Project:

Detailed Retrofit Design and

Supervision of Keshar Mahal
Presented by:

Joint Venture
John Sanday Associates Pvt. Ltd.
Pyramid Design Associates Pvt. Ltd.
SW Nepal Pvt. Ltd.

29th July 2019

INTRODUCTION
Introduction
 Constructed in 1895 for Jit Shamsher under the direction of
Kishor Narsingh Rana.
 Sold in 1908 to Prime Minister Chandra Shamsher who later
expanded and gave it to his son Kaiser Shamsher Rana.
 Constructed in Neoclassical Style.
 Handed over to GoN after the death of Kaiser Shamsher in
1964.
 Occupied by Ministry of Education and Kaiser Library, Pre-
earthquake.
 Severe damage in 2015 earthquake (Damage Grade 3).
 Yellow sticker in RVA (to be occupied after repair).
Aerial View of Keshar Mahal
Building Description
DETAILED DAMAGE
ASSESSMENT
 Block Separation

N
Ground Floor Plan
Mapping of Cracks

S. No. Damage Class Damage Type Indication

1.0 Masonry Wall Crack Crack up to 0.5mm M1

Crack up to 5mm M2

Crack above 5mm M3

Others M4
Crack Type : M1
Crack Type : M2
Crack Type : M3
Crack Type : M4
Block A
Block A

Floor Selection

Room Selection and Crack

Identification with
annotation

Crack Identification
with description
Observations in Block A

Most of the arches above doors and windows are



cracked.
Toe crushing observed at several walls.


Seepage of water from roof due to which many walls



are damaged.
Separation of walls at verandah part.


Both In-plane and out-of-plane cracks are minor only.



Some rooms were not accessible.


Block C

Block C, First Floor Plan

Block C
Floor Selection

Room Selection and Crack

Crack Identification with
Identification with
Observations in Block C
The block is damp and damaged more due to water seepage and plant
roots.
The passage area is totally damp and the outer walls are detached from

floor.
Second floor is more damaged.

Some rooms are not accessible as the ceiling has fallen down.

Most spandrels, especially arches above doors and windows have cracks

through mud mortar.

In plane through diagonal cracks in many locations.

Brick posts have cracks at top and bottom due to rocking.

The northern wall have severe cracks – crack width > 15mm. Fall of

fairly large pieces of plaster.

Comparison – Site Damage and Model

Z = 0.16

Damage at site

Z = 0.36
Block B, second floor
(SL3)
Z = 0.16

Damage at site
Z = 0.36

Block B, second floor

(SL4)
Z = 0.16

Damage at site

Z = 0.36

Block D, room FR2, 1st

floor
 Z = 0.16

Damage at site

Z = 0.36

Block C, 1st floor, room FR3, single

door
Overview of Damage and Remedy
S. Damage Type Annotatio Repair Technique
No. n
1.0 Crack up to M1 Repointing
0.5mm
2.0 Crack up to 5mm M2 Epoxy Grouting
3.0 Crack above M3 Stitching
5mm
4.0 Others M4 Re-instate / Rebuild
5.0 Plaster Re-Plaster
Delamination
6.0 Plaster Crack Remove and re-plaster
7.0 Vegetation Remove Vegetation & Re-instate
Growth / Re-build
8.0 Flooring Damage Remove Flooring and Rebuild
Conclusion

 Overall damage due to earthquake grade III.

 Projected portion of Block B – damage grade IV, to be
demolished.
 Northern walls of Block C – erosion of mortar between
masonry units due to seepage – to be demolished.
 Arches need to be reinstated.
 Drainage problem in terrace needs to be resolved.
 Intensive seepage needs to be controlled.
 Vegetation growth needs to be completely removed.
Demolition Plan
NON/SEMI-DESTRUCTIVE
TESTS
NDT Results
TESTS CONDUCTED
 In-Plane Shear Test
 Flat Jack Test
 Penetrometer Test
 Compressive strength Test of Bricks
 Resistograph Test for Timber member
 Corrosion Test
 Foundation Exploration
NDT Photographs
In-Plane Shear Test

Pocket Penetrometer Test

NDT Photographs
Timber Decay Test

Foundation Exploration
NDT Test Results Summary
S.No. Name of the Test Test conducted for Average Result

1 In-Plane Shear Test Shear Strength of 0.0525 Mpa (GF)

bed joint mortar 0.05 Mpa (FF)
0.075 Mpa (SF)
2 In situ Compressive strength Compressive 3.42 MPa
test of Brick using Single Flat Strength of the
Jack brick
3 Pocket Penetrometer Compressive 1.47 MPa
Strength of Mortar

4 Lab Test Result of Compressive Compressive 9.06 Mpa

Strength Test of Brick Strength
Resistograph Tests for Timber

Resistograph Test Samples

Resistograph Tests for Timber
Test Conducted on each Floor
S.No. Floor No. of Tests
1 Ground Floor 11
2 First Floor 13
3 Second Floor 11
4 Third Floor 12
Total 47
Resistograph Tests for Timber
Resistograph Test Results: Extent of Damage
80.00%

72.73%
70.00%
63.64%

60.00%
54.55%

50.00%
45.45% 45.45%

Good
40.00%
36.36% Average
Deteriorated
30.00% 27.27%

20.00% 18.18% 18.18% 18.18%

18.18%

10.00% 9.09%

0.00%
Ground First Second Top
Resistograph Tests for Timber
Resistograph Test Results: Estimation of Reusable Timber Members
80.00%
70.45% 70.45%
70.00% 68.18%

60.00%
52.27%
50.00% 47.73%

40.00% Reuseable
31.82% To be Replaced
29.55% 29.55%
30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
Ground First Second Top

Assuming 100% of Good, 75% of Average and 0% of Deteriorated Timber can be reused.
Foundation Exploration

Foundation Detail in Blocks A, C and D Foundation Detail in Block B

GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION
Sample Bore
Hole Log
Detail
Geotechnical Report Summary
Comparison between pressure on foundation and bearing capacity of soil
Soil solidification and stabilization is recommended in the shaded
areas using the combination of cement grouting, micro-cement
grouting and PU grouting.
NUMERICAL MODELING
Numerical Modeling
 With the help of assembled data from available drawing, prepared as-built
drawing, and limited field tests, structural Model of the existing building
was prepared

 Finite Element Based Structural Analysis software SAP2000 version 19 is

used

 A three dimensional model has been prepared.

 Shell elements have been used for modeling brick walls and frame elements
for modeling beams, joists and pillars.

 The model is hinged at the ground level.

 Dead load and Live loads are applied as uniformly distributed loads per
meter on frame members.
 Material Properties
46

 Masonry
Compressive strength of brick (fb) 9.06 Mpa
Compressive strength of mortar from IS 1905
: 1987, mortar type L2 (fmo) 0.5 Mpa
Compressive strength of masonry from IS
1893 (Part 1) : 2016 (fm= 0.433*fb0.64*fmo0.36) 1.382 Mpa
Modulus of elasticity of masonry
(Em= 550*fm) 760.10 Mpa
Unit weight of masonry 17.2 kN/m3
Poisson's ratio 0.25  

 Salwood
Modulus of elasticity of salwood 12500 Mpa
Unit weight of masonry 8.5 kN/m3
Poisson's ratio 0.3  
 Permissible Stresses
47

 Masonry
Item Permissible Values Unit
Compressive strength = 0.25fm 0.35 Mpa
Tensile strength 0.00 Mpa
Shear strength (from in-plane shear test) 0.06 Mpa

 Salwood
Item Permissible Values Unit
Compressive strength (inside location) 10.4 Mpa
Tensile /Flexural strength (inside location) 16.5 Mpa
Shear strength (across grain) 0.9 Mpa
Seismic Design Parameters
 Seismic design parameters calculated as per IS
1893: 2002
 Seismic Zone: V; Z = 0.36
 Importance Factor: 1.5
 Age Factor (U) = 0.7 (IS 15988: 2013)
 Response Reduction Factor (R): 1.5 (Existing)
2.5 (Retrofitted)
 Soil Type: Soft; Type III
Method of Structural Analysis
  For seismic analysis Equivalent static analysis is
performed

 The base shears were computed using basic seismic

coefficient and fundamental period of translation as
per clauses 6.4 of IS 1893:2002.

 The calculated base shear is as follows:

Load Combination
 Dead Load + Live Load
 Dead Load + Live Load + Earthquake Load
 Dead Load + Earthquake Load
 0.7 Dead Load + Earthquake Load
Existing Floor Finish Detail
Existing Floor Finish Detail
Imposed Loads
 Base Shear Coefficient: Existing
Seismic Zone   Zone V  
Seismic Zone factor Z 0.36  
Importance factor I 1.5  
Age Factor U  0.7  
Response reduction factor R 1.5  
Height of the building h   11.9 m
Dimension of the building Along X Dx   56.20 m
Dimension of the building Along Y Dy   83.50 m
Cl 7.6.2
Time period of the building along X, Tx 0.143
Tx= 0.09h/√Dx Sec
Cl 7.6.2
Time period of the building along Y Ty 0.117
Ty= 0.09h/√Dy Sec
Soil type     Type III  
Average Response acceleration coefficients along
X, Y (Sa/g) Cl 6.4.5, fig. 2 2.5  
Cl 6.4.2
Design Horizontal Seismic Coefficient Ah 0.315  
ZUISa/(2Rg)
RETROFIT DESIGN
Study of different Retrofit Options
Various retrofit options are studied for the Building;
they are:
Jacketing of walls: reinforced concrete overlay

Addition of splint and bandage

Addition of separate moment resisting frame

Confinement with reinforced concrete/steel elements

Use of FRP fabric

Adding reinforcement to masonry wall core

Selected Option for Retrofit
 Double layer of timber planking has been proposed
to create the diaphragm effect at the floors to control
out-of-plane displacement and stresses.

 For this building, selected option is the Confinement

of masonry walls using steel plates on the inner walls
and FRP sheets on the outer walls.
 Base Shear Coefficient: Retrofitted
Seismic Zone   Zone V  
Seismic Zone factor Z 0.36  
Importance factor I 1.5  
Age Factor U  0.7  
Response reduction factor R 2.5  
Height of the building h   11.9 m
Dimension of the building Along X Dx   52.80 m
Dimension of the building Along Y Dy   81.00 m
Cl 7.6.2
Time period of the building along X, Tx 0.147
Tx= 0.09h/√Dx Sec
Cl 7.6.2
Time period of the building along Y Ty 0.119
Ty= 0.09h/√Dy Sec
Soil type     Type III  
Average Response acceleration coefficients along
X, Y (Sa/g) Cl 6.4.5, fig. 2 2.5  
Cl 6.4.2
Design Horizontal Seismic Coefficient Ah 0.189  
ZUISa/(2Rg)
COMPARISON BETWEEN
EXISTING AND RETROFIT
MODEL
Existing & Retrofit Model Comparison

Comparative study of modal periods and frequencies

Existing Conditions Modifie d Conditions

Mode Period Fre que ncy Period Fre quency
Sec Cyc/sec Sec Cyc/sec
1 1.151 0.869 0.420 2.381
2 0.861 1.161 0.370 2.704
3 0.858 1.166 0.342 2.926
4 0.830 1.205 0.322 3.109
5 0.789 1.267 0.295 3.393
6 0.721 1.386 0.266 3.760
7 0.655 1.528 0.243 4.110
8 0.653 1.532 0.235 4.251
9 0.595 1.680 0.235 4.254
10 0.556 1.797 0.210 4.756
11 0.531 1.884 0.198 5.051
12 0.512 1.952 0.193 5.185
Existing & Retrofit Model Comparison
 Out of -plane Stress Comparison of Existing and
Modified conditions respectively
Existing & Retrofit Model Comparison
 In-plane Stress Comparison of Existing and Modified
conditions respectively
Existing & Retrofit Model Comparison
 Shear Stress (S22)
Existing & Retrofit Model Comparison
 Stress comparison in arches of existing and modified conditions
Summary of Structural Analysis
 Significant increase in the universal stiffness of the building is
achieved due to the introduction of the rigid diaphragmS.
 Significant reduction in the in-plane and out-of-plane displacements is

achieved due to the introduction of the rigid diaphragmS.

 Significant reduction in the out-of-plane forces (vertical and

horizontal bending moments) is achieved due to the introduction of

the rigid diaphragm but the induced stresses still exceed the
permissible stresses in masonry.
 Significant amount of tensile stresses occur in wall piers at the

openings and pier ends which exceed the permissible stresses in

masonry.
 Significant amount of shear stress is generated at different locations of

walls which exceed the permissible stresses in masonry.

RETROFIT SOLUTION
Typical Example
 Calculations for Steel plates
 Sample calculation for wall at Y=41.173
Typical arrangement of steel plates in plan and elevation
Typical Arrangement of FRP
Typical Arrangement of Frp
Typical Arrangement of Fiber wrap
Typical Arrangement of Fiber wrap
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
INVENTORY
 Historical Background
Constructed in 1895 A.D. for Jit Shamsher under the direction of Kishor
Narsingh Rana.
Sold in 1908 to Prime Minister Chandra Shamsher who later gave it to

his son Kaiser Shamsher Rana.

One of the most beautiful and impressive among Rana palaces.

Notable for its large courtyards, its serene and well-proportioned front

façade and wide verandah where two immense temple lions guard the
steps leading to the entrance.
The palace is famous for its six seasonal garden – the Garden of Dreams.

The creator of this garden, Field Marshal Kaiser Shumsher Rana, was a

diplomat – but also a traveler, a connoisseur, a scholar, and a great lover

of beauty, nature and gardens.
Historical Background
 Kaiser Shamsher was married to princess Laximi Dibyaswori
Devi, eldest daughter of King Prithivi Vir Vikram Shah Dev.
 Had one of the largest private libraries in Asia which was
donated to Government of Nepal.
 Bhimsen Thapa is credited to introduce European Architecture
in Nepal in early 19th century.
 Several such palaces were built during the Rana period.
 Kaiser Mahal palace is one them which represents its
glorious history of Nepal .
 After the devastating Gorkha earth quake in 2015 hundreds of
monuments, heritages and houses were destroyed. Among
them this palace was also damaged.
Archeological Inventory
Room No. 25
Archeological Inventory
Summary of Archeological Inventory
S.No. Item Description Number
1 Photo 52
2 Portrait 31
3 Painting 15
4 Wall Paper painting 6
5 Porcelian Sculpture 2
6 Sculpture 6
7 Armor 2
8 Metal Embossed art 5
9 Stucco Art 48
11 Animal Trophy 10
12 Animal Taxidermy 3
13 Animal Carpet 2
17 Furniture 73
18 Mirror 4
19 Basin 2
20 Lamp Holder 5
21 Chandelier 2
Suggestions and Observations
Suggestions and observations to preserve the authenticity,
historic art and architecture of Kaiser Mahal are as follows:
The palace is renowned not only for the rich collection of books


and manuscripts in its library, but also for exhibitions of

collection of artifacts, paintings, photos, stucco arts, dresses,
animals, furniture, etc.
European and Nepali style Stucco art of depicting ethnicity of


Kathmandu valley are important.

An interesting fact is the design of metal ceiling is unique to


each room – the design of one room does not match the design
of any other room in the entire building.
Suggestions and Observations
 Paintings of Kaiser Shamsher and King Tribhuvan are the creations
of Lain Singh Bangdel and Bal Krishna Sam.
 There are paintings of birds on both side of the arch along the
corridor.
 Paintings of 10 incarnations of Vishnu (Room 40), paintings on
wood (Rooms 42 & 44) and wall paper painting (Room 38).
 Each and every room must be documented with photographs and/or
videos.
 There are some new extensions on south, west and north-east sides.
 The building must be restored as it was in original shape, size and
materials.
Sample Data
Sheet for
Inventory
After superficial repairs by VNY2020 Secretariat
MEASURED DRAWINGS
Measured Drawings
Measured Drawings
Measured Drawings
Measured Drawings
Measured Drawings
Measured Drawings
Measured Drawings
DRONE SURVEY
Drone Survey
Drone Survey
Drone Survey
Drone Survey
Drone Survey
Drone Survey
PROPOSED ARCHITECTURE
DESIGN
Proposed Drawings
Proposed Drawings
Proposed Drawings
Proposed Drawings
Proposed Drawings
LANDSCAPE DESIGN
Complete Plan-Garden of Dreams

Existing Fragment of Garden of Dreams

Overall Drone view of existing

Garden of Dreams and Keshar Library
 Existing Boundary Wall (as seen from Kantipath)

Existing Proposed Boundary Wall (as seen from Kantipath)

Entrance
THANK YOU