EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is prepared by D.B. Multi Engineering Consultant (P.) Ltd. & Building Design Engineering
Consultancy, for Detail Seismic Vulnerability Assessment, Detail Design for Retrofitting and Retrofitting
Cost Estimation of the school buildings of different program districts of Nepal, which was damaged made by
2015 Gorkha Earthquake presents the possible intervention measures required to improve the seismic
performance of the assessed building with its cost estimate. Since the timing, location, nature and intensity of
seismic events cannot be predicted accurately, some uncertainties still remain regarding the actual
consequences of a particular earthquake shaking. The report is intended for use by the Center for Education
and Human Resource Development, for guiding and execution of Earthquake risk reduction measures D.B.
Multi Engineering Consultant (P.) Ltd. & Building Design Engineering Consultancy and its professionals
will not be responsible for the actual performance of the building during an earthquake at the consequences
thereof.

1
 Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................1
1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................3
1.1 Background of Building...............................................................................................................3
1.2 Background of Project .................................................................................................................5
2 METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................................6
2.1 Desk Study & Rapid Visual Screening (RVS).............................................................................7
2.2 Field Visit for detail data acquisition ...........................................................................................7
2.3 Preliminary Evaluation ................................................................................................................7
2.4 Detailed Evaluation......................................................................................................................7
2.4.1 Determination of Shear Strength of Masonry ......................................................................7
2.4.2 Determination of Compression Strength and Modulus of Elasticity of Masonry ................8
2.5 Retrofitting Design.......................................................................................................................9
3 DAMAGE ASSESSMENT..................................................................................................................9
3.1 Findings of the Assessment..........................................................................................................9
3.2 Expected Damage in the Building due to 25th April, 2015, Gorkha Earthquake ......................12
3.2.1 Vulnerability Class of the Building....................................................................................12
3.2.2 Intensity of 2015 Earthquake at the Site ............................................................................13
3.2.3 Expected Damage due to the Earthquake at the site ..........................................................14
4 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................14
4.1 Vulnerability of the Building against Design Earthquake .........................................................14
4.2 Qualitative Detailed Vulnerability Assessment .........................................................................15
4.3 Detailed Vulnerability Assessment ............................................................................................15
4.3.1 Numerical Model of the Building ......................................................................................15
4.3.2 Shear Strength Check.........................................................................................................17
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT .............19
6 RETROFIT OF THE BUILDING .....................................................................................................19
6.1 Methodology Adopted ...............................................................................................................19
6.2 Calculation of Base Shear ..........................................................................................................19
6.3 Retrofit Design against In-plane Tensile Forces........................................................................20
6.4 Retrofit design against out of plane bending forces...................................................................23
6.5 Designs against Shear..................................................................................................................25
7 DESIGN SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................27
8 DESIGN CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................27
References.................................................................................................................................................. 27

2
 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Building

Detail Seismic Vulnerability Assessment, Detail Design for Retrofitting and Retrofitting Cost Estimation of
the school buildings of different program districts of Nepal. The school is located in Kailali District. The
building has been assessed by DB Multi Engineering Consultant Pvt.Ltd & Building design engineering
consultancy.
It is a one story Stone Masonry building . It is a simple structure with no seismic resistant elements. It
is being used as a classroom.

Salient Features of the Building

Building Typology: Stone Masonry building

Shape of the Building: Rectangular
Plinth Area of the Building: 180.36Sq.m
No. of Stories: 1
Floor Type: Rigid Diaphragm
Roof Type: Rigid Diaphragm
Age of the Building: 14 years
Use Type: Classroom
Vulnerability Class of the Building: CLASS D

Figure 1: Front Elevation

3
 Figur
e 5: Ground Floor Plan

Figure 6: Side Elevations

Figure 7: Back Elevation

1.2 Background of Project

On 25th of April, 2015 at around 11:56 in the afternoon, an earthquake of magnitude 7.8 rocked Nepal
causing massive destruction in at least 14 district in Nepal. With the second big earthquake of 12 May,
many more 600,000 houses are reported damaged.
The objectives of the assignment are to assess in detail the damage and earthquake vulnerability of above
selected school to prepare design and drawing for the retrofitting of the building in order to make them
disaster resilient.
The project consists of “Detailed vulnerability assessment, retrofit design and cost estimate of 34 school
buildings in different districts of Nepal” that is funded by the Government of Nepal and implemented by
itself for strengthening the buildings so as to minimize the loss causing from such devastating natural
calamities.
The basic principle of the reconstruction in recovery process after disaster is to build better and also as
possible to make community and infrastructures disaster resilient to create resilient societies. For this, the
existing building need to be assessed whether it can be retrofitted or not. The objective of the assignment
is to assess in detail the damage and earthquake vulnerability of existing school building and to prepare
detailed design and drawings for retrofitting of the buildings in order to make them disaster resilient.

4
2 METHODOLOGY

Evaluation Process

Desk Study & RVS;

Literature Review,
Historical significance of the building

Site Visit to determine;

Structural System of the building
Damages in the building
Region of Seismicity
Target performance Level

Preliminary Evaluation to determine;

Vulnerabilities in the building using
checklist,
Damage Grade of the building

Detail Evaluation;
Linear Static /Linear Dynamic Analysis

Retrofit Design,
Yes Drawing and Cost
Deficiency? Estimation

No

Make Report

Figure 8: Methodology Flow Chart

5
For the detail retrofitting design of building, series of tasks are needed to be done in a sequential order.
The methodology to be adopted is given below.

2.1 Desk Study & Rapid Visual Screening (RVS)

In this phase the literatures shall be reviewed for identifying the importance of building and its
background. The historical use pattern and structural makeup of the building and other data (if available)
is extracted from the literatures. Site visit for Rapid Visual survey is done. This is to identify the basic
structural system of the building, basic condition and damages in the building.

2.2 Field Visit for detail data acquisition

During this phase, detail field study of the building is made. Inventory of the existing situation of the
building such as architectural details, material condition and deterioration, connection details (Floor to
wall connection and between floor/roof elements) as well as sanitary and electrical condition. Inventory
of the damages shall be prepared. Reason for the damages shall be identified. Detail measurement of the
building and verification of the existing drawings shall be done. Tests for calculation of Mechanical
properties of the building structural elements such as compressive strength of masonry, shear strength of
masonry shall be performed. Brick lay pattern, material condition and deterioration, connection detail etc.
shall be identified.

2.3 Preliminary Evaluation

This phase is the preliminary evaluation phase dependent completely on the data from field visit and data
acquired. Based on the national and international guidelines and checklist, the vulnerability of the
building shall be evaluated. Also, the detail damage evaluation of the building shall also be performed.
The global damage of the building shall be classified as per the EMS-98 scaling system (also adopted by
Nepal national guidelines).

2.4 Detailed Evaluation

The shortcomings of preliminary evaluation are completed in this phase of evaluation. This specially
consists of detail calculations of the demand forces and the capacity of the building. The capacity of the
building shall be calculated for pre-earthquake condition of the building. In other words, it is assumed
that, in any case the building shall be restored back to a safety level before the earthquake. The linear
static or linear dynamic analysis shall be performed on the numerical model of the building using ETABS
2016 or equivalent codes. Using the analytical models weakness of the building such as inadequate tensile
strength, shear strength, compressive strength, shall be determined.

After detailed evaluation, the recommendation shall be made for preservation and retrofitting of the
building.

2.4.1 Determination of Shear Strength of

Masonry
Expected shear strength of URM components can be inferred from in situ measurements of bed-joint
shear strength using the in-place shear test. This test procedure as recommended by ASCE 41-
13/FEMA
274/MSJC following the ASTM guidelines is used, for the determination of shear strength of the
masonry.

The nondestructive test measures the in situ shear strength between a clay masonry unit and the mortar
bed joints above and below the unit. A small hydraulic jack is placed in a void left by removal of a

6
masonry unit immediately adjacent to the test unit. The head joint on the opposite face of the test unit is
removed to isolate the test unit so that it may be displaced horizontally when pushed.

7
A horizontal force is applied to the test unit until it starts to slide. Shear strength is then inferred as the
measured force divided by the area of the bed joints above and below the masonry unit. The estimated
vertical compressive stress at the test location is subtracted from this value to give the bed joint shear
stress, vto, assuming a coefficient of friction equal to 1.0. Because expected values of wall shear strength
are to be used, the 50th percentile value, vt, is used as the index value. (Reference FEMA 274)
Individual bed-joint shear strength test values, vto, shall be determined in accordance with
undermentioned equation,

Where, V test = test load at first movement of a masonry unit;

A b = sum of net mortared area of bed joints located directly above and below the test unit; and
P D + L = gravity compressive stress at the test location considering actual un-factored dead plus live loads
in place at the time of testing.

According to, FEMA 310, Clause 4.2.6.4.2,

The shear wall strength shall be calculated in accordance with Equation,

Where:
D = In-plane width dimension of masonry,
t = Thickness of wall,
vme = expected masonry shear strength given by Equation below,

Where:
vte = Average bed-joint shear strength and not to exceed 0.68 MPa;
PCE = Expected gravity compressive force applied to a wall or pier component stress;
An = Area of net mortared/grouted section.

The shear strength of the building for which in-situ shear test could not be carried out, shear strength
lower bond value, as recommended by FEMA 356, is adopted for design calculation and retrofitting
purpose.

2.4.2 Determination of Compression Strength and Modulus of Elasticity of

Masonry
The compressive strength of the building masonry system is adopted as per the recommendation of
FEMA
356. The design values are adopted on the basis of visual inspection of the building masonry system.

S.No. Masonry Quality fm (MPa) Em (MPa)

1 Good 2.36 1652
2 Fair 1.4 980
3 Poor 1 700
8
 2.5 Retrofitting Design
As per the approved retrofitting method, the retrofitting design of the building shall be performed. The
demand force based retrofitting design shall be performed. Special treatment for the joints and other local
weakness shall be performed. Drawings and detailing shall be prepared. The cost estimation of the retrofit
shall be prepared and submitted with the retrofit design report.
3 DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

3.1 Findings of the Assessment

The overall building condition is poor. The building parts have not been heavily damaged and very few
cracks can be observed through the structure.
The types of damages found are;
Horizontal and diagonal cracks on walls.
Spallation of concrete.
Floor damages.
Exposure of reinforcement
The crack pattern found in the building was compared with the crack pattern of the EMS-98 scales. This
resulted in the designation of the Damage Grade 1 of the building.
The quantity describing the damage is defined by following scale guidelines for grading is given in next
figure.

9
Figure 9: EMS-98 Damage Grading

10
3.2 Expected Damage in the Building due to 25th April, 2015, Gorkha
Earthquake
3.2.1 Vulnerability Class of the Building
According to EMS-98, the building falls under Vulnerability Class D.

11
3.2.2 Intensity of 2015 Earthquake at the Site
According to USGS, the building site which falls in Rukum district of Nepal, faced an earthquake of
Intensity VI on 25th April, 2015.3.2.3 Expected Damage due to the Earthquake at the site
According to EMS-98, the probable damage at the site due to earthquake of intensity VI is as follows:
Damage of grade 1 is sustained by many buildings of vulnerability class A and B
A few of class A and B may suffer damage of grade 2
A few of class C may suffer damage of grade 1.
As the assessed building falls under Vulnerability Class D, current Damage of Grade 1 is justified.

4 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

4.1 Vulnerability of the Building against Design Earthquake

According to IS 1893:2016, most part of Nepal falls under seismic zone 5. For this zone, the design
earthquake is 0.36g as per the same code. This value is comparable to earthquake of intensity IX on EMS-
98 scale.
According to EMS-98, the expected damage of the building at earthquake of Intensity IX is as follows:
Many monuments and columns fall or are twisted. Waves are seen on soft ground.
Many buildings of vulnerability class A sustain damage of grade 5.
Many buildings of vulnerability class B suffer damage of grade 4; a few of grade 5.
Many buildings of vulnerability class C suffer damage of grade 3; a few of grade 4.
Many buildings of vulnerability class D suffer damage of grade 2; a few of grade 3.
A few buildings of vulnerability class E sustain damage of grade 2.
As the assessed building falls under Vulnerability Class C, it is likely to suffer grade 4 damage at the
earthquake of intensity IX. Damage grade 5 refers to total collapse which is not desired. Hence, the
building needs retrofitting.
4.2 Qualitative Detailed Vulnerability Assessment
The detailed vulnerability form has been filled as per DUDBC guideline. As per this guideline following
vulnerabilities were to be seen:
Deterioration of concrete
Cracks in boundary columns
Detailing in RC members is not ductile
The form is attached at annex part of this report.

4.3 Detailed Vulnerability Assessment

The detailed vulnerability assessment section of this report comprises the global checks of all the stories
of the building against shear and out of plane bending failure of the walls. The deficiency check of each
pier of the building is performed and retrofitted simultaneously in Retrofit Design part of this report.

4.3.1 Numerical Model of the

Building

12
ETABS 2016 is used for numerical modeling of the building. The finite element model is used as a tool
for calculation of demand forces in the building.
The walls and floors of the building are modeled as shell elements. Both the members are assumed to be
homogeneous material. The properties of these materials are mentioned here under. The floors and roof
are considered to be flexible with inherit properties of wood.

Material Properties
Based on the total thickness of the component and its effective structural system, the material properties
are calculated/ modified to comply with the specific component. The properties are based on the national
standards and site specific test data.
Unit weight of wall = 18.85 KN/m3 (depending upon the thickness of finishing plaster, this unit wt. is
increased by a factor)
Unit weight of roof = 25 KN/m3
Modulus of Elasticity of wall = 980 MPa
Modulus of Elasticity of roof = 19364.92 MPa
The compressive strength of the building masonry system is adopted as per the recommendation of
FEMA
356. The design values are adopted on the basis of visual inspection of the building masonry system.

S.No. Masonry Quality fm (MPa) Em (MPa)

1 Good 2.36 1652
2 Fair 1.4 980
3 Poor 1 700

Loads
The loads are taken from Indian Standards and the load factors recommended by FEMA 310 are adopted.
Floor Live = 3 KN/m2 at rooms
Floor Live = 4 KN/m2 at corridors and balconies
Roof Live = 1.5 KN/m
Floor finish = 1 KN/m2
Seismic Load = as per IS 1893-2016 draft code
i.e. Z=0.36, R= 1.5, I=1.5, Sa/g =2.5
Time Period Calculation
h= 3.2 m

d=7m m along shorter length

Ta =0.09*h/ d 0.5
= 0.10 sec.

13
Building Weight and Base Shear
TABLE: Auto Seismic - IS 1893:2002
Load User Top Bottom Z Soil I R Period Coeff Weight Base
Pattern T Story Story Type Used Used Used Shear
0.2 Story1 Base 0.36 II 1.5 1.5 0.10 0.45 180.25 81.11
EQx
EQy 0.2 Story1 Base 0.36 II 1.5 1.5 0.10 0.45 180.25 81.11

4.3.2 Shear Strength

Check
Shear Strength of Masonry
The shear strength of the building for which in-situ shear test could not be carried out, shear strength
lower bond value, as recommended by FEMA 356, is adopted for design calculation and retrofitting
purpose. Good, Fair and Poor joint condition is adopted on the basis of visual inspection of the building
masonry system and the surveyor subjective judgment. Preliminary tests like hammering and chiseling is
used for
identification of hardness and weathering grade of joint mortar to assist in judgment procedure.
S.No. Joint Condition Masonry Unit Value Unit
1 Good Joint condition Brick/Dressed stone 0.19 Mpa
2 Fair Joint condition Brick/Dressed stone 0.14 MPa
3 Poor Joint condition Brick/Dressed stone 0.09 MPa
4 Good Joint condition Rubble stone 0.075 Mpa
5 Fair Joint condition Rubble stone 0.055 MPa
6 Poor Joint condition Rubble stone 0.035 MPa
7 Clayey Joint Brick/Stone 0.015 MPa

The guideline also recommends to increase the value by 1.3 times to get expected strength from lower
bound value. However, adopting a bit conservative approach, the designer has not increased the value by
this amount. The shear capacity of a masonry wall increases with compressive force on the wall. So the
shear strength values are increased by PCE /1.5An .
Shear strength adopted for the building is shown in table below.

Story Dead load at the top of wall of a story Wall area vme
ID KN sq. m Mpa
I 1226.00 10.15 0.134

Then shear capacities of various stories of the building as per FEMA 310 cl. 4.2.6, are given below.
Story vme An along X An along Y Va along X Va along Y

14
 Mpa m2 m2 KN KN
I 0.134 3.92 4.1 352.36 196.85

Shear forces in the Building

Figure 17: Chart showing story shear forces in EQX-direction

Figure 18: Chart showing story shear forces in EQY-direction

Demand Capacity Ratio Check

The ratio of story shear forces in the building to the strength of all the walls piers in the direction of
loading is the demand capacity ratio of the building.

Story Story Shear Vj Va along X Va along Y DCR along X DCR along Y Remark
No. KN KN KN
I 804.00 352.36 196.85 14.92 3.5 Not OK

15
5 CONCLUSION A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S O F
V U L N E R A B I L I T Y ASSESSMENT
The building has suffered Damage Grade-1: very heavy damage (EMS-98) in the Gorkha, 2015,
Earthquake. (Reference: Section 3.1)
The building is likely to suffer Grade-4 damage (Destruction) at design level earthquake.
(Reference: Section 4.1)
The building is unsafe in shear and weak in tension and out of plane forces. (Reference: Section
4.3.2)
Chipping, re-plastering and finishing of the floor is necessary.
There is spallation of concrete and exposure of the reinforcements at many portion. Hence, at
those portions the reinforcements should be cleaned and re-concreting should be done.
All the cracks should be grouted.

6 RETROFIT OF THE BUILDING

6.1 Methodology
Adopted
After completion of the first phase detail damage and seismic vulnerability assessment, the second phase
detail design work for the retrofitting of the building is carried out. Linear static procedure is adopted for
the analysis and design of the buildings. ETABS 2016.2.0 is used for the analysis of the structure. Design
calculations are done manually.
As per the recommendation from the Vulnerability Assessment, both side RC jacketing with TMT bar of
diameter 150mm c/c is designed to address the seismic vulnerabilities of the present brick in cement sand
masonry building. The required size and capacity of retrofitting element is assessed from the force
diagram of the building Numerical Model. The capacity of unit size of the retrofitting element is
calculated as shown in the sample calculation below.
Before preparation of the Numerical Model for the retrofit design, all the possible building irregularities,
considering lighting criteria and minimal disturbance, are fixed. The retrofit design calculations are made
for this corrected/modified building.

6.2 Calculation of Base Shear

Calculation Using IS 1893: 2002
Equivalent lateral seismic coefficient method
The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear (V B) is determined using seismic coefficient
method:
The design horizontal seismic coefficient, Ah = (ZI/2R)*(Sa /g)
Where,
Z= Zone factor
I = Importance factor
R = Response reduction factor
Sa /g = Average response acceleration coefficient

The approximate fundamental natural period of vibration (Ta) in seconds, may be estimated by the
empirical expression:
Ta = 0.09h/d0.5
Where,
h = Height of the building in meter and
16
 d = Base dimension of building at plinth level in meter, along the considered direction of lateral force.
Now,
h= 3.2 m
d= 7m m along short span

Ta =0.09*h/ d 0.5
= 0.10 sec.

(Sa/g) = 2.5
Z= 0.36 (Zone V)
I= 1.5 (Public building)
R= 2.25 for Reinforced with horizontal RC bands and vertical bars at
corners of rooms and jams of openings
Hence, Ah = 0.3
Therefore, the base shear coefficient is taken as 0.3

6.3 Retrofit Design against In-plane Tensile Forces

In-plane bending and rocking in piers lead to development of tension force in one edge of pier and
compression in other edge. The masonry is capable of taking compressive load up to the allowable limit,
but it is very weak in tension. Assuming, the masonry has negligible tensile strength, steel wire mesh or
steel bars are adopted for taking the tensile forces. In Nepal, steel wire mesh is expensive than steel
reinforcement bars, so steel retrofitting using rebar is used.

6.4 Retrofit design against out of plane bending forces

Out of plane Bending Moment distribution due to 0.7DL+EQy Loading, Horizontal strip
Wall along 2-2

Maximum bending moment intensity in wall = 0.938 KN-m/m

Distance between maximum and minimum moment 1.03 m
intensity =
Average bending moment = 0.5*0.938*1.03 = 0.49 KN-m

For tensile load, adopted Bar diameter = 4.75 mm

For Fe 500, allowable stress = 275 Mpa
Thickness of wall 250 mm
Thickness of jacketing layer 40 mm
Overall depth= 330 mm
Effective depth= 310 mm
Applying condition for equilibrium;
Depth of Neutral axis for Fe500 = 142.6 mm
17
 Lever arm = 250.108 mm
Capacity of a bar in bending = 1.22 KN-m
No. of bars required = 0.40

Applying band on both face of the wall, Adopt 3-4.75 mm bars.

Off plane Bending Moment distribution due to 0.7DL+EQx Loading, Horizontal strip
Wall alongA-A

Maximum bending moment intensity in wall = 0.78 KN-m/m

Distance between maximum and minimum moment 1.96 m
intensity =
Average bending moment = 0.5*0.78*1.96 = 0.77 KN-m
For tensile load, adopted Bar diameter = 4.75 mm
For Fe 500, allowable stress = 275 Mpa
Thickness of wall 250 mm
Thickness of jacketing layer 40 mm
Overall depth= 330 mm
Effective depth= 310 mm
Applying condition for equilibrium;
Depth of Neutral axis for Fe500 = 142.6 mm
Lever arm = 250.108 mm
Capacity of a bar in bending = 1.22 KN-m
No. of bars required = 0.63

18
Applying band on both face of the wall, Adopt 3-4.75 mm bars.

6.5 Design against Shear

The strength of wall piers and the additional vertical provided shall act against the shear forces. The shear
checks of all the wall piers are provided below.
Wall along Grid 2-2

Total shear force along the grid = -142.45 KN

Total length of wall pier = 7.63 m
Thickness of wall = 250 mm
Minimum expected shear strength of masonry = 0.09 Mpa
Total shear strength of the wall masonry system= 115.0223 KN
Shear Strength of jacketing per meter strip = 47.1352 KN
Total shear strength of the elements along the grid= 474.6638 KN
Factor of Safety = 3.33 >1, OK

Wall along Grid A-A

Total shear force along the grid = -107.88 KN
Total length of wall pier = 4.38 m
Thickness of wall = 250 mm
Minimum expected shear strength of masonry = 0.09 Mpa
Total shear strength of the wall masonry system= 66.0285 KN
Shear Strength of jacketing per meter strip = 47.1352 KN
Total shear strength of the elements along the grid= 272.4807 KN
Factor of Safety = 2.53 >1, OK

19
7 DESIGN SUMMARY
The summary of the retrofit design of the building is shown in table below.
Wall ID/Grid Vertical Band Horizontal Band Jacketing
Wall AA RC jacketing on both sides with 4.75mm
TMT bar @ 150mm c/c.

Wall 22 RC jacketing on both sides with 4.75mm

TMT bar @ 150mm c/c

Wall 11 RC jacketing on both sides with 4.75mm

TMT bar @ 150mm c/c
All other walls/piers should also be retrofitted accordingly. The retrofit detail is provided in drawing part
of the report.

8 DESIGN CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

1. Both side RC jacketing with TMT bar of diameter 150mm c/c is designed to address the seismic
vulnerabilities of the present brick in mud masonry building.
2. Individual components are also strengthening as well as braced against local failures under design
level earthquake.
3. The partition wall should be added. (Refer drawing for detail)
4. Chipping and plastering of the floor along with proper finishing is required.
5. All the cracked sections of the building should be grouted before retrofitting.
6. There is spallation of plaster and exposure of rebar, hence, cleaning of rebar should be done
followed by re-concreting at those portions.
7. Addition of 125mm wall thickness is required to the existing wall having thickness of 125mm
only.
8. Removal of middle cross wall at first floor should be done for better performance of the building.

20
References
[1] EMS-98, European Macro seismic Scale 1998
[2] IS 1893 part 1, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures 2016
[3] IS 875, Code of Practice for Design Loads for Buildings and Structures 1987
[4] FEMA 310, Handbook for Seismic Evaluation of Building

21