the early 1980s)
Jagannarayan Temple* 1565 or the – Collapsed
seventeenth century
Harishankar Temple* 1704–1705 – Collapsed
Bishwonath Temple* 1627 – Damaged
Bhimsen Temple* Rebuilt in the 1680s – Damaged
after fire and restored
after the 1934
earthquake and in
1967
Machhindranath Temple* 1622 (Restored after Collapsed –
the 1833 earthquake)
Krishna Temple* 1637 – Damaged (cracks)
Taleju Bhawani Temple* 1640 (Renovated after – Roof Distorted
the fire event of 1665)
3. Bhaktapur Durbar Square
Old Palace (National Art Museum) 1454 (Renovated in Heavily damaged Damaged
1678)
55-Windows Palace 1699 Heavily damaged Undamaged
Krishna Temple* 1676 Collapsed Collapsed
Bishnu Temple* 1657 Collapsed Undamaged
Lamo Pati – Damaged Heavily damaged
Phasi Dega Temple 1460 Collapsed Collapsed
Bhairab Temple* 1686 Collapsed Damaged
Barahi Temple* 1673 (Renovated in Collapsed Damaged
1862)
Shiva Temple** 1460 Collapsed Heavily damaged
Radha Krishna Temple* – – Heavily damaged
Dattatreya Temple* 1428 – –
(Continued )
Table 3 (Continued).
Heritage site/monument Year of construction 1934 earthquake 2015 earthquake
Vatsala Devi Temple** 1672 (Renovated after Collapsed Collapsed
1833 earthquake)
Yaksheswor Mahadev Temple* 1475 – –
Siddhi Laxmi Temple* Seventeenth Century – Damaged
Chyasilin Mandap* – Collapsed Undamaged
Nyatapola 1702 Damaged Damaged
4. Pashupati Nath Fifth Century Undamaged Undamaged
5. Swoyambhunatth
Main stupa*** Sixth Century – Minor damage
Anantpur temple** ~1661 – Collapsed
Pratappur temple** ~1661 – Minor damage
6. Bouddhanath *** Fifth Century No damage Damaged

7. Changunarayan* Fourth Century No damage Severely damaged.

(Reconstructed in 1702
after the fire event)
8. Kalmochan Ghat Mahadev Temple 1874 No damage Collapsed
9. Dharahara 1832 (renovated after Severe damage Collapsed

the earthquake
collapse of 1833)
10. Rani Pokhari Matrikeshwor Mahadev 1670 Severe damage Severe damage
Note: *Pagoda; ** Shikhara, *** Stupa.
Figure 16. Damage to the heritage structures in Kathmandu Durbar Square (N: 27.7044°, E: 85.3075°).
Figure 17. Basantapur Durbar with nine-story tower (a) before earthquake, (b) severely damaged
Durbar and tower after earthquake, (c) severely damaged Basantapur National Museum, and (d)
close view of the damaged brick masonry wall (N: 27.703926°, E: 85.30748°).
Figure 17 shows the pictures of the nine-story tower with Basantapur Durbar (Palace)
before and after the earthquake that was built in 1770. The top three stories of the tower
collapsed, while the other stories, despite receiving significant damage, did not collapse
(Figure 17b). The tower was supported on a brick masonry wall combined with wooden
frames. The top segment of the tower fell in the 1934 earthquake and was subsequently
rebuilt. The Basantpur National Museum (white masonry building), made up of timber
and brick masonry, next to the nine-story tower suffered severe damage and the entire
front part of the building (south face) was destroyed, as shown in Figure 17c and 17d.
Kasthamandap (Figure 18a), meaning “Wood- Pavilion”, was a three-story pagoda-style
structure originally built in around the twelfth century; it is believed to be built out of a
single tree. The structure is important in the sense that the city got its name after it
according to some mythologies. The temple was mainly supported on wooden frames,
which crumbled down after the quake (Figure 18b). People believe that much of the
building’s interior and facade were renovated over the intervening centuries. However,
there is no official document as to when and how the Kasthamandap was renovated.
Kasthamandap was last repaired minorly about 50 years back.
Figure 18c shows the damage to the Gaddi Baithak, a neoclassical architecture influenced
by European-style building built in 1907, on the west and south façades. This building is
made of brick and mud-lime mortar. Partial damage to this building includes the damage to
the parapet walls and the out-of-plane failure of the masonry structures (Figure 18d).
Figure 18. (a) Kasthamandap temple before earthquake and (b) Kasthamandap temple after earth-
quake (N: 27.703949°, E: 85.305819°), (c) Gaddi Baithak Palace – west façade, and (d) out-of-plane
failure of the west façade of Gaddi Baithak (N: 27.703999°, E: 85.306715°).
Figure 19. Trilokya Mohan, Maju Dega, Kamdev, and Narayan temple from left to right (a) before
earthquake and (b) after earthquake.
Figure 19 shows the Trailokyamohan Narayan, Maju Dega, Kamdev, and Narayan
temples before and after the earthquake. Trailokyamohan Narayan Temple, a three-story
tower built in 1690, collapsed during the earthquake. Similarly, Maju Dega, Kamdev, and
Narayan temples were completely flattened. The exterior portion of the Trailokyamohan
Narayan, Maju Dega, and Narayan temples was supported on the timber frames, while the
inner core was made of a masonry wall. Kamdev Temple was a slender shikhara-style
temple made of brick masonry.
Despite the great losses however, a surprising number of the ancient monuments in this
Durbar Square withstood the tremors and are still standing high, which will be briefly
discussed later.
6.2. Patan Durbar Square

Patan Durbar Square is considered as the oldest among the three durbar squares of
Kathmandu Valley. Patan Durbar Square constitutes the most spectacular example of
Malla architecture within any urban context in the Kathmandu Valley. Figure 20 shows
the collapsed and partially damaged temples and the palace of Patan Durbar Square.
Despite the shocking earthquake, very few monuments of Patan Durbar Square were
completely demolished. Jagannarayan Temple, Harishankar Temple, and Mani Mandap
Pati (rest house) were completely flattened at the square (Figures 21 and 22). All those
structures were made of brick and mud mortar without significant timber reinforcement.
Temples such as Taleju Bhawani Temple, Pashupati Temple, Mahadev Temple, and
Mahabouddha Temple have taken a slight effect, which could be renovated. Figure 23
shows the damage to the roof structures of the Taleju Bhawani Temple in Patan Durbar
Square. It was built in 1667 during the reign of King Shree Niwas Malla. Significant
damage to the masonry walls was observed in addition to the residual deformation at the
ground-floor level of Bhimsen and Bishwonath temples (Figure 24).
The Royal palace and museum in Patan (Figure 25) has also taken partial damage. In
the buffer zone of the old Patan city and the surrounding area, many temples had
collapsed. This was mainly attributed to the lack of regular maintenance. Meanwhile,
the main attraction sites remained intact. Krishna Temple, Mayadevi Temple, Golden
Temple, Minnath Temple, and the Big Bell of Patan Durbar Square remained intact
during the powerful quake of April 2015. Krishna Temple (Figure 26) is the major temple
of Patan, which is said to have been built of one single stone in 1637 by King
Figure 20. Damage to the heritage structures in Patan Durbar square (N: 27.673038°, E: 85.325315°).
Figure 21. View of Patan Durbar square after the earthquake; Jagannarayan and Harishankar temples
(N: 27.673038°, E: 85.325315°) were completely flattened (photo: Annie Seymour).
Figure 22. Mani Mandap Pati in front of Hiti (N: 27.673725°, E: 85.325375°) (a) before earthquake and
(b) collapsed Mani Mandap Pati after earthquake (photo taken from the back of Mani Mandap Pati).
Figure 23. Partial collapse of Taleju Bhawani temple, Patan Durbar square (N: 27.673414°, E:
85.325585°).
Figure 24. Damage to the masonry wall and the leaning structure of Vishwanath temple (N:
27.673854°, E: 85.325198°).
Figure 25. Royal palace, museum, and Degutale temple (N: 27.673264°, E: 85.325231°).
Siddhinarasingh Malla. The carvings and design of the temple are some of the prominent
factors and indicate the finest of Newari architecture. The artistic Dhungedhara (stone-
tap) at Patan Durbar Square suffered no loss at all during the quake (Figure 27), whereas
Pati (rest house) outside the Dhara (tap) crumbled down to rubble (Figure 22).
Figure 26. Krishna temples made of stone in Patan Durbar square (N: 27.672845°, E: 85.324866°).
Figure 27. Dhungedhara/Hiti (water stone spout) at Patan Durbar Square after earthquake (N:
27.673600°, E: 85.325399°).
6.3. Bhaktapur Durbar Square

The Bhaktapur Durbar Square, located at the east of Kathmandu Valley, is one of the most
important heritage sites, which was heavily damaged during the earthquake. Bhaktapur
Durbar Square featured several heritage structures, mainly temples, many of which were
destroyed in 1934 and previously in the 1833 earthquake [Basukala et al., 2014]. The April
25 earthquake damaged many buildings in the square and some were completely flattened.
Figure 28 shows the collapsed and partially damaged temples and palace of Bhaktapur
Durbar Square. The preliminary list also states that five historic monuments been col-
lapsed and 14 monuments were partially damaged in Bhaktapur Durbar Square
[Department of Archeology (DOA), 2016].
The major focuses of interest in this durbar square are the 55-Windows Palace,
National Art Museum, Yaksheswor Mahadev Temple, Vatsala Devi Temple, Phasi Dega,
etc. Vatsala Devi Temple (Figure 29), originally built in 1696 and reconstructed after the
Figure 28. Damage to the heritage structures in Bhaktapur Durbar square (N: 27.672139°, E:
85.428162°).
Figure 29. Overview of Bhaktapur Durbar square before the earthquake. (A) Vatsala temple in
Bhaktapur before the earthquake, (b) collapsed Vatsala temple after the earthquake (N: 27.672169°,
E: 85.428327°).
1934 earthquake, famous for its sandstone walls and gold-topped pagodas, was completely
destroyed. It was also partially damaged by the 1833 earthquake [Basukala et al., 2014].
Figure 30 displays the picture of Phasi Dega Temple devoted to god Mahadev. The 450-
mm-thick load-bearing masonry walls failed during the earthquake after the development
of diagonal shear cracks. The shikhara-style Shiva Temple and the temple next to Phasi
Dega had experienced structural failure during the earthquake (Figure 31). The upper
portion of the Shiva Temple got toppled by the earthquake, while the bottom portion
remained unharmed. The shikhara-style temple (Figure 31a) was stronger near the bottom
through the buttress, which probably contributed to the collapse of the structure’s top
portion and not the bottom. The Shiva Temple also collapsed during the 1934 earthquake
[Basukala et al., 2014; Parameswaran et al., 2015].
Figure 32a shows the Siddhi Laxmi Temple made of stone. This temple suffered only
minor damage. The pinnacle of the Siddhi Laxmi Temple is slightly tilted. Similarly, the
pagoda-style Bhairabnath Temple (Figure 32b) suffered minor damage, only a few pitched
Figure 30. Phasi Dega temple (a) before the earthquake and (b) after the earthquake (N: 27.672427°, E:
85.429065°).
Figure 31. Collapsed shikhara-style temples: (a) Shiva temple (N: 27.672032°, E: 85.427746°), and (b)
temple next to Phasi Dega in Bhaktapur Durbar square (N: 27.672429°, E: 85.429088°).
Figure 32. Partial damaged temples (a) Siddhi Laxmi temple (N: 27.672067°, E: 85.428683°), and (b)
pagoda-style Bhairabnath temple (N: 27.671090°, E: 85.429517°).
Figure 33. National art museum, Bhaktapur (N: 27.672258°, E: 85.428275°).
Figure 34. A famous rest house (Lamo Pati) in Bhaktapur Durbar Square (N: 27.671914°, E: 85.429048°).
tiles on the roof of the second story had fallen. The National Art Museum (Figure 33) also
suffered partial damage, where the outer façade of the museum sustained major cracks.
The central part of the south wing of the rest house (Lamo Pati), with an L-shaped floor,
collapsed (Figure 34). This building was made of brick and mud mortar. The authors find
it necessary to mention that rest houses (pati) are community structures that provide a
meeting place for people of all generations to share news and stories as well as provide a
common place for the locals to sing prayer songs. Damage to these structures could mean
a loss in the continuation of oral narratives, which is intrinsically linked to community
culture in Bhaktapur as well as in Nepal as a whole.
6.4. Pashupatinath Area

One of the most popular historical heritage sites and holy place for Hindus in Kathmandu
is the Pashupatinath temple (Figure 35), possibly one of the oldest temple complexes in
Kathmandu. The main Pashupatinath Temple was originally constructed in the fifth
century [Korn, 1989]. The 25 April earthquake affected it to a limited extent, compared
Figure 35. Overall view of Pashupatinath area (N: 27.710482°, E: 85.348691°).

with other heritage places in Kathmandu Valley. It is interesting to note that Pashupati
Temple also suffered the least damage in the 1934 earthquake. This temple was renovated
in the eleventh century adding a roof to it. It was again reconstructed in 1360 and 1416.
The present outer architectural nature of the temple came into existence as a result of
renovation in the sixteenth century. It was again renovated in 1969 after it was infested
with termites. The temple itself is not very tall; therefore, low-frequency waves that arrived
in Kathmandu could not have affected the temple.
6.5. Dharahara Tower

The Dharahara Tower, although not a UNESCO site, was a nine-story, 61.88 m (203 foot)
tower (Figure 4b), originally built in 1832 and rebuilt twice after the 1833 and 1934
earthquakes. The structure, which was tall and flexible, and made up of brick masonry
without significant reinforcement, naturally had a high resonance period of 2–4 s, which
might have coincided with the resonance period of the ground (Figure 3). This resulted in
the total collapse of the tower, killing about 180 people inside. Dharahara, which first
opened to the public 10 years back, had a balcony on the eighth floor where visitors could
look out over part of Kathmandu. The main body of the tower collapsed completely with
the impact of this earthquake, leaving only a few feet of the base (Figure 36).
6.6. Swayambhunath
Swayambhunath Stupa (Figure 37) is also one of the oldest and famous temples of Lord
Buddha, which is located on top of a hill, in the middle of Kathmandu Valley, which is
visible from all around Kathmandu. This temple is also known as the “Monkey Temple” as
big, large tribes of monkey live in this place surrounding the whole temple. It is believed to
have been built in the fifth century.
Swayambhunath Stupa suffered significant damages all around during the April 25
Nepal earthquake. Although the main Swayambhunath Stupa and five monuments
remained undamaged, some of the monuments and idols around the stupa were wrecked.
Moreover, the Swayambhu Museum also saw partial damages, but they could be easily
renovated. Figure 37b shows the shikhara-style Anantapur and Pratappur temples beside
Figure 36. (a) Base of Dharahara remaining after the earthquake, and (b) section of the wall showing
wall thickness (N: 27.700798°, E: 85.312486°).
Figure 37. (a) View of Swayambhunath Stupa after the earthquake (source: www.sangesh.com.np), (b)
damaged Anantapur shikhara-style temple beside Swayambhunath Stupa, and (c) crushing of brick
masonry layers in mud mortar (N: 27.715056°, E: 85.290571°).
Swayambhunath Stupa, made of brick masonry. The top part of Anantapur Temple
toppled down and the bottom part remained intact (Figure 37b and 37C), while the
Pratappur Temple performed relatively well and sustained minor damage.
6.7. Changunarayan
The main temple (Changunarayan Temple) in Changunarayan is one of the oldest temples
in Kathmandu Valley, which is devoted to Lord Shiva. It is estimated to be from the fourth
century and is listed in the UNESCO World Heritage Site. The temple is a good sample of
art with stone, wood, and metal. Some other small temples in this complex collapsed
completely (Figure 38). Although Changunarayan Temple survived the trembling earth-
quake, it suffered some minor damages, which have to be renovated (Figure 38b).
Presently, the main temple along with other side temples are held, supported and
protected by wooden planks until renovation work starts.
6.8. Bouddhanath
The biggest stupa of Lord Buddha, Bouddhanath Stupa, was probably built in the four-
teenth century and is very well known for Buddhism and as the center of Tibetan culture
Figure 38. (a) Scenario of Changunarayan immediately after the 2015 earthquake (source: THT, Nepal)
and (b) damage on the masonry wall of the main temple (source: Suvra Kanti Das/unframe right) (N:
27.716376°, E: 85.427962°).
in Kathmandu, Nepal. It is also listed in the UNESCO World Cultural Heritage Site. Most
of the stupas performed relatively well, perhaps due to their dome shape. However,
Bouddhanath Stupa suffered serious damages in the devastating earthquake. The base of
the stupa (dome) consists of three large platforms, decreasing in size, and then two
circular plinths supporting the hemisphere of the stupa (dome). The wall consists of
brick masonry with traditional mortar. Several minor cracks in the main dome were
noticed (Figure 39). The top part of the large (spire and pinnacle) dome-shaped stupa was
displaced during the earthquake. At present, Bouddhanath Stupa is already standing tall
with the reconstruction work carried out by the local community and stakeholders,
making it the very first reconstruction work of the Gorkha earthquake in the heritage
sector of this scale.
6.9. Rani Pokhari

Rani Pokhari, meaning queen’s pond, is a historic artificial pond located in the heart of
Kathmandu Valley. Rani Pokhari was built in 1670 AD by King Pratap Malla, one of the
most illustrious monarchs of the Malla dynasty that ruled Nepal for more than 600 years.
Figure 39. Bouddhanath Stupa after the earthquake (source: DOA, Nepal) (N: 27.721416°, E:
85.361876°).
Figure 40. a) Matrikeshwor Mahadev temple in Rani Pokhari, and (b) the damaged lower wall of the
temple (N: 27.707818°, E: 85.315385°).
A temple dedicated to Matrikeshwor Mahadev (Figure 40), a form of the Hindu deity
Shiva, stands at the center of the pond. It can be reached from the street by a causeway.
This temple, made of brick and lime mortar, suffered severe damage. As the lower brick
masonry wall got damaged, shoring was done to support the upper part of the temple
(Figure 40b).
6.10. Kalmochan Ghat

Kalmochan Ghat in Tripureshwar, Kathmandu, a Mahadev Temple complex inspired by
Mughal architecture, was completely destroyed, and the nearby Tripura Sundari Temple
also suffered significant damage (Figures 4a and 41). Kalmochan Mahadev Temple was a
big white temple built in 1874 on the bank of Bagmati River and was used as a ghat
(Hindu cremation place). The temple was made of brick masonry and mud mortal
without any significant reinforcement. Other small temples in this area sustained no
damage to minor damage (Figure 41).
Figure 41. Rubbled Mahadev temple at Kalmochan Ghat after the earthquake (N: 27.691196°, E:
85.316108°).
7. Sustained Structures
Despite the great losses however, a surprising number of the traditional monuments in
Kathmandu Valley withstood the tremors and are still standing today (survived with
minor to no damage). Features of those structures will be described briefly in the following
sections. It is interesting to note that some old temples that survived the 2015 earthquake
are also known to be those that suffered the least damage in the 1934 earthquake disaster,
for example the Akash Bhairab Temple at Indrachowk, Kathmandu, the Nyatapola
Temple (Figure 4) in Bhaktapur, and the Pashupati Nath temple (Figure 35) [Shakya,
2000]. In case of Nyatapola Temple – Nepal’s tallest five-story Pagoda temple built in 1702
– only the uppermost story shows externally visible damage, which seems to be a rerun of
the 1934 earthquake damage to this temple, as recalled by some elderly people in
Bhaktapur.
Chyasilin Temple (Figure 42a) performed very well during the earthquake. It was
reconstructed after the 1934 earthquake and also renovated just before the earthquake.
Taleju Temple (Figure 42b) – known as the tallest in Kathmandu – survived; this is located
at the north end of Kathmandu Durbar Square. In this area, the Jagannath Temple as well
as the nearby Vishnu and Indrapur temples (Figure 16) also remained intact. Kumari
Ghar (Figure 42c), house for living goddess, which was built in 1757 AD, appeared intact.
As already mentioned, 55-Windows Durbar also performed relatively well during the 2015
earthquake.
Figure 42. (a) Chyasilin Mandap, Bhaktapur (N: 27.671338°, E: 85.429339°), (B) Taleju temple in
Kathmandu (N: 27.704948°, E: 85.308056°), (c) Kumari Ghar, house for living goddess, Kathmandu (N:
27.703728°, 85.30639°), and (d) 55-Windows Durbar in Bhaktapur (N: 27.672208°, E: 85.428570°).
8. Discussions
There is no comprehensive study on the dynamic characteristics of heritage structures in
Kathmandu Valley and the performance of the heritage structures subjected to seismic
force is poorly understood. There was no definitive pattern of damage to the heritage
structures as most of them behaved as a composite structure. Some structures were
extensively damaged in some locations, while there was little or no damage in nearby
locations with a similar configuration. With the observation and conclusion from the
study, the authors refuse the blatant conclusion of traditional architecture being inferior to
other modern technology in response to earthquakes. However, based on the observation
immediately after the 2015 earthquake, it is manifested that the performance of heritage
structures was influenced by the combination of many factors, including structural and
architecture type, configuration, local site effects, age and maintenance level, material
quality, etc. This section is intended to briefly describe the factors that influenced the
performance of heritage structures in Kathmandu Valley.
8.1 Structural and Architectural Type

Brick masonry with timber frame structures performed better than massive brick masonry
structures in lime or mud mortar. The superstructure of brick masonry in lime or mud
mortar with vertical timber posts and horizontal timber connecting members, embedded
in the masonry, provided greater lateral deformation capacity. The holistic timber frame,
which supports the roof system (Figures 5–8), is clearly the reason for the no collapse of
such structures. Brick masonry structures are prone to maximum damage during moder-
ate or severe ground shaking. This is primarily because of their heavy mass, large stiffness,
and low tensile and shear strengths (Figures 30 and 36) [Jaishi et al., 2003]. Stone temples
are less in number in Kathmandu Valley; however, many of them survived with minor to
no damage (Figures 11, 26 and 32a). Well-dressed and dry stacked stone masonry temples
with symmetrical and regular geometries performed well with relatively minor damage
observed.
Stupas performed relatively well, which can be attributed to their dome shapes (Figures
37 and 39). In Bouddhanath Stupa, there were several minor cracks in the main dome and
the spires were displaced slightly. Similarly, the main stupa of Swayambhunath was not
damaged, even though many surrounding pagoda and shikhara-style structures fully
collapsed or were severely damaged (Figure 37). As most of the pagoda-style temples
are made of timber frame with brick masonry, they performed relatively well because of
the above-mentioned reasons and the stupa was followed by pagoda structures in terms of
resilience. Shikhara-style structures (Figures 19, 31b, and 37) were found to be the most
vulnerable due to their high slenderness (height to base width ratio).
8.2 Configuration and Structural Deficiencies

Tiered temples on narrow plinth bases were found to have collapsed or suffered from severe
damage (Figures 21 and 28). However, most of the tiered temples with a wide plinth base
performed well (Figure 42b), despite some examples of bad performances. Compression and
shear failure of masonry on the corners of walls at the narrow base triggered the tipping over
Figure 43. Damage on masonry wall due to the lack of timber post and ties.
of the structure, leading to the collapse (Figure 38). Such structures collapse often by rocking
back and forth, causing compression as well as shear failure of the masonry on the corners
and walls at the base (Figure 38). This then narrows down the base further, and the structures
start to tip over, which triggers complete collapse of the structures.2 This is one of the reasons
why some of the pagoda-style temples collapsed completely, while some from the same
location remained intact with no damage to minor damage (Figures 23, 24 and 32b), unlike
other masonry buildings that were damaged partly by the loss of parts of the upper walls or
roofs. Door openings also reduced the lateral stiffness near the base of structures. As a result,
many structures had large cracks around door openings (Figures 38 and 43a). The roof
collapse of the tall temples might be attributed to the amplification of the earthquake
acceleration and heavy mass at the top of the temple (Figure 23).
Many structures with timber frames (Figures 31b and 34) but not properly positioned into
the structure were found damaged. This damage is the result of having a timber framework
not fully extending into the wall, where the wall does not get fully supported by the timber
framework as it would if it were timber-laced masonry2. As the timber framework is not
braced, the timber frame allowed the top portion of the masonry structure to sway, which
caused excessive displacement of the top portion of the structure and led to the collapse of
the structures. The nature of interconnection and the levels at which the timber framing is
provided are clearly shown in Figure 31b. The structure would have done better had it been
fully braced and embedded into the wall, rather than only having an internal timber frame.
Lack of a timber post at the corner of the wall and the timber ties in critical locations such as
the gable wall make the structure more vulnerable, and is therefore highly susceptible to
extensive damage on walls (Figures 38b and 43).
Massive masonry structures were found highly vulnerable to earthquake (Figures 18c,
30, 36, and 41) due to their heavy mass and lack of earthquake-resistant features,
particularly the lack of tying elements at critical sections such as corner, around openings,
the gable wall, etc. Long and high unsupported walls and orthogonal walls without tying
elements were observed to have collapsed or damaged in many cases (Figures 17c
and 18d).
2
The Gorkha earthquake in Kathmandu valley post-earthquake correspondence to and from Randolph
Langenbach.
8.3 Local Site Effects and Ground-Motion Characteristics

The effects of local soil and topography on the performance of heritage structures were
manifest during the reconnaissance. This section briefly describes the effect of local soil
and ground-motion characteristics on the damage severity of heritage structures.
As a reference, both Swayambhunath and Changunarayan (Figures 37 and 38) are
located on the top of a hill; this topographic feature can significantly alter the intensity,
frequency content, and duration of ground shaking compared with the shaking that would
have been experienced had it been on a flat surface. It was noticed that the shake intensity
was so high at the hilltop that many buildings at the top were severely damaged or
destroyed, as shown in Figure 37. In contrast, buildings in the lowland surrounding
Swayambhunath were not significantly damaged [Sharma, 2016; Sharma et al., 2017b].
Similarly, severe damage in Changunarayan might be attributed to the amplification of
shaking due to topography.
The natural period of the multitiered pagoda-style temple lies between 1.0 and 3.0 s
[Parajuli and Kiyono, 2015; Jaishi et al., 2003], which closely coincides with the predo-
minant period of ground of the Kathmandu Durbar Square (1.30–2.05 s) and Patan and
Bhaktapur durbar squares (1.0–1.30 s). Higher soil amplification is also expected in this
site with the dominance of soft sedimentary soil deposit. Gautam and Chamlagain [2016]
estimated spectral amplification up to 7.8 in this area. This might be ascribed to the
complete collapse of many multitiered pagoda-style temples at Kathmandu Durbar
Square. Similarly, the failure of the Dharahara tower could also be linked to the long-
period dominance in the central region (1.30–2.05 s).
Note that buildings surrounding the square (Figures 18 and 19) were not severely
damaged (including old masonry buildings). The fundamental time period of multistory
RC buildings can be approximated as 0.075h°.75, where h is the height of buildings in
meter [IS 1893, 2002]. Hence, buildings of three- to five-story height possess fundamental
time period in the range of 0.3–0.6 s. This may indicate that ground motions were just
sufficient to cause collapse and major damage to the historical heritages, but not to other
residential buildings having different fundamental time periods [Sharma et al., 2017b].
Amplification of ground shaking along the major rivers in Kathmandu Valley was
observed [Sharma et al., 2017b] where the Kalmochan Ghat temple complex is the one
located on the bank of Bagmati River. It also may be inferred that soil amplification of
lower-frequency ground motion along the major rivers in Kathmandu caused greater
damage to temples in Kalmochan Ghat (Figure 41), probably due to double resonance
effects (resonance at 0.25 s and 5 s; Figure 5a) [Graves, 1996].
The Pashupati Temple (Figure 30) is not in elevated areas like that of Swayambhunath
and Changunarayan temples where the topographic effect easily leads to the amplification
of waves. Most importantly, the bedrock is at a shallow depth compared with other places
such as the durbar squares in Kathmandu Valley, Kalmochan Ghat, Rani Pokhari, etc.,
which could have played an important role in reducing wave amplification. As low-
amplitude and long-period ground motion is less damaging to low-rise structures, most
of the one- or two-tiered temples or one- or two-story heritage structures were found to
have performed very well, as shown in Figure 44.
Figure 44. Two-tiered temples in Kathmandu Durbar Square.
8.4 Age, Renovation, and Maintenance Level

Most of the heritage structures that suffered heavy damage are more than 500 years old
(Table 3). There seems to have been lack of timely renovation and preparedness for a big
earthquake. Even for structures with adequate earthquake-resistant features, the level of
maintenance is a crucial factor to their seismic performance. Lack of maintenance of
structures has resulted in their general deterioration (Figure 45). As a result, their joints
and structural members, especially those of timber, have weakened and might have
contributed to the collapse of these structures.
Timber pegs (“chokus” in local language) were found very effective in integrating the
components of a structure, such as the wall, floor, and roof, and in preventing relative
sliding of the roof and floor structures on the walls during the earthquake. These pegs
were found to have deteriorated (Figure 45d) in many structures, which triggered out-of-
plane movement of the walls and excessive sway of roofs, and ultimately led to the collapse
of structures.
Crushing of mud mortar in the interface and peeling out of the bricks were observed, as
shown in Figure 17d. The aging structures with thick and equally fragile wall systems were
not strong enough to resist the strong earthquake motions.
Strengthened and retrofitted structures (which did or did not collapse in the 1934 Nepal
Bihar earthquake), such as the Chyasilin Mandap and the 55-Window Palace in Bhaktapur
(Figure 42), Pashupatinath Temple, and Patan Museum in Patan Durbar Square, per-
formed very well during the earthquake. The first story of the 55-Window Palace toppled
during the 1934 earthquake. After the 1934 earthquake, the ground floor of the 55-
Window Palace (Figure 42d) had to be rebuilt. The upper wooden windows remained
intact. Patan Museum was renovated prior to the earthquake. Pashupatinath Temple has
been renovated many times because of its importance and revenue generation capacity, as
mentioned before. The strengthening and retrofitting consisted of improving the struc-
tural integrity of the horizontal floor and the roof diaphragms by anchoring them to the
supporting walls, replacing rotten wooden elements, strengthening the frames, and
improving the anchorages of both structural and nonstructural elements.
Both Pratappur and Anantapur temples have a similar configuration and structure and
are located in the same complex (Figure 37). However, as mentioned earlier, Anantapur
Temple collapsed completely while Pratappur Temple performed relatively well. This is
Figure 45. Deterioration of timber and bricks: (a) rotten timber post, (b) rotten timber planks used in
floor, (c) deteriorated bricks, and (d) rotten timber pegs (chokus).
because Pratappur Temple was reconstructed in brick and lime mortar in 2005 after it was
gutted by a fire in 2003.
8.5 Material Quality

Most heritage structures in Kathmandu Valley are made of brick masonry in mud or lime
mortar with or without timber. Since the bricks are laid on the mud mortar, these
structures possess very low strength (Table 2) and exhibit a brittle nature of failure,
resulting in sudden collapse. Poor quality of brickwork is observed, as the bond is not
uniform and larger amount of mortar seems to be used, in the brick masonry structures
(Figure 17d) of collapsed on. There was a big gap between its material type and height as
well as its strength and stability for such level of shaking with the type of material (brick
with mud mortar) used in Dharahara tower (Figure 36). In some cases, poor quality of
timber was found to have been used in the timber frame and the diaphragm, which
reduced the performance of heritage structures during earthquakes.
An investigation into the possible reasons (e.g. more robust structural system, better
maintenance, etc.) for the apparent earthquake resilience of these temples could provide
valuable hints for the earthquake-resistant redesign of the collapsed temples.
9. Concluding Remarks
The aim of this paper is to investigate the performance of heritage structure in
Kathmandu Valley during the 2015 Nepal earthquake that struck Nepal on April 25,
2015. A field reconnaissance was conducted immediately after the main shock and after-
shock. This paper described the seismological aspect of the earthquake and discussed the
structure types and architecture of Nepali heritage in Kathmandu Valley. The paper
summarized the patterns of damage or failure of various types and analyzed the possible
mechanisms of damage. The following conclusions could be reached based on the
reconnaissance and further study.
(1) PGA of the 2015 Earthquake in Kathmandu was around 164 cm/sec2, which is less
than that expected (~300 cm/sec2). Even in small acceleration, extensive damage to
heritage structures was observed at several locations in Kathmandu Valley. This
strongly indicates that heritage structures in Kathmandu Valley are highly prone to
earthquake and the retrofitting of heritage structures is of great importance for the
preparation of stronger earthquakes in the future.
(2) Various possible explanations for the higher level of earthquake damage to the
temples and the heritage structures are as follows: structural and architecture type
of structures, configuration and resilience deficiency of structures, local site effects
and ground-motion characteristics, age and maintenance level, material quality, etc.
are found to be the most crucial factors that led to damage, ranging from minor to
complete collapse.
(3) Brick masonry with timber frame structures appeared to have performed reason-
ably well during the 2015 earthquake. Stone masonry heritage structures performed
slightly better. Under the same shaking, massive brick masonry structures in lime
or mud mortar were the least resilient and flattened completely.
(4) The dome structure was noticed to have performed very well, followed by pagoda,
and the shikhara-style heritage structure was found as the most vulnerable
structure.
(5) Heritage structures that were retrofitted and reconstructed (which did or did not
collapse in the 1934 Nepal Bihar earthquake) performed well.
(6) The natural frequencies of these monumental structures usually differ significantly
from those of normal brick masonry buildings. The natural period of the multi-
tiered pagoda-style temples (1.0–3.0 s) closely coincides with the predominant
period of ground at some locations. This could also have made them more vulner-
able to earthquake. Topography effect led to significant destruction in
Swayambhunath and Changunarayan, and ground-motion application due to soft
sedimentary deposits might be attributed to severe damage in the durbar squares
and Kalmochan Ghat.
The observed damages clearly highlight the structural vulnerability of the historical
temples and heritage structures in Nepal. Although similar lessons were also learned
during the earthquake of 1934, very little initiative was taken on the proper renovation
and seismic improvement of these structures. At present, there are very limited studies on
the seismic behavior of these structures. Clearly, extensive research is required to
understand the seismic behavior of these structures and to find out some ideas as to why
some heritage structures performed very well during the earthquake while many similar
structures around them completely collapsed. The following recommendations are made
based on this study to reduce vulnerability in heritage structures during an earthquake in
the future.
(1) Improve the horizontal floor diaphragms and assure that the floor diaphragms are
anchored on all four sides to the walls. Improve anchorage of all wooden elements.
Connect the floor diaphragms through the wall to the roof construction.
(2) Replace the rotten wooden elements, strengthen the frames, and improve the
anchorages of both structural and nonstructural elements. Replace the deteriorated
bricks and strengthen the wall for both in-plane and out-of-plane bending.
(3) Prevent water leakage from the roof. Leakage water will cause the woodwork under
the roof to rot and eventually collapse under weight. Water can also deteriorate the
mud/lime mortar easily.

(4) Apply internal reinforcements and ties to enhance the structural coherence of the
heritage structures but have no visible impact on the outside.
(5) Research and analysis in terms of structural analysis, building material behavior,
retrofitting details, and options for the conservation of historic buildings needs to
be performed in greater detail. Documentation of traditional knowledge with special
guidelines (standards/norms) for the repair and seismic strengthening/restoration of
heritage structures is urgently required for their long-term conservation.
References
Basukala, B., Gutschow, N. and Kayastha, K. [2014] Towers in Stone – Sikhara Temples in
Bhaktapur, Vatsala and Siddhilakshmi, Kathmandu, Nepal, Himal Books.
Bilham, R., Gaur, V. K. and Molnar, P. [2001] “Himalayan seismic hazard,” Science 293, 1442–1444.
Copeland, P. [1997] “The when and where of the growth of the Himalaya and the Tibetan Plateau,”
in Tectonic up Lift and Climate Change, Ed. W. F. Ruddiman (Plenum Press, New York), pp. 19–
40.
Chiaro, G., Kiyota. T., Pokhrel, R. M., Goda, K., Katagiri, T., Sharma, K. [2015]. “Reconnaissance
report on geotechnical and structural damage caused by the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake, Nepal,”.
Soils and Foundation. 55(5), 1030–1043.
Department of Archeology (DOA). [2016] Preliminary Report of Monuments Affected by Earthquake
April 25, 2015, Department of Archaeology, Nepal, Kathmandu.
Gautam, D. [2017] “Seismic performance of world heritage sites in Kathmandu valley during
Gorkha seismic sequence of April–May 2015,” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities,
ASCE 31(5): 06017003.
Gautam, D. and Chamlagain, D. [2016] ““Preliminary assessment of seismic site effects in the
fluvio-lacustrine sediments of Kathmandu valley, Nepal,” Natural Hazards 81(3), 1745–1769.
Goda, K., Kiyota, T., Pokhrel, R. M., Chiaro, G., Katagiri, T., Sharma, K., and Wilkinson, S. [2015].
“The 2015 Gorkha Nepal earthquake: Insights from earthquake damage survey,”. Frontiers in
Built Environment. 1, 1–15. Article 8.
Graves, R. W. [1996] “Simulating seismic wave propagation in 3-D elastic media using staggered
grid finite difference,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 86, 1091–1107.
Hardy, A. [2007] ““The Gods are in the details,” Architectural Design 77(6), 158–159.
[IS: 1893(Part 1)(2002)]. Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures,
New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards..
Jaishi, B., Ren, W. X., Zong, Z. H. and Maskey, P. N. [2003] “Dynamic and seismic performance of
old multi-tiered temples in Nepal,” Engineering Structure 25(14), 1827–1839.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). [2002] The Study of Earthquake Disaster
Mitigation in the Kathmandu Valley, I-IV, Kingdom of Nepal. Final Report.
Korn, W. [1989] The Traditional Architecture of the Kathmandu Valley, Ratna Pustak Bhandar,
Kathmandu, Nepal.
National Seismological Center of Nepal (NSC) [2016] http://www.seismonepal.gov.np/index.php
(accessed on December 30, 2016).
Nienhuys, S. [2003] Options for reconstruction and retrofitting of historic Pagoda temples, reconstruc-
tion of temples in Kathmandu. HUYS ADVIES, http://www.nienhuys.info/mediapool/49/493498/
data/Retrofitting_KVPT _HA_2003.pdf
Pandey, M. R. and Molnar, P. [1988] “The distribution of intensity of the Bihar-Nepal earthquake
15 January 1934 and bounds of the extent of the rupture zone,” Journal of Nepal Geological
Society 5, 22–44.
Parajuli, H. R. [2012] “Determination of mechanical properties of the Kathmandu World Heritage

brick masonry buildings,” Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
2012, September 24–28, Lisbon, Portugal.
Parajuli, H. R., Kiyono, J., Maskey, P. N. and Taniguchi, H. [2011] “Investigations of material
properties on old brick masonry buildings of Kathmandu,” Disaster Mitigation of Cultural
Heritage and Historic Cities 5, 163–170.
Parajuli, R. R. and Kiyono, J. [2015] “Ground motion characteristics of the 2015 Gorkha earth-
quake, survey of damage to stone masonry structures and structural field tests,” Frontiers in Built
Environment 1, 23.
Parajuli, Y. K. [1986] Bhaktapur Development Project (BDP): Experiences in Preservation and
Restoration in Medieval Town (1974–1985), Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technisches
Zuzammenarbeit (GTZ, Frankfurt.
Parameswaran, R. M., Natarajan, T., Rajendran, K., Rajendran, C. P., Mallick, R., Wood, M. and
Lekhak, H. C. [2015] “Seismotectonics of the April–May 2015 Nepal earthquakes: an assessment
based on the aftershock patterns, surface effects and deformational characteristics,” Journal of
Asian Earth Sciences 111, 161–174.
Paudyal, Y. R., Bhandary, N. P. and Yatabe, R. [2012] “Seismic microzonation of densely populated
area of Kathmandu valley of Nepal using microtremor observations,” Journal of Earthquake
Engineering 16(8), 1208–1229.
Rai, D. C., Singhal, V., Raj, B. S. and Sagar, L. [2015] “Reconnaissance of the effects of the M7.8
Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake of April 25, 2015,” Journal of Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk 7
(1), 1–17.
Ram, T. D. and Wan, G. [2011] “Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis in Nepal,” Earthquake
Engineering and Engineering Vibration 12, 577–586.
Ranjitkar, R. K. [2006] Heritage Homeowner’s Preservation Manual. Kathmandu Valley World
Heritage Site, Nepal: Advice for Maintenance of Historic Houses in the Kathmandu Valley.
Integrated Community Development and Cultural Heritage Site Preservation in Asia and the
Pacific through Local Effort Programme (LEAP), UNESCO, Bangkok, Kathmandu. ISBN:
978-9937-2-0223-7.
Rana, B. S. J. B. [1935]. “Nepal Ko Maha Bhukampa (Great Earthquake of Nepal)”. 2nd ed.
Kathmandu: Jorganesh Press.
Sakai, H. [2001] “The Kathmandu Basin: An archive of Himalayan uplift and past monsoon
climate,” Journal of Nepal Geological Society 25, 1–8.
Sakai, H., Fujii, R. and Kuwahara, Y. [2002] “Changes in the depositional system of the Paleo-
Kathmandu Lake caused by uplift of the Nepal Lesser Himalayas,” Journal of Asian Earth Sciences
20, 267–276.
Shakya, M., Varum, H., Vicente, R. and Costa, A. [2012] “Structural vulnerability of Nepalese
Pagoda temples,” In: Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering 2012,
September 24–28 Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 2919.
Shakya, M., Varum, H., Vicente, R. and Costa, A. [2014] “Seismic sensitivity analysis of the
common structural components of Nepalese Pagoda temples,” Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering 12(4), 1679–1703.
Shakya, M., Varum, H., Vicente, R. and Costa, A. [2015] “Seismic vulnerability and loss assessment
of the Nepalese Pagoda temples,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 13, 2197–2223.
Shakya, P. R. [2000] “Temples and Buildings standing over Kathmandu valley which is vulnerable to
earthquakes,” EARTHQUAKE-SAFE: Lessons to be Learned from traditional construction.
International Conference on the Seismic Performance of Traditional Buildings, Istanbul, Turkey,
November 16–18, ICOMOS 2000.
Sharma, K. [2016] “Field reconnaissance after the April 25, 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha earthquake,”
Proceeding of 1st NESA Symposium 2016, June 10, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada.
Sharma, K. and Deng, L. [2017] “Reconnaissance report on geotechnical engineering aspect of the
April 25, 2015, Gorkha, Nepal earthquake,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1–26.
Sharma, K., Deng, L. and Khadka, D. [2017b] “Reconnaissance of Liquefaction Case Studies in 2015
Gorkha (Nepa,l) earthquake and assessment of liquefaction susceptibility,” International Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering 1–13.
Sharma, K., Deng, L. and Noguez, C. C. [2016] “Field investigation on the performance of building
structures during the April 25, 2015, Gorkha earthquake in Nepal,” Engineering Structures 121,
61–74.
Sharma, K., Deng, L. and Khadka, D. [2017a]. “Reconnaissance of Liquefaction Case Studies in 2015
790 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake and assessment of liquefaction susceptibility,”. International
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1–13.
Sharma, K., Subedi, M., Parajuli, R. R. and Pokharel, B. [2017b] “Effects of surface geology and
topography on the damage severity during the 2015 Gorkha, Nepal earthquake,” Journal of
Lowland Technology International 8(4), 269–282.
Subedi, M., Sharma, K., Upadhayay, B., Poudel, R. K. and Khadka, P. [2012] “Soil liquefaction
potential in Kathmandu Valley,” International Journal of Landslides and Environment 1(1), 91–
92.
Thapa, J. B. [2011] “Test and simulation of brick masonry wall of historic buildings,” Master thesis,
Tribhuvan University, Nepal.
Tiwari, S. R. [2009] Temples of the Nepal Valley, Himal Books, Kathmandu, Nepal. ISBN:
9789937814430.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) [2015] http://earthquake.usgs.gov/realtime/product/finite-
fault/us/20002926/us/1429969841288/20002926.html (accessed on May 27, 2015).
View publication stats

Performanceof Heritage Structuresduringthe Nepal Earthquakeof April 252015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performanceof Heritage Structuresduringthe Nepal Earthquakeof April 252015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Performance of heritage structure during the M w 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal

Article in Journal of Earthquake Engineering · November 2017

Apil K C Keshab Sharma

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Masters Thesis View project

Mechanism of post disaster recovery in developing nations. View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN: 1363-2469 (Print) 1559-808X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Performance of Heritage Structures during the

Apil KC, Keshab Sharma & Bigul Pokharel

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1360225

Published online: 01 Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [University of Alberta] Date: 05 December 2017, At: 09:49

Performance of Heritage Structures during the Nepal

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

2. Geological Features of Kathmandu Valley

3. Ground Motions and Response Spectra

4. Structural Typology of Heritage Structure

4.1. Traditional Brick Masonry with Timber Frame Structures

Figure 4. Nyatapola temple, Bhaktapur (N: 27.671380°, E: 85.429404°).

4.2. Brick Masonry Structure in Lime or Mud Mortar

4.3. Stone Masonry Structure

Table 2 Mechanical properties of traditional masonry materials [Parajuli, 2012]

Figure 11. Krishna temple, Patan (N: 27.673599°, E: 85.324931°).

5. Architecture of Heritage Structure

5.1. Pagoda (Tiered) Style

5.2. Shikhara Style

Figure 14. Typical section of the shikhara-style temple.

5.3. Stupa (Chaitya) Style

6. Damage to Heritage Structures

6.1. Kathmandu Durbar Square

Trailokyamohan Narayan* 1679 Heavily damaged Collapsed

2. Patan Durbar Square

4. Pashupati Nath Fifth Century Undamaged Undamaged

6. Bouddhanath *** Fifth Century No damage Damaged

7. Changunarayan* Fourth Century No damage Severely damaged.

8. Kalmochan Ghat Mahadev Temple 1874 No damage Collapsed

9. Dharahara 1832 (renovated after Severe damage Collapsed

6.2. Patan Durbar Square

(N: 27.673038°, E: 85.325315°) were completely ﬂattened (photo: Annie Seymour).

6.3. Bhaktapur Durbar Square

Figure 33. National art museum, Bhaktapur (N: 27.672258°, E: 85.428275°).

6.4. Pashupatinath Area

Figure 35. Overall view of Pashupatinath area (N: 27.710482°, E: 85.348691°).

6.5. Dharahara Tower

6.9. Rani Pokhari

6.10. Kalmochan Ghat

performance of heritage structures in Kathmandu Valley.

8.1 Structural and Architectural Type

8.2 Conﬁguration and Structural Deﬁciencies

8.3 Local Site Eﬀects and Ground-Motion Characteristics

Figure 44. Two-tiered temples in Kathmandu Durbar Square.

8.4 Age, Renovation, and Maintenance Level

8.5 Material Quality

mud/lime mortar easily.

Parajuli, H. R. [2012] “Determination of mechanical properties of the Kathmandu World Heritage

View publication stats

You might also like