NEPAL EARTHQUAKE 2015

Background
 Nepal is a hot spot of natural disaster.
 Frequently occurrence: Flood, landslide, fire are the main disasters.
 Nepal stands in the 11th position in terms of Earthquake disaster, 6th in climatic
hazards and
 30th in terms of floods
 According to geological studies, Nepal lies on Seismic Active Zone.

Overview
 M7.8 Gorkha, Nepal
 Maximum Intensity IX
 25th April 2015 at 11:56 am (UTC+5:45)
 80 km NW of Kathmandu at a depth of 15.0 km (USGS)
 Tremor lasted for 90-100 seconds
 Four major aftershocksM6.6 on 25thApril
M6.7 on 26thApril
M7.3 on 12thMay
M6.3 on 12thMay

Statistics
 Total death toll ~ 8,600
8,492 in Nepal
78 in India, 25 in China, 4 in Bangladesh

 No. of people injured ~ 18,950

17,803 in Nepal
560 India, 383 in China, 200 in Bangladesh

 Buildings damaged (NSET, Nepal)

Completely destroyed ~ 489,500
Partially destroyed ~ 262,600
35 of the 75 districts have been affected in central and western parts of Nepal
Intensity Map
Intensity at important cities
 Intensity IX ………………….Kathmandu
 Intensity VIII and VII…….Bhaktapur, Lalitpur, Gorkha, Sindhupalchok, Nuwakot,
Hetauda
 Intensity VI………………….Birgunj, Raxaul, Sitamarhi, Motihari
 Intensity V………………..…Muzaffarpur, Patna, Kolkata
 Intensity IV………………....Varanasi, Lucknow, Kanpur, New Delhi
Introduction
The May 25, Mw 7.8 earthquake in the Nepal Himalaya was not a surprise as it occurred
within the eastern segment of the postulated central seismic gap, considered as a locked
segment of the Himalaya, where the Indian and Eurasian continents are converging at the
rate of ~ 18-20 mm/yr ( 2000). It is quite well-known that the present-day structure of
the Himalaya has resulted from the progressive underthrusting of the Indian plate, leading
to a stack of thrust sheets that get progressively younger, southward.

The 2015 earthquake was located nearly 60-70 km north of Gorkha, between the major
thrusts, the MCT and the MBT. The earthquake was followed by several immediate
aftershocks, many of which were Mw > 5. As the rupture zone of this earthquake was
being affected by more aftershocks, a fresh event of Mw 7.3 occurred ~ 150 km east of the
main shock. Aftershocks originating from both sources are continuing. Our studies of this
earthquake involve two components. One, modeling of the source in order to understand
the style of faulting, magnitude of slip and direction of slip using teleseismic waveforms,
which is not discussed here in detail. We extract only the final results to suggest that the
mechanism involved thrusting on a shallow dipping fault of 7° dip. The maximum slip was
~4.31 m and the rupture propagated in an easterly direction. The second part involves
field investigations to assess the extent of damage and occurrence of any surface rupture
as the causative fault emerges on the surface. This brief report summarizes our
observations during the 1-week field investigations from May 16-24 that started from
Ghorakhpur (UP) and ended in Lumbini (Nepal).

Ground Movements

Vertical movement of ground which resulted in severe damages to roads

Landslides

Landslide on road to Kathmandu, Nepal

Performance of structures
A common observation in all the Nepali towns was that old buildings (>30 years old)
collapsed either partially or completely. On inspecting the materials used in construction
It was found that they were invariably made of unburnt bricks with mud and cement
(rarely) as a binder. In some cases when cement had been used as a binder, there was no
bonding structure to the brick laying (no interlocking structures)

Several newer buildings also seemed to have collapsed due to ground shaking, but on
closer inspection It was found that these buildings were constructed in phases. For
example, the foundation was laid with only a ground floor in mind, but in the last couple of
years higher storeys were added. The result of such poor planning is that the structural
integrity of the ground floor compromised during the intense shaking following the
earthquake, and the higher storeys come crashing down on the basement. The possibility
of liquefaction of the soft sediments was examined, which form the Kathmandu valley,
though no such effects were observed. However, a contemporary report by Geotechnical
Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER) has stated that there have been liquefaction
events in Manamaiju, Ramkot, Chagunarayan, Hattiban and Imadol; most of which fall
along the fringes of the Kathmandu Valley (Nepal – 2015 April 25 Mw 7.8 Gorkha
Earthquake, GEER, 2015. Further the GEER reports of extensive landslides and related failure
from the northern parts, closer to the Higher Himalayas which our team could not examine due
to issues with logistics. As for the brick buildings, new or old, poor design seemed to be the
single most important factor that controlled the damage
Performance of URM Buildings

Typical out-of-plane failure of URM walls

 Out-of-plane collapse of load bearing masonry walls of old buildings was widely
observed in many parts of Nepal.
 Poor connection with the diaphragm and cross walls led to such collapse.
 Damage due to absence of continuous horizontal bands around openings.
 Step-type shear cracks were formed over the entire storey height.
 Weak diaphragms and their poor connection with the masonry wall caused collapse
of floor as well as failure of supporting walls

Performance of RC Frame Buildings

 Poor performance due to inadequate size and poor reinforcement detailing of
columns

Pancake collapse of many RC buildings, Kathma

Failure of 4-storey buildings which also led to damages in adjacent buildings by pounding

Open ground storey failure of 5 storey building, Kathmandu.

Heritage Structures
Durbar squares are urban centers with palace, temples and public spaces
Three Durbar squares: Patan, Kathmandu and Bhaktapur listed under the UNESCO world heritage sites
Most of the principal monuments were built between 12thand 18thcentury
In 1833 and 1934 earthquake, many of the monuments were destroyed and some of them were rebuilt to
their original state
During this event of 25 April 2015 many of these temples and monuments suffered partial
to completed collapse
Dharahara Tower (203 ft tall) nine stories

Before After

Good performance of few stone masonry temples

Well-planned buildings irrespective of their age remain standing with only marginal
external damage to plaster or small on the outer surface. In fact, sites like Bhaktapur show
this type of buildings standing while all the poorly constructed buildings around it lie in its
constituent elements on the ground.

It is imperative to point out that there was only nominal damage to roads, bridges, electric
poles, concrete culverts etc. The roads that we traversed did not show any sign of
earthquake damage, and even in the hilly towns electric poles and lines remain intact.

Assessing the spatial variation in structural damage only reinforces our observations from
the intensity survey. Thus, towns such as Gorkha, Mugling and Phujel, located near the
western extent of the fault plane showed much less destruction to man-made
environment as opposed to the Kathmandu valley area and Bhaktapur. Furthermore,
damage to roads was minimal and was localized to the eastern edge of the Kathmandu
valley. The damage from this earthquake once again reiterates the fact that it was shoddy
construction that was the real killer.

The brick-coloured building in the far-left was constructed as per the new rules established for civil constructions in
Nepal. It sustained little damage during the April quake in comparison to the devastation down the same alley. P.C. :
Matthew Wood.
 Lessons learnt from responding to earthquakes
On Saturday 25 April 2015, a magnitude 7.9 earthquake struck the Himalayan nation of
Nepal, killing over 3,000 people, destroying homes and buildings across the country and
setting off a deadly avalanche on Mount Everest.

Nepal is located in South Asia, home to one fifth of humanity and one of the most
earthquake-prone regions in the world. The region experiences some 100,000 minor
quakes every year, and one of magnitude 8 or greater every 25 years. Yet lax building
standards, densely populated urban centres and poorly planned towns make the region's
people extremely vulnerable to the fallout from tremors.

While the international emergency response takes off and comes to the aid of the people
in Nepal overwhelmed by this enormous tragedy, Irish NGOs warn that decisions made in
the early phases of the response will determine the success of the country’s
reconstruction efforts for years to come.

1) Earthquakes are different from other disasters.

Earthquakes are the most deadly natural disasters, accounting for some 60% of the deaths
caused by natural disasters in the 2000-2009 period.

 Earthquakes typically do an enormous amount of damage in a very short space of time.

This means that they kill and wound great numbers of people during the quake and its
aftershocks, but that in comparison to disasters such as droughts and floods the death toll
is unlikely to increase significantly afterwards.

 This also means that after earthquakes the affected communities are always the first to
provide assistance to the victims. Once the tremors are over, the search and rescue can
begin, and earthquakes - unlike other natural disasters - rarely prompt large flows of
refugees or social/political instability. This means that the survivors, despite the trauma
and fear of further shocks, can tend to their neighbours and other victims immediately
after the quakes have subsided.
 Earthquakes pose big challenges for external assistance. In most countries struck by large
earthquakes the destruction of roads, bridges, and other infrastructure makes access and
communication extremely difficult.

2) Disaster relief: Rushed decisions influence the future

Aid agencies and authorities have responded to a large number of major earthquakes over
the years, and their collective experience has provided a number of valuable lessons for
future disasters:

 First and foremost, the lesson of humanitarian assistance after earthquakes has been that
international assistance must focus on the prospects for “building back better”. Because
earthquakes begin and end so quickly, the focus of external assistance to earthquake
victims is on “search and rescue” (rescuing people trapped under the rubble and
recovering the remains of those who died), as well as on recovery. In contrast, in most
other emergencies the initial focus is on saving lives and halting the further spread of the
disaster.
 Giving cash remains the most effective way of assisting the victims. In contrast to
donations in kind (clothes etc.) money is faster and more flexible, and allows for the local
purchase of relief goods. Because most earthquakes affect only a relatively small area, in
most situations relief items are available close to the people affected. Buying locally is not
only cheaper and faster, it also helps provide local employment, boosting the affected
communities’ long-term prospects of recovery.
 Like in any other relief operation, listening to the survivors and victims is crucial. All aid
agencies and donors have an obligation to make sure that outside aid actually ‘helps’ and
that the assistance is appropriate and effective.
 Livelihoods are key to recovery. In most cases, people’s means of making a living have also
been damaged by the earthquake. Survivors must be assisted in building livelihoods that
help them cope with and recover from shocks and stresses such as natural disasters in the
future.
 Focusing on emergency shelter while neglecting permanent shelter is a mistake. It is
important to provide tents and other accommodation to the survivors of earthquakes, but
 purchasing materials and tools so that affected people and communities can set about
reconstructing their homes is better in the long run.
 Aid is rarely neutral. Any outside assistance will either reinforce or reduce existing
inequalities in the affected community - and therefore must be designed specifically with
the intentions of reducing inequalities and vulnerabilities. Disaster response and
humanitarian aid must not be treated as a stand-alone activity, unrelated to the
development strategies of the country affected.
 The risk of disease after the earthquake tends to be exaggerated. In the vast majority of
earthquake situations, the much feared epidemics did not materialise. There are
substantial risks associated with the decay of dead bodies and the pollution of water
sources, but aid agencies have strong mechanisms in place that – if properly resourced –
have proven to be able to manage those risks very effectively.
 Change is necessary. Aid agencies, governments and donors all want to “build back better”.
This means not just building better housing, it also implies improving building codes and
town planning and reinforcing the community’s social and physical infrastructure.
Disaster response activities must combine structural measures such as the building of
quake-resistant building and roads with non-structural measures such as enhancing the
rights and negotiating power of vulnerable and marginalised communities.
 Disaster response is not a magic bullet.

Refrence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2015_Nepal_earthquake

http://www.ceas.iisc.ernet.in/CEaS_Nepal_report_2015.pdf
http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol20-issue7/Version-5/E020752834.pdf

http://conference.ioe.edu.np/ioegc2015/papers/IOEGC-2015-001.pdf

https://www.nicee.org/nepaleq/12NAMC_Nepal-IITK.pdf

http://astiane.com/view/pdf-case-study-on-earthquake

http://www.adrc.asia/acdr/2016/documents/01_Nepal_Nepal%20Earthquake%20ACDR2016.pdf

http://www.dochas.ie/blog/nepal-earthquake-lessons-learnt-responding-earthquakes