2015 Nepal Earthquake
Damage assessment survey
by Prateek Shah, Santiago Pujol, Michael Kreger, and Ayhan Irfanoglu
O
n April 25, 2015, a moment magnitude (Mw) 7.8
earthquake occurred in Nepal.1 The earthquake
caused more than 8000 fatalities.2 Another earthquake
of Mw 7.3 struck Nepal on May 12, 2015, resulting in
additional casualties.3 Through December 2015, over 400
aftershocks of magnitude 4 or larger occurred in Nepal since
the first shock.4,5 It is estimated that over 500,000 buildings in
Nepal were completely destroyed and an additional 250,000
buildings were partially damaged.6 The total economic loss is
estimated to be approximately $5 billion.7
Following the earthquakes, ACI Committee 133, Disaster
Reconnaissance, deployed a team to survey reinforced
concrete buildings in Kathmandu. With the assistance of
17 volunteer civil engineers from Nepal, the Nepali
government, and a local engineering firm, the team conducted
the survey from June 15 to July 1, 2015, and collected data
from low-rise and high-rise reinforced concrete buildings.
Low-rise buildings with fewer than eight stories had, in
general, nonengineered structural frames and clay brick
masonry partition walls. High-rise buildings with eight or
more stories had engineered structural frames and clay brick
masonry partition walls.
A total of 146 low-rise reinforced concrete buildings and
30 high-rise reinforced concrete buildings were surveyed.
Surveyed buildings were classified based on the level of
damage they sustained. Building coordinates, approximate
building sketches, and photographs of structure and partitions
were collected for every building. Architectural layouts,
structural drawings, and structural analysis models were also
collected when available.
This article focuses on the methodology used in the survey
and highlights the key observations. It also provides a guide
on how to access and interpret the data from the survey.
Ground Motion
Strong ground motion data from the April 25, 2015,
earthquake were recorded by United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Station KATNP, and Hokkaido University and
42 MARCH 2017 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com
Tribhuvan University (HU-TU) Stations KTP, PTN, THM,
and TVU located in Kathmandu. The geographic coordinates
of these stations, peak ground velocity (PGV), and peak
ground acceleration (PGA) are listed in Table 1.
The acceleration response spectra and displacement
response spectra for 5% damping ratios are shown in Fig. 1
and 2.8,9 The acceleration and displacement demands were
high for periods exceeding 3 seconds. Most buildings in
Kathmandu are expected to have had shorter periods.
Damage Classification
Damage to structural elements and masonry infill walls
was classified using definitions proposed by Hassan and
Sozen,10 and Donmez and Pujol.11 Structural damage to
reinforced concrete buildings was classified as “collapse,”
“severe,” “moderate,” or “light.” Buildings in which at least
one floor or part of the floor lost its elevation were classified
as “collapses.” Damage to buildings with at least one
structural failure that rendered a structural element useless
was classified as “severe damage.” Buildings without failures
but with structural elements with crack widths exceeding
0.13 mm (0.005 in.) or structural elements with spalling of
concrete were classified as having “moderate damage,” and
buildings with structural elements with hairline cracks not
exceeding 0.13 mm were rated as having “light damage.”
Damage to masonry infill walls was also classified as “severe,”
“moderate,” or “light.” Damage to masonry walls was rated as
“severe” if collapse or see-through cracks were observed.
Large cracks in masonry walls and flaking of large pieces of
plaster were rated as “moderate damage,” and hairline cracks
in masonry walls were classified as “light damage.”
High-rise buildings
Thirty of the 70 high-rise buildings12 existing in
Kathmandu at the time of the earthquake were surveyed
(Table 2). The surveyed buildings were constructed between
2011 and 2015. The main goal of the high-rise building survey
was to document building damage and collect building
Table 1:
Peak ground acceleration (PGA) and peak ground velocity (PGV) values from the April 25, 2015, Nepal earthquake
Latitude Longitude
Station ID (North), deg (East), deg North PGV, cm/s East PGV, cm/s North PGA, g East PGA, g
KATNP 27.7120 85.3160 86 107 0.16 0.16
KTP 27.68216 85.27259 37 33 0.16 0.26
PTN 27.68179 85.28825 68 60 0.15 0.13
THM 27.68130 85.37705 73 77 0.15 0.14
TVU 27.68150 85.31896 107 84 0.21 0.23

•• Incorrect building layout and

Fig. 1: Acceleration response spectra for 5% damping ratios
Fig. 2: Displacement response spectra for 5% damping ratios
information including architectural
plans, structural drawings, and structural
analysis models.
The files collected had these formats:
•• Architectural drawings—Autodesk
AutoCAD files (.dwg);
•• Structural drawings—Autodesk
AutoCAD files (.dwg); and
•• Structural analysis models—Bentley
STAAD files (.STD) or CSI SAP
files (.sdb).
For more information on drawing
and analysis file formats and associated
dimensions in collected drawings—
Kalash Tower (Case ID: 17334), Park
Horizon Tower Sagarmatha (Case
ID: 17338), Park Horizon Tower
Kanchanjunga (Case ID: 17339),
Park Horizon Tower Makalu (Case
ID: 17340), and Park Horizon Tower
Annapurna (Case ID: 17341);
•• Reinforced concrete walls around
elevator core not shown in collected
drawings—Signature Apartment I
(Case ID: 17343) and Signature
Apartment II (Case ID: 17344); and
•• Location of reinforced concrete walls
incorrectly marked in collected
drawings—Silver City Apartment
Tower I (Case ID: 17345) and Silver
City Apartment Tower II (Case ID:
17346).
These discrepancies exist because
buildings were modified after the
drawings were drafted.
The codes used to design high-rise
buildings in Nepal included:
•• Structural Design Loads—IS 875:
2002 (Part I) – Code of Practice for
Design Loads (Other than Earthquake)
for Building and Structures: Dead
Loads; IS 875: 2002 (Part II) – Code
programs, visit www.autodesk.com, of Practice for Design Loads (Other
www.bentley.com, and www. than Earthquake) for Building and
csiamerica.com. All collected files are Structures: Imposed Loads; IS 875:
available on datacenterhub.org. 2002 (Part III) – Code of Practice for
Structural analysis models collected Design Loads (Other than Earthquake)
for Building and Structures: Wind
contain numerical representations of
structural elements conceived by Loads; IS 1893 (Part I): 2002 –
Criteria for Earthquake Resistant
designers. They do not include similar
representations of nonstructural elements Design of Structures: General
Provisions and Buildings; NBC 104:
such as brick walls. The survey team
identified three classes of discrepancies 1994 – Wind Load; and NBC 105:
between the as-built structure and the 1994 – Seismic Design of Buildings
collected drawings and analysis models: in Nepal; 

www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | MARCH 2017 43

•• Structural Design—IS 456: 2000 – Code of Practice for For more information on Indian Standards (IS) and Nepal
Plain and Reinforced Concrete (Fourth Revision); IS 800: National Building Code (NBC), visit www.standardsbis.in
2007 – Code of Practice for General Construction in Steel; and www.dudbc.gov.np/buildingcode, respectively.
and IS 4326: 1993 – Code of Practice for Earthquake Photo logs were used to document damage to high-rise
Resistant Design and Construction of Building; and  buildings. Drawings of the ground floor were marked with
•• Structural Detailing—IS 13920: 1993 – Code of Practice arrows and numbers to represent the locations where
Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures photographs were taken. For example, an arrow marked with
Subjected to Seismic Forces; and NBC 105: 1994 – the number 26 on the building drawing shown in Fig. 3
Seismic Design of Buildings in Nepal.  indicates the location where photograph IMG_0026 was

Table 2:
Collected data for surveyed high-rise buildings
Latitude Longitude
(North), (East), No. of stories Height, Structural Masonry Column RC wall
Name deg deg above ground m damage damage area, % area, %
Ambe Residency Block 1 27.7301 85.3430 8 30.5 Light Moderate 1.62 0.53
Ambe Residency Block 2 27.7140 85.3450 8 30.5 Light Severe 1.62 0.53
Central Park Jasmine Block 27.6881 85.2972 14 45.0 Light Severe 3.16 0.50
Central Park Lily Block 27.6880 85.2972 14 45.0 Moderate Moderate 3.16 0.50
Central Park Tulip Block 27.7233 85.3369 14 45.0 Moderate Severe 3.16 0.50
Central Park Orchid Block 27.7226 85.3371 14 45.0 Light Moderate 3.16 0.50
Cityscape Tower 1 27.6499 85.3323 17 48.7 Light Severe 2.29 0.39
Cityscape Tower 2 27.6496 85.3323 12 45.8 Light Light 2.42 0.53
Cityscape Tower 3 27.6493 85.3321 14 45.8 Light Severe 2.49 0.53
Cityscape Tower 4 27.6493 85.3318 15 45.8 Moderate Severe 2.44 0.40
Classic Tower 27.6496 85.3268 7* — Light Moderate 2.30 0.70
Grand Tower 27.7308 85.3437 9 36.4 Moderate Severe 1.96 0.61
Kalash Tower 27.6943 85.3073 11 — Light Severe — —
KL Residency Block B 27.7112 85.3324 14 47.0 Light Moderate 1.60 0.43
KL Residency Block C 27.7112 85.3326 14 47.0 Light Light 1.60 0.43
KL Residency Block A 27.7039 85.3272 14 47.0 Light Moderate 0.91 1.13
Park Horizon Tower Sagarmatha 27.7403 85.3248 15 — Severe Severe 2.20 0.39
Park Horizon Tower Kanchanjunga 27.7401 85.3248 12 — Moderate Severe 1.94 0.41
Park Horizon Tower Makalu 27.7408 85.3250 15 — Severe Severe 1.97 0.43
Park Horizon Tower Annapurna 27.7399 85.3244 13 — Severe Severe 2.25 0.35
Prestige Apartment 27.7334 85.3413 12 32.5 Light Severe 2.08 0.43
Signature Apartment I 27.7301 85.3430 8 — Light Light — —
Signature Apartment II 27.6942 85.3072 8 — Light Severe — —
Silver City Apartment Tower 1 27.7040 85.3200 16 45.8 Light Severe 2.18 0.96
Silver City Apartment Tower 2 27.7042 85.3284 17 45.8 Light Severe 2.44 0.95
Sun City Tower I 27.6931 85.3713 17 54.3 Light Light 2.60 0.53
Sun City Tower J 27.6934 85.3712 17 54.3 Light Light 2.60 0.53
Sun City Tower A 27.6915 85.3708 17 — Light Light — —
Sun City Tower H 27.6931 85.3716 17 54.3 Light Light 2.60 0.53
Vibor Apartment 27.7118 85.3260 11 33.5 Light Light 1.34 0.34
Note: Column area and reinforced concrete (RC) wall area percentages were calculated, respectively, by dividing the total area of columns and the total area
of reinforced concrete walls in the ground story by the total ground floor area. Structural and masonry damage was classified using the criteria described in the
text; 1 m = 3.3 ft
*
Building was in construction at time of earthquake. Drawings showed more stories were planned.

44 MARCH 2017 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com

(a) (b)

Fig. 3: Damage was documented using photo logs: (a) arrows and numbers were marked on building plans to indicate camera locations,
orientations, and photograph numbers; and (b) example image in the photo log (IMG_0026) associated with the circled location on the
building plan

taken. Structural and masonry damage in the ground story of half the story height, and elements were classified as reinforced
each high-rise building were documented in detail. For stories concrete walls if any of their cross-sectional dimensions were
above the ground story, only damage to accessible key larger than half the story height. The mean column area was
structural elements was documented in the photo logs. 2.2% and the mean reinforced concrete wall area was 0.54%.
Figure 4 shows the locations of the 30 high-rise buildings The ratio of wall thickness to story height was also calculated.
that were surveyed and listed in Table 2. High-rise buildings
were ranked based on the severity of damage they sustained.
Buildings with structural and masonry damage were given
priority in the survey compared to buildings with masonry
damage only. However, buildings without structural damage
were surveyed to identify key parameters leading to
differences in damage levels.
Of the surveyed high-rise buildings, 10% (3/30) sustained
severe damage to reinforced concrete structural elements,
17% (5/30) sustained moderate damage to reinforced concrete
structural elements, and the remaining 73% (22/30) sustained
light damage to reinforced concrete structural elements. The
three high-rise buildings that were classified as having severe
structural damage had almost identical building layouts and
sustained similar shear failures in short beams located on the
exterior of the building (Fig. 5). Failures of short elements such
as captive columns and short beams are expected because shear
demand is directly proportional to nominal moment capacity,
and inversely proportional to length of the element.
Fig. 4: Map of Kathmandu Valley showing locations of surveyed
Table 2 shows the number of floors, approximate height,
high-rise buildings. Green squares represent buildings with light
percentage of column area, and percentage of reinforced structural damage, yellow triangles represent buildings with
concrete wall area for the surveyed buildings. Vertical moderate structural damage, and red circles represent buildings with
reinforced concrete elements were classified based on their severe structural damage. Locations of the USGS and HU-TU stations
dimensions. Elements were classified as reinforced concrete are marked with orange stars. Portions of the map are magnified to
columns if their cross-sectional dimensions were smaller than show overlapping building locations

www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | MARCH 2017 45

 The ratio of wall thickness to story
height varied from 0.05 to 0.11. It
should be noted that ACI 318-14
requires this ratio to exceed 1/16.13
Reinforced concrete walls in the
surveyed buildings were generally
located around the stairwell or elevator
core of the building. Typical
reinforcement detailing of reinforced
concrete walls is shown in Fig. 6. No
critical damage to reinforced concrete
walls was observed in any of the 30
surveyed buildings. Severe damage to
unreinforced masonry walls,
nevertheless, was frequent.

Low-rise buildings
A total of 146 low-rise reinforced
concrete buildings were surveyed.
(a) (b)
These buildings had up to seven floors
Fig. 5: Shear failures were observed in short beams in Park Horizon Tower Annapurna: and were, in general, nonengineered
(a) overview of damage on multiple levels; and (b) detailed view of damage to a beam structures. The main goal of the low-rise
building survey was to document
building damage and collect building
plans or primary dimensions.
Architectural plans or structural drawings were not
available for 131 of the 146 surveyed buildings. For these,
approximate building sketches were generated using field
measurements. Information such as column and wall
dimensions as well as wall locations were also collected.
Architectural plans and/or structural drawings were available
for 15 buildings: Oriental Apartment Block 1A (Case ID:
17384), Block 2B (Case ID: 17390), Block 4D (Case ID:
17407), Block 5C (Case ID: 17397), Block 6C (Case ID:
17398), and Block 7C (Case ID: 17399); and Dhumbarahi
Apartment Block A (Case ID: 17490), Block B (Case ID:
17489), Block C (Case ID: 17491), Block D (Case ID:
17492), Block E (Case ID: 17493), Block F (Case ID: 17494),
Block G (Case ID: 17496), Block H (Case ID: 17497), and
Block I (Case ID: 17495). All information is available on
datacenterhub.org.
Photo logs were used to document damage, and damage
levels were recorded using the same criteria as for high-rise
buildings. Structural and masonry damage in the ground story
of each building was documented in detail. For stories above
the ground level, only damage to key structural elements was
documented. Observations regarding extent and type of
damage were also recorded in the photo logs.
Figure 7 shows the locations of the low-rise buildings
surveyed. Building surveys were conducted in areas with
higher damage concentration. Damage was found to be
concentrated near the foothills in the north and west side of
Fig. 6: Typical reinforcement detailing of reinforced concrete walls the Kathmandu Valley. Little to no damage was observed in
in surveyed high-rise buildings. Crossties have been offset to the center of the valley, where soil depths are deeper.
distinguish them from hoops In general, damage to structural elements comprised shear

46 MARCH 2017 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com


Fig. 7: Map of Kathmandu Valley showing location of surveyed
low-rise buildings. Green squares represent buildings with light
structural damage, yellow triangles represent buildings with
moderate structural damage, and red circles represent buildings with
severe structural damage. Locations of the USGS and HU-TU stations
are marked with orange stars
failure of columns and beams. Of the surveyed low-rise
buildings, 46% (67/146) either collapsed or sustained severe
damage to structural systems, 45% (66/146) sustained light
damage to structural systems, and the remaining 9% (13/146)
sustained moderate damage to structural systems. These
statistics do not reflect the frequency of damage in the entire
city, which is expected to have been lower (as the survey of
low-rise buildings was conducted in areas with higher
concentration of damage).
In 1997, Hassan and Sozen10 proposed a simple seismic
vulnerability assessment measure called the Priority Index (PI).
This index uses basic building information such as floor area,
column area, and wall area to estimate the seismic vulnerability
of a low-rise building. Index parameters such as Column
Index (CI), Wall Index (WI), and PI can be calculated as
where ΣAcol is the sum of cross-sectional areas of columns at
the ground story; and ΣAft is the total floor area of the building
at and above ground story.
where ΣAcw is the sum of cross-sectional areas of reinforced
concrete walls in the direction with the smallest WI; and ΣAmw
is the sum of cross-sectional areas of unreinforced masonry
walls in the direction with the smallest WI.
PI = WI + CI
Data from 135 low-rise buildings surveyed were used to
compute PI. Data from 11 buildings were not used because of
missing dimensions or errors in collected floor plans. The
mean PI for the low-rise buildings surveyed was 0.19%. By
comparison, the mean PI values for low-rise buildings
surveyed after the 1999 Düzce and 2010 Haiti earthquakes
were 0.32% and 0.24%, respectively.14 Vulnerability is
expected to increase as PI decreases. Nevertheless, most of
Kathmandu was undamaged. We believe this was due to the
properties of the ground motion: it was rich in long-period
waves but not too demanding for structures with short periods
(such as the majority of the structures in Kathmandu).
Figure 8 shows a plot of WI versus CI for the surveyed
low-rise buildings. Ninety-five percent (56/59) of all the
points representing buildings with severe damage are bounded
by a line drawn from 0.2% on the WI axis to 0.4% on the CI
axis. If this line is used as a threshold to identify the most
vulnerable structures, 91% (123/135) of the buildings
surveyed in Kathmandu would have been classified as such.
DataCenterHub
All collected data are available on DataCenterHub, a
platform supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF)
to help researchers organize, share, and explore research data.
Data from the high-rise buildings can be found at https://
datacenterhub.org/resources/242 and data from the low-rise
buildings can be found at https://datacenterhub.org/
resources/238.
Each of these links takes users to a “resource page”
containing a general overview of the building survey and
details on the type of data collected.
Data from the survey are presented in a database format
that can be accessed using the “View Data” button located
near the top right corner of the resource page. The database
contains the following information for each surveyed building:
•• ID: A unique system identification number;
•• Title: Title of the building survey;
•• Start Date: Start date of the survey;
•• End Date: End date of the survey;
•• Experiment or Case ID: Unique name assigned to the
building by the source, based on the location of the building;
•• Report(s): Documents related to the survey;
•• Latitude: Latitude of the location of the surveyed building;
•• Longitude: Longitude of the location of the surveyed building;
•• Parameters:
—For low-rise buildings, information such as number
of stories above ground, total floor area at and above
ground story, ground floor column area, ground floor wall
area, structural damage level, and masonry damage level;
—For high-rise buildings, information such as number
of stories above ground, approximate elevation, percentage
column area, percentage reinforced concrete wall area,
structural damage level, and masonry damage level;
•• Source: Names of the surveyors who generated the data;
•• Keywords: Words describing the surveyed building;
•• Drawings/Diagrams: Scanned copies of photo logs and
field sketches;
•• Data: Compressed (.zip) files containing all data related to
www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | MARCH 2017 47

Fig. 8: Wall Index (WI) values versus Column Index (CI) values for 135 low-rise buildings
surveyed. 95% of all points representing buildings with severe damage are bounded by the
line drawn from 0.2% on the WI axis to 0.4% on the CI axis
the surveyed building, including photographs, building
drawings, sketches, and structural analysis models;
•• Photos, Videos, etc.: Photographs showing structural and
masonry damage;
•• Compiled by: Names of the individuals who compiled the
data; and
•• Date: Date when the dataset was last modified.
Career
Center
Hiring the right people for
the right jobs has never
been easier.
Find the right candidate. Save money.
Save time. The ACI Career Center is the
right solution for your hiring needs.
Follow @ACICareerCenter to learn more.
www.concrete.org/careercenter
48 MARCH 2017 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com
Ground motion records and Google
Earth files (.KML) with building
coordinates can also be accessed from the
“Additional Materials Available” link
located below the “View Data” button.
Summary
Damage caused by the 2015 Nepal
earthquakes was found to be
concentrated near the foothills in the
north and west side of the Kathmandu
Valley. Little to no damage was observed
near the center of the valley. The clearest
difference between these locations is the
depth of soil deposits.
Only 10% (3/30) of surveyed high-
rise buildings sustained severe damage,
and 46% (67/146) of the surveyed low-rise buildings
sustained severe damage. Low-rise buildings, in general, had
nonengineered structural frames with limited deformation
capacity and toughness.
All of the surveyed high-rise buildings contained
reinforced concrete walls. None of these reinforced concrete
walls sustained critical structural damage. This observed
performance of reinforced concrete walls could be attributed
to the intensity of the ground motions, structural detailing of
the walls, or both.
The mean PI of low-rise buildings surveyed in
Kathmandu was 0.19%. This value is lower than the average
PI value for low-rise buildings surveyed after the 1999
Düzce (0.32%) and 2010 Haiti (0.24%) earthquakes.14 A plot
of CI versus WI for buildings surveyed in Kathmandu shows
that 95% of the plotted points representing low-rise
buildings with severe damage are bound by a line drawn
from 0.2% on the WI axis to 0.4% on the CI axis. This result
supports the use of this threshold line as a measure to
identify and rank seismically vulnerable low-rise buildings
in Kathmandu.
All collected data are publicly available on
DataCenterHub, a public platform to help researchers
organize, share, and explore research data:
•• High-Rise Buildings at https://datacenterhub.org/
resources/242; and
•• Low-Rise Buildings at https://datacenterhub.org/
resources/238.
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, the authors express their gratitude to ACI for supporting
the building surveys. Special thanks are given to Ronald Burg, Executive
Vice President, ACI, JoAnn Browning, Dean, College of Engineering, The
University of Texas at San Antonio, TX, and Steven McCabe, acting
NEHRP Director, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD. Without their vision and
leadership, we would not be learning from disasters to prevent them in
the future. The authors would also like to acknowledge the following
individuals for their contributions with data collection during the building
survey: Mukund Prasad Sah, Kamal Baral, Bishnu Paudel, Robin offices-marked-unsafe.html. (last accessed Sept. 29, 2015)
Guragain, Prakash Nepal, Ujjwal Karki, Amit Kumar Sah, Ajay Kumar 13. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Karna, Prakash Mishra, Sewak Pandit, Hari Krishna Dhamala, Tirtha Raj Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American
Timilsina, Bharat Budhathoki, Bipesh Shrestha, Shailesh Bhattarai, Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 519 pp.
Radhey Shyam Chaudhary, and Niranjan Shrestha. The help from 14. O’Brien, P.; Eberhard, M.; Haraldsson, O.; Irfanoglu, A.; Lattanzi, D.;
Buddhi Sagar Thapa, Department of Urban Development and Building Lauer, S.; and Pujol, S., “Measures of the Seismic Vulnerability of
Construction, Government of Nepal; Ministry of Urban Planning, Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Haiti,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 27,
Government of Nepal; Sanjiv Shah; and Poonam Shah in facilitating the No. S1, Oct. 2011, pp. S373-S386.
survey is also greatly appreciated. Aishwarya Puranam, Lucas Laughery,
and William Pollalis from Purdue University are also gratefully Received and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
acknowledged for their assistance with the building survey. Finally, the
Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) at Purdue
Prateek Shah is a Graduate Research
University is also sincerely acknowledged for its support to the building
Assistant at the Robert L. and Terry L.
damage survey. Bowen Laboratory for Large-Scale
Civil Engineering Research at Purdue
References University, West Lafayette, IN. His
1. “Earthquake Hazards Program,” U.S. Geological Survey, research interests include earthquake
engineering and seismic vulnerability of
Apr. 25, 2015, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/
structures.
us20002926#general_summary. (last accessed Sept. 29, 2015)
2. “Nepal Earthquake 2015: Disaster Relief and Recovery
Information Platform (NDRRIP),” Government of Nepal, Dec. 3, 2015),
ACI member Santiago Pujol is a
http://drrportal.gov.np. (last accessed Dec. 3, 2015) Professor of civil engineering at the
3. “Earthquake Hazards Program,” U.S. Geological Survey, Lyles School of Civil Engineering at
May 12, 2015, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/ Purdue University. He is a member
us20002ejl#general_summary. (last accessed Oct. 29, 2015) of ACI Committees 133, Disaster
4. “Recent Earthquakes,” National Seismological Centre, Sept. 20, Reconnaissance; 314, Simplified Design
of Concrete Buildings; and Joint
2015, www.seismonepal.gov.np/index.php?action=earthquakes&show=re ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear and
cent. (last accessed Sept. 29, 2015) Torsion; as well as ACI Subcommittee
5. “Aftershocks of Gorkha Earthquake,” National Seismological Centre, 318-R, High Strength Reinforcement.
Dec. 2015, www.seismonepal.gov.np. (last accessed Dec. 14, 2015) He has been helping collect data from
buildings affected by earthquakes since 1999.
6. “Gorkha Earthquake,” National Society for Earthquake
Technology-Nepal, May 25, 2015, www.nset.org.np/eq2015/index.php. Michael Kreger, FACI, is the Garry
(last accessed Sept. 29, 2015) Neil Drummond Endowed Chair in
7. “Nepal’s Slowing Economy Set for Freefall Without Global Civil Engineering and Director of the
Help,” Bloomberg, Apr. 27, 2015, www.bloomberg.com/news/ Large-Scale Structures Laboratory in
the Department of Civil, Construction
articles/2015-04-26/nepal-s-slowing-economy-set-for-freefall-without-
and Environmental Engineering at the
world-s-help. (last accessed Sept. 29, 2015) University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.
8. “CESMD Internet Data Report,” Center for Strong Motion Data He is a member of ACI Committees
(CESMD), May 7, 2015, www.strongmotioncenter.org/cgi-bin/CESMD/ 133, Disaster Reconnaissance; 318,
iqr_dist_DM2.pl?IQRID=Lamjung_us20002926&SFlag=0&Flag=2. Structural Concrete Building Code; 374,
Performance-Based Seismic Design
(last accessed Dec. 14, 2015)
of Concrete Buildings; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 352,
9. Takai, N.; Shigefuji, M.; Rajaure, S.; Bijukchhen, S.; Ichiyanagi, Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures, and
M.; Dhital, M.R.; and Sasatani, T., “Strong Ground Motion in the 441, Reinforced Concrete Columns. He is a member of ACI
Kathmandu Valley during the 2015 Gorkha, Nepal, Earthquake,” Earth, Subcommittees 318-C, Safety, Serviceability, and Analysis; and
Planets and Space, V. 68, No. 10, Jan. 2016. 318-J, Joints and Connections.
10. Hassan, A.F., and Sozen, M.A., “Seismic Vulnerability
ACI member Ayhan Irfanoglu is an
Assessment of Low-Rise Buildings in Regions with Infrequent Associate Professor of civil engineering
Earthquakes,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1997, at the Lyles School of Civil Engineering
pp. 31-39. at Purdue University.
11. Donmez, C., and Pujol, S., “Spatial Distribution of Damage He is a member of ACI Committee 133,
Disaster Reconnaissance. His research
Caused by the 1999 Earthquakes in Turkey,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 21,
interests include rapid vulnerability
No. 1, Feb. 2005, pp. 53-69. assessment and simplified building
12. Giri, S., “Two High-Rise Apartments, 14 Govt Offices Marked models calibrated using actual dynamic
Unsafe,” The Kathmandu Post, May 11, 2015, http://kathmandupost. response data.
ekantipur.com/news/2015-05-11/two-high-rise-apartments-14-govt-

www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | MARCH 2017 49