Vol. 20, No.

2 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION April, 2021

Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2021) 20: 453-469 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-021-2031-x

Seismic assessment of two multi-tiered pagodas damaged by the 2015

Nepal earthquake
Yohei Endo1† and Toshikazu Hanazato2‡
1. Department of Architecture, Shinshu University, 4-17-1 Wakasato, Nagano 380-8553, Japan

2. Department of Architecture, Mie University, 1577 Kurimamachiya-chō, Tsu, Mie 514-8507, Mie, Japan

Abstract: A seismic assessment of two multi-tier pagodas by numerical analysis is presented herein. The Changu Narayan
temple and the Kumbeshwar temple in Nepal are used as the case studies. Both pagodas are built of brick masonry in earthen
mortar, with timber columns and crossbeams. The Changu Narayan temple is a two-tier pagoda, and was seriously damaged
during the 2015 Gorkha earthquake. The Kumbeshwar temple is a five-tier pagoda, and its top-tier collapsed due to the
Gorkha earthquake. A seismic assessment was carried out using finite element (FE) analysis. The FE models were prepared,
and dynamic identification tests and penetrometer tests were conducted. Pushover analysis and nonlinear dynamic analysis
were performed as part of the seismic assessment. The main shock of the 2015 Gorkha earthquake was considered as the input
accelerograms. The behavior between the two pagodas was compared with the collapse mechanisms and damage patterns
observed in the actual structures. The comparison suggested common structural features of multi-tier pagodas. This study
is dedicated to providing a better understanding of the seismic behavior of multi-tier pagoda-type structures and provides
suggestions for their effective analysis.

Keywords: masonry; multi-tier pagoda; seismic assessment; nonlinear dynamic analysis; FEM analysis

1 Introduction Considering the discrete nature of masonry structures,

This paper presents a seismic analyses performed on
historical multi-tier pagodas. The case study structures
are composed of masonry walls and timber frameworks.
In the past, seismic assessment of historical slender
structures has been tackled by various practitioners and
researchers. Limit analysis, FEM, and DEM have been
employed as typical seismic-assessment tools. Limit
analysis considers a chosen structural element as a rigid
body. It has been frequently used since it is a simple and
powerful tool (Binda and Saisi, 2001; Roca et al., 2010).
It permits assessing the safety or stability of structures
but not predicting damage and responses under service
or moderate loads (Roca et al., 2010). Developments in
limit analysis have been explored, for instance taking
into account micromechanical models of the materials
(Bartoli et al., 2006; Colas et al., 2008) and combining
limit analysis with the finite element method (FEM)
(D′Altri et al., 2018).
Correspondence to: Yohei Endo, Department of Architecture,
Shinshu University, 4-17-1 Wakasato, Nagano 380-8553, Japan
Tel: +81-26 269 5345; Fax: +81-26 269 5364
E-mail: endii@shinshu-u.ac.jp
†
Assistant professor; ‡Full professor
Supported by: Funding of Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research (A) Provided by the Japan Society for the
Promotion of the Science under Grant No. 16H01825
Received October 17, 2019; Accepted July 29, 2020
DEM has been considered as an appropriate approach
to examine seismic behavior of historical masonry
structures (Lemos, 2007; Theodossopoulos and Singha,
2013). By means of DEM, seismic behavior of historical
masonry structures has been examined (Mehrotra and
Dejong, 2017; Sarhosis et al., 2018). Implementation of
non-smooth contact dynamic analysis (NSCD) to DEM
was proposed (Moreau, 1988). NSCD includes non-
smooth dynamic behavior of masonry structures, such
as block slides and impact, into DEM (Chetouane et al.,
2005). NSCD has been applied to historical structures
including churches (Clementi et al., 2020), a fortress
(Coïsson et al., 2013) and a clock tower (Poiani et al.,
2018). However, the application of DEM to complex
structures requires further investigations (Ip et al., 2018;
Sadegh et al., 2020).
The application of NDA by means of FEM has become
more feasible in recent years thanks to the development
of computational technologies. NDA has characterized
key aspects of seismic behavior of historical slender
structures. Seismic behavior of masonry towers may be
controlled, to some extent, by damping but not by tensile
strength and fracture energy of masonry (Peña et al.,
2010). Masonry towers can be vulnerable to cracking
and masonry crushing at the bottom of the structure due
to self-weight (Preciado, 2015) while tensile strength of
masonry has a slight influence on the maximum base
shear (Milani et al., 2012). Seismic behavior of masonry
454 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
bell towers can be highly influenced by the height, size
of openings, thickness of the walls, cross-section area
and existence of irregularities along the height (Valente
and Milani, 2016a, b). The fundamental mode controls
the time history of the displacement at the top of the
structure and, on the other hand, higher modes have a
crucial influence on the base shear (D'Ambrisi et al.,
2012). Seismic behaviour of slender structures can be
controlled by vertical ground motion (Bayraktar et al.,
2018). In some cases, the results obtained from NDA
were compared with those from pushover analysis
(PA) (Casolo et al., 2013; D'Ambrisi et al., 2012) and
limit analysis (Torelli et al., 2020; Milani et al., 2012).
Although few in number, seismic analyses have been
performed on multi-tier pagodas built of masonry walls
and timber framework by means of FEM. Linear time-
history response analysis indicated that the top of a multi-
tier pagoda could reach ten times as high acceleration
as the peak ground acceleration during an earthquake
(Soti et al., 2020). Multi-tier pagodas were shown to be
vulnerable in walls up to 1/3 the height of the ground tier
by nonlinear modal analysis (Shakya et al., 2014). Jaishi
et al. (2003) performed linear response spectrum analyses
to characterize dynamic behavior of multi-tier pagodas.
The process of a collapse mechanism which occurred
in a five-tier pagoda was described more precisely by
KLA than by NDA (Endo and Hanazato, 2019). NDA
demonstrated the influence of the strengthening schemes
adopted to a three-tier pagoda more accurately than PA
(Endo and Hanazato, 2018).
This research focuses on the seismic assessment
of two multi-tier pagodas. They are a two-tier pagoda,
the Changu Narayan temple, and a five-tier pagoda, the
Kumbeshwar temple. The two pagodas were struck by
2015 Gorkha earthquake. The entire Changu Narayan
temple was seriously damaged, while the top tier of
the Kumbeshwar temple collapsed. In this study, the
seismic behavior of the two pagodas was examined by
mean of FE analysis. The material properties adopted
for the two models were determined, considering
dynamic identification tests and penetrometer tests. For
the dynamic identification tests, free-ambient and force
vibration tests were carried out on the actual structures.
The penetrometer tests were conducted on a number of
traditional structures. PA and NDA were adopted as the
seismic assessment. For NDA, the accelerogram created
from the main shock of the 2015 Gorkha earthquake
was used. The results obtained from the analyses were
carefully examined and compared with the mechanisms
and damage observed in the actual structures. The
behavior of the two pagodas under earthquakes was
compared, and it suggests common seismic behavior
of multi-tier pagodas. A variety of studies have been
conducted on seismic behavior of slender structures.
Nevertheless, limited research has been performed,
especially by means of NDA, to properly characterize
the seismic behavior of multi-tier pagodas in spite of
their cultural significance and seismic vulnerabilities.
Vol. 20
This study aims to improve the understanding of seismic
behavior of multi-tier pagodas and to suggest efficient
analysis strategies for them.
2 Introduction to the pagodas
2.1 Description of the pagodas
The case study pagodas are situated in the
Kathmandu valley, Nepal. In the valley, a variety of
historic buildings exist as they represent Newari Culture
(UNESCO, 2019). Traditional Newari structures are
usually built of brick masonry walls in earthen mortar
and timber members (beams and columns) (Bernier,
1979; Maskey, 2012). A typical brick masonry wall is
composed of three leaves (Shakya et al., 2014). Burnt
bricks are used for the external leaves while rubble is
used for the internal ones (Shakya et al., 2014). Sal
timber is frequently used as a structural element for
Newari traditional structures (Ranjitkar, 2006). The
timber members confine orthogonal walls and improve
integrated behavior of masonry walls (Langenbach,
1989; Ranjitkar, 2006). Nonetheless, such traditional
structures can be seismically vulnerable when timber
members are not adequately bonded to walls (Weise et
al., 2018; Apil et al., 2017).
It is said that King Hari Dutta Verma established
the Changu Narayan temple in 325 AD (Amatya,
2007) (Figs. 1(a)-1(b)). A pillar of the pagoda has an
inscription of 464 AD by King Manadev, which implies
that the pagoda existed then. The existing structure of the
Changu Narayan temple dates back to 1576 (Bonapace
and Sentini, 2011). It was constructed by Shankar Dev.
Shankhu under the name of Bajrajogini (Shrestha and
Singh, 1972). The Changu Narayan temple is probably
one of the oldest existing pagodas in Nepal (Amatya,
2007). The pagoda has gone through restoration various
times. In 1977, the roofs were repaired and consolidated.
The repair of the roofs was also conducted in 1988 and
2000. Before the 1934 Nepal-Bihar earthquake, the
roofs of the first tier had already been replaced with
corrugated steel roofs.
The exterior dimensions of the ground tier are
9.30×9.30 m2 (Fig. 1(c)). Inside the ground tier, there
is another area enclosed by four walls. The dimensions
are 4.68×4.68 m2. The outer and inner area is named
the sanctuary and altar, respectively, herein, according
to their religious functions. The walls of the ground tier
are 7,500 mm high (Fig. 1(d)). In each sanctuary wall,
there is a large opening as an entrance to the pagoda. The
width and height of the opening is 6.30×2.70 m2. In the
west altar wall, there is an opening as an entrance to the
altar. The dimensions of the opening are 1.65×2.20 m2.
The first tier has the same dimensions as the altar. The
walls of the first tier are 5,400 mm high. The total
height of the pagoda is 18.11 m. The masonry walls
are 750 mm thick. The masonry is composed of solid
No. 2 Yohei Endo and Toshikazu Hanazato: Seismic assessment of two multi-tiered pagodas damaged by the 2015 Nepal earthquake 455

(a) (b)
→a N
5,150 mm

5,400 mm

7,300 mm

7,500 mm
→ a'
4,800 mm
(c) (d)

Fig. 1 Changu Narayan temple: (a) after the Gorkha earthquake (August, 2017), (b) after the restoration (December, 2018)
(c) plan of the ground tier and (d) section a-a' ((c)-(d) original drawings from Department of Archaeology, Nepal)

bricks and earthen mortar (Menon et al., 2017). Timber
columns are located at the corners of the walls. As for
the columns at the corners of the sanctuary walls, the
cross section is 255×255 mm2. Regarding the columns
at the corners of the altar walls, the cross section is
180×180 mm2. Columns are also located in the altar
walls. The cross section is 110×110 mm2. At the middle
height of the sanctuary masonry walls, horizontal cross
timber beams are placed. The cross section of the cross
beam is 200×200 mm2. The cross timber beams connect
the sanctuary and altar walls. The roofs consist of timber
rafters, joists and beams. The timber rafters sit on the
timber horizontal beams. The rafters are also supported
by timber joists. The timber panels located on the timber
rafters are covered with thick mud and ceramic tiles on
the ground tier while with corrugated steel roofs in the
first tier. A more detailed description is found in Amatya
(2007) and Bonapace and Sestini (2003).
The Kumbeshwar temple is a five-tier pagoda (Fig.
2(a)). The original temple was built around in 1392 as
a two-tiered pagoda. Three tiers were added over the
two tiers in the 17th century. The dimensions in plan
are 7.93×7.59 m 2, 4.30×3.56 m 2, 3.30×2.25 m 2,
2.00×1.39 m2 and 1.60×1.20 m2 (ground, first, second,
third, fourth tier, respectively) (Fig. 2(d)). The height of
the walls of each tier is 7.80, 4.01, 3.38, 2.70 and
2.31 m (ground, first, second, third, fourth tier, in turn)
(Fig. 2(e)). The pagoda sits on a stone foundation. The
height of the foundation is 470 mm. The total height
of the pagoda is 23.11 m including the pinnacle. The
external leaves of the walls are composed of solid bricks
and earthen mortar. The thickness of the walls is 750 mm
(ground tier), 650 mm (first tier), 560 mm (second tier),
500 mm (third tier) and 450 mm (fourth tier). The timber
crossbeams provide connections between the altar and
sanctuary walls. They are located at the mid-height and
top of the ground-tier. Columns were found at the corners
and middle of the walls of the ground and first tier. The
cross section of the crossbeams is 150×150 mm2. The
cross section of the columns is 255×255 mm2 (external
walls of the ground tier) and 150×150 mm2 (internal
walls of the ground tier and first tier). Descriptions and
drawings of the Kumbeshwar temple are found also in
(CARD, 2009; Endo and Hanazato, 2019).
2.2 Damage and mechanisms observed after the 2015
Gorkha earthquake
A severe earthquake, called the 2015 Gorkha
earthquake, hit Nepal at 06:11 UTC (Coordinated
456 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 20

(a) (b) (c)

N → 2,860 mm

2,310 mm

2,700 mm

3,380 mm
a a'
→

4,010 mm
7,590 mm

7,800 mm

7,930 mm
(d) (e)

Fig. 2 Kumbeshwar temple: (a) before the Gorkha earthquake, (b) collapse of the fourth tier due to the Gorkha earthquake (a
picture taken by Dr. Jishnu Subedi), (c) recent state under the restoration (December, 2018) (d) plan of the ground tier and
(e) a-a’ section ((d)-(e) from CARD (2009))

Universal Time) on April 25, 2015. The accelerograms
recorded at the KATNP station are considered for the
present study (CESMD, 2019). The acceleration time
histories of the NS, EW, UD direction are shown
in Figs. 3(a)–3(c). Figure 3(d) presents the response
spectra. A detailed discussion on the Gorkha earthquake
is found in Takai et al. (2016).
The Changu Narayan temple was seriously damaged
by the 2015 Gorkha earthquake (Fig. 1(a)). Damage was
distributed all over the structure. It was still standing after
the earthquake but could have potentially collapsed if
minor earthquakes occurred (Institute of Cultural Affairs
Nepal, 2015). Serious damage was observed, especially
in the ground tier (Japan National Research Institute for
Cultural Properties, 2016). Many bricks at the corners
of the ground tier were scattered. The emergency
repair was conducted by relaying the scattered bricks.
In addition, the pagoda was supported by emergency
timber scaffoldings (Japan National Research Institute
for Cultural Properties, 2016). The restoration was
completed on December, 2018 (Fig. 1(b)). The earthen
mortar used for the masonry walls was replaced with
lime mortar (DoA, 2019).
The Kumbeshwar temple was severely damaged
during the 2015 Gorkha earthquake. The fourth tier was
considerably damaged but still survived. The collapse of
the fourth tier occurred during the aftershock on May
12, 2015 (Fig. 2(b)). The upper three tiers (second, third,
fourth) were under reconstruction as of December, 2018
(Fig. 2(c)).
3 In-situ experiments
3.1 Penetrometer tests
Penetrometer tests were applied to the joints of the
two buildings in Bhaktapur city. They are the Nyatapola
temple and a building located at the eastern gate of
the Changu Narayan temple (referred to as the gate
building herein). The Nyatapola temple was constructed
in the early 18th century (Shrestha and Singh, 1972).
The penetrometer tests were also carried out on the
joints of masonry specimens built in a laboratory at
KHWOPA engineering college, Nepal. The specimens
were constructed to perform compressive, bending and
diagonal compression tests. They were composed of
burnt bricks and earthen mortar. The earthen mortar used
for the specimens was made of local loam, with regard
to the Nepalese building code (DUDBC, 1994a). The
 No. 2 Yohei Endo and Toshikazu Hanazato: Seismic assessment of two multi-tiered pagodas damaged by the 2015 Nepal earthquake
Acceleration (g) Acceleration (g)
0.1
0 than the laboratory-built specimens, considering the
-0.1
0.1
0 Nyatapola temple have spent a long time under high
-0.1
0.2
Acceleration (g)
0.1
0 The Changu Narayan temple was examined by
-0.1
-0.2
0.6
Acceleration (g)
0.4
0.2
00
Fig. 3 2015 Gorkha earthquake: time history of acceleration
in the NS direction (a) EW direction, (b) UD direction
(c) and (d) response spectra ((a)-(c) from CESMD (2019))
description of the laboratory tests is presented by Endo
et al. (2020).
The penetrometer tests were carried out by means
of a penetrometer from the Maruto Testing Machine
Company (2019) according to the guidelines of the Japan
Society of Civil Engineers (1991). This penetrometer
calibrates the uniaxial compressive strength of the tested
surface by measuring the depth of needle penetration.
The test was repeated 15 times in each case. As for
Nyatapola temple, the tests were performed on the
interior side of the walls of the ground tier (Fig. 4(a)).
The observed average strength was 6.23 MPa. As for
the gate building, the exterior and interior side of the
wall were tested (Fig. 4(b)). As for the exterior side, the
average compressive strength was equal to 4.99 MPa
while for the interior, it was equal to 2.09 MPa. As for
the masonry specimens constructed in the laboratory,
the observed average compressive strength was equal to
1.57 MPa (Fig. 4(c)).
As for the gate building, the exterior side of the wall
showed a higher value than the interior-side walls by
nearly 2.5 times. This is probably due to the fact that
the exterior side of the wall was composed of better
quality masonry. The walls of the Nyatapola temple
showed higher average strength than the gate building
and laboratory specimens. Two reasons are considered
457
to explain this observation. First, presumably earthen
mortar of the Nyatapola temple was of better quality
historical significance of the temple. In fact, it is said that
Time (s) the strength of earthen mortar can be varied, depending
(a) on its constituents (Reddi et al., 2012; Ranjitkar, 2006).
Second, the tested parts of the earthen mortar of the
vertical pressure from the upper portion of the walls, and
Time (s) as a result, possibly hardened the mortar.
(b)
3.2 Dynamic identification tests
means of dynamic identification tests on August 16-18,
Time (s) 2017 (Kawashima et al., 2018). The tests were conducted
(c) using uniaxial servo velometers whose sensitivity was
Gorkha UD direction
1000 V/m/s. Three velometers were attached on the
Gorkha NS direction
Gorkha EW direction
surface of the plinth to measure the motion in the NS,
EW, and UD directions. Two velometers each were
attached to a wall of the ground tier (5 m from the plinth
surface), to that of the first tier (11 m from the plinth
surface) and to the top of the first tier (14 m from the
plinth surface). These sensors measured the motion in the
2 4 6 8
NS and EW directions. In total, nine sensors were used.
Period (s) Free ambient and force vibration tests were performed.
(d) The test detected 3.04 Hz in the EW direction and 2.94
Hz in the NS direction as the eigenvalue of the first mode.
The dynamic identification tests were conducted on
Kumbeshwar temple before the Gorkha earthquake, as
presented in a previous publication (Endo and Hanazato,
2019). The same velometers as in the tests of the Changu
Narayan temple were used. The observed eigenvalues
were 1.79 Hz, 3.83 Hz and 6.32 Hz for the first, second
and third mode in the EW direction and 2.02 Hz, 4.5 Hz
and 7.32 Hz in the NS direction.
4 Numerical analyses
4.1 Adopted material models
The considered material parameters for the present
study are shown in Table 1. The parameters of the
timber were determined by considering the Nepalese
building code (DUDBC, 1994a) and characterisation
tests conducted on Sal timber (Kim et al., 2017).
The parameters of the brick masonry were chosen
in accordance with previously conducted masonry
material characterization tests on masonry in earthen
mortar (Rahgozar and Hosseini, 2017; Clementi et al.,
2008; Lenci et al., 2011; Lenci et al., 2012; Endo et al.,
2020), the penetrometer tests discussed in Section 3.1
and the Nepalese code (DUDBC, 1994b). A number of
empirical equations for the estimation of the masonry
compressive strength were also considered (CEN, 1996;
Dymiotis and Gutlederer, 2002; Hendry and Malek,
1986; Kaushik et al., 2007). The adequacy of the
adopted material parameters was examined by means
458 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 20

Table 1 Adopted material properties

Brick masonry Brick masonry
Timber
(type A) (type B)
Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 0.24 0.8 13
Tensile strength (MPa) 0.08 0.16 40
Compressive strength (MPa) 1.6 3.2 40
Poisson ratio (-) 0.2 0.2 0.2
Unit weight (kg/m3) 1,800 1,800 900

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 4 Penetrometer test: (a) Nyatapola temple (b) tested wall of gate building of the Changu Narayan temple and (c) laboratory
specimen

of sensitivity analyses. Two types of masonry were
considered. They are referred to as type A and B herein.
Type A represents masonry with limited strength. The
compressive strength is 1.6 MPa. The tensile strength is
5% of fc. The modulus of elasticity is 150 times fc. Type
B represents masonry with reasonable strength. The
compressive strength is 3.2 MPa. The tensile strength
is 5% of fc. The modulus of elasticity is 250 times fc.
The properties of type-B masonry were adopted for the
masonry walls of the Changu Narayan temple. As for
Kumbeshwar temple, the properties of type-A masonry
were applied to the masonry walls of the upper three
tiers (second, third, fourth) and type-B to those of the
lower two tiers (ground, first). The decision was made
considering the construction history discussed in Section
2.2, the penetrometer tests discussed in Section 3.1 and
the damage states of the two pagodas after the Gorkha
earthquake.
Interface behavior was adopted between the timber
cross beams and masonry walls and also between the
timber columns and masonry walls. Since experimental
evidence is scarcely available regarding behavior
between timber and brick masonry with earthen mortar,
interface behavior between brick masonry with lime
mortar and timber was considered (Vintzileou, 2008;
Moreira et al., 2014). The Mohr Coulomb friction model
was adopted (Fig. 5(a)). For the normal linear stiffness,
100 N/mm3 was considered and 50 N/mm3 for the shear
stiffness. The considered friction angle (ϕ) was 29o
(tanϕ=0.55). The value of the tensile strength of the
masonry was considered for the cohesion (c in
Fig. 5(a)). Both geometrical and material nonlinearity
were adopted.
4.2 Failure criteria
For the timber, the von Mises plasticity model was
considered in compression and tension. For the brick
masonry, the rotating to fixed total strain crack model
was adopted. The total strain crack model was originally
introduced by Vecchio and Collins (1986). The rotating
to fixed total-strain-crack model is a combination of the
two models (rotating and fixed one) (Manie and Kikstra,
2017). The direction of the crack is fixed once the critical
crack strain is reached. Until then, the crack rotates in
parallel with the principal-strain direction. In the present
study, the critical crack strain was considered as equal
to the strain at the tensile strength of the masonry (εt in
Fig. 5(b)). A linear softening curve was considered in
tension (Fig. 5(b)) and a parabolic curve in compression
(Fig. 5(c)) was considered for uniaxial behavior. As for
the brick masonry, the fracture energy was taken
as 20 N/m for masonry type A (50 N/m for type B) in
tension and 2,500 N/m for type A (5,000 N/m for type B)
in compression.
No. 2 Yohei Endo and Toshikazu Hanazato: Seismic assessment of two multi-tiered pagodas damaged by the 2015 Nepal earthquake 459

4.3 Description of the FE models
The FE models were created in the software of TNO
DIANA (2017). The model of the Changu Narayan
temple is composed of 38,335 nodes, 138,072 four-
node tetrahedron solid elements, 6,296 two-node beam
elements, 1,380 two-node line interface elements and
2,372 mass elements (Fig. 6(a)). The solid elements
were used for the masonry walls. The beam elements
were for the timber members. The mass elements were
positioned on the beam elements representing the roof
rafters as the dead weight of the ceramic tiles, mud and
corrugated steel. The timber doors and window panels
were not discretized in the model. As for the roof, the
timber rafters, joists and beams were only discretized.
The same modelling approach was taken for the
discretisation of the Kumbeshwar temple. The model is
composed of 21,961 nodes, 71,138 four-node tetrahedron
solid elements, 4,288 two-node beam elements, 1,046
two-node line interface elements and 1,610 mass
elements (Fig. 6(b)). Both models are fully constrained
along the bottom of the structure.
4.4 Comparison of the modal values
Considering the dynamic identification tests
discussed in Section 3.2, a comparison of the eigenvalues
is made between the actual structure and the FE model
of the Changu Narayan temple. A free-vibration
eigenvalue analysis detected six modes. The detected
modes showed noticeable deformation of the walls. The
summation of the participation factor reached 95.0 % in
the X and Y directions. The actual structure and the FE
model showed close eigenvalues in the first mode with
an error of less than 5% (Table 2). Figure 7(a) presents
the identified mode shape.
As for the Kumbeshwar temple, a free-vibration
eigenvalue analysis identified seven dominant modes.
The sum of the participation factor was equal to 95.0 %
each in the X and Y directions. The actual structure and

tt σ σ
εu εc ε
ft
c

ϕ
ft tn

fc
εt εu ε

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 5 Adopted material model: (a) Mohr Coulomb friction model, (b) linear tension softening and (c) parabolic hardening

Z
Z
Y Y
X X
(a) (b)

Fig. 6 FE models: (a) Changu Narayan temple and (b) Kumbeshwar temple

Table 2 Eigenvalue comparison between the actual structure and FE model, Changu Narayan temple
X Y
Experiment (Hz) 2.94 3.04
FEM (Hz) 3.11 3.17
Participation factor (%) 43.7 46.4
Error (%) 5.78 4.28
460 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 20

the FE model showed good agreement in the first three
modes with an error close to 5% as shown in Table 3.
The mode shapes of the first three modes are shown in
Figs. 7(b)–7(d).
4.5 Pushover analyses
4.5.1 Changu Narayan temple
For pushover analysis (PA) of the Changu Narayan
temple, two different lateral force distribution patterns
were considered. In one case, incremental forces were
applied, according to the mass distributions of the
structure. This is referred to as m-PA herein. In the other,
incremental force patterns according to the shape of the
first mode were applied. This is referred to as Φ-PA.
Since the structure is symmetric, the model representing
a half of the structure was used. Across the cross section
of the model, the translational constraints were applied
in the Y direction and the rotational constraints in the X
and Z directions.
As for m-IPA, the maximum base shear reached
1,817 kN (Fig. 8(a)). Note that the base shear herein
presents the value of the entire model instead of the half

Z Z

Y Y
X X

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 7 Eigenvalue analysis of the pagodas: (a) first mode shape of the Changu Narayan temple, and the Kumbeshwar temple, (b) first
mode, (c) second mode, (d) third mode

2000

1600
Base shear (kN)

1200

800
First tier, m-IPA
Ground tier, ϕ-IPA
400 First tier, ϕ-IPA
Ground tier, ϕ-IPA
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm)
(a)

Z
Y
(b) X
(c)

Fig. 8 Pushover analyses of Changu Narayan temple: (a) base shear-displacement relations at different control nodes and principal
strain contours at the state close to the failure obtained from (b) m-PA and from (c) Φ-PA
No. 2 Yohei Endo and Toshikazu Hanazato: Seismic assessment of two multi-tiered pagodas damaged by the 2015 Nepal earthquake 461

model. The maximum displacement was 50.8 mm at the
top of the ground tier and 12.4 mm at of the top of the
first tier. The ground tier showed considerable damage
in the longitudinal and transversal walls. On the other
hand, the first tier showed little damage (Fig. 8(b)). As
for Φ-PA, the maximum base shear was 550.2 kN. The
corresponding displacement was 26.5 mm at the top of
the ground tier and 5.5 mm at the top of the first tier
(Fig. 8(a)). The longitudinal sanctuary wall showed
shear damage (Fig. 8(d)). Significant shear damage
was seen in the longitudinal altar walls. The transversal
altar wall showed diagonal damage suggesting an arch
mechanism. The damage in the corners of the altar walls
implied out-of-plane movement of the transversal altar
walls. Damage was seen around connections between
the walls and roof beams of the first tier. On the other
hand, little damage was seen in the walls of the first
tier.

Table 3 Eigenvalue comparison in the X direction between the actual structure and FE model, Kumbeshwar temple
X 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
Experiment (Hz) 2.02 4.50 7.32 – – – –
FEM (Hz) 2.04 4.41 7.91 10.37 18.09 27.16 28.48
Participation factor (%) 19.4 21.9 16.2 1.00 0.31 0.32 0.3
Error (%) 0.99 –2 8.10 – – – –

Table 4 Eigenvalue comparison in the Y direction between the actual structure and FE model, Kumbeshwar temple
Y 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
Experiment (Hz) 1.79 3.83 6.32 – – – –
FEM (Hz) 1.70 3.83 6.71 9.50 16.84 19.52 24.84
Participation factor (%) 27.3 15.0 14.0 2.69 0.21 0.31 0.42
Error (%) –5.03 0 6.17 – – – –

1400
1200
Base shear (kN)

1000
800
600
Fourth tier, m-IPA Fourth tier, ϕ-IPA
400 First tier, m-IPA First tier, ϕ-IPA
Ground tier, m-IPA Ground tier, ϕ-IPA
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Displacement (mm)
(a)

Z
Y

X
(b) (c)
Fig. 9 Pushover analyses of Kumbeshwar temple: (a) base shear-displacement relations at different control nodes and principal
strain contours at the state close to the failure obtained from (b) m-PA and from (c) Φ-PA
462 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 20

4.5.2 Kumbeshwar temple
PA was adopted for the half model of the Kumbeshwar
temple. Like the Changu Narayan temple, two different
lateral force distribution patterns (m-PA, Φ-PA) were
considered. As for m-PA, the maximum base shear
was equal to 1,310 kN (Fig. 9(a)). The corresponding
displacement was 43.2 mm at the top of the ground tier,
69.4 mm the top of the first tier and 134.0 mm at the top
of the fourth tier. Significant shear damage was seen in
the longitudinal walls of the ground and first tier (Fig.
9(b)). Φ-PA showed that the maximum base shear
was 519.6 kN. The corresponding displacement was
0.79 mm at the ground tier, 5.70 mm at the first tier and
115.2 mm at the fourth tier (Fig. 9(a)). Shear damage
was propagated in the second, third and fourth tier
(Fig. 9(c)). High damage concentration was seen at the
middle height of the third tier. The m-PA showed damage
concentrated in the ground and first tier while Φ-PA
presented damage in the second and third tier.
4.5.3 Comparison of the results
Both pagodas showed shear damage in the
longitudinal walls of the ground tier by m-PA. Damage
also developed around the corners of the walls of the
ground tier, suggesting the out-of-plane movement
of the transversal walls. Φ-PA of the Changu Narayan
temple showed damage patterns similar to m-PA. Φ-PA
presented a relatively high portion of the lateral forces
in the ground tier similar to m-PA (Fig. 10(a)). Φ-PA
of the Kumbeshwar temple demonstrated damage in
the second and third tiers while that of m-PA showed
damage in the ground and first tier. In the case of the
Kumbeshwar temple, as expected, m-PA had a high
concentration of lateral forces in the lower tiers while
Φ-PA had concentrations of lateral forces in the upper
tiers (Fig. 10(b)).

14

12

10
Height (m)

4
NDA at 39.6 s
NDA at 27.1 s
2 NDA at 5 s
ϕ-IPA
m-IPA
00 200 400 600
Force (kN)
(a)
Height (m)

NDA at 38.7 s
NDA at 27.0 s
NDA at 16.9 s
NDA at 5.1 s
ϕ-IPA
m-IPA

-1600 -1200 -800 -400 0 400 800 1200

Force (kN)
(b)
Fig. 10 Comparison of lateral force distribution patterns between PA and NDA: (a) Changu Narayan temple and (b) Kumbeshwar
temple
No. 2 Yohei Endo and Toshikazu Hanazato: Seismic assessment of two multi-tiered pagodas damaged by the 2015 Nepal earthquake
4.6 Nonlinear dynamic analyses
4.6.1 Changu Narayan temple
40-second accelerograms were considered as the
input load, which corresponds to the part from 10
seconds to 50 seconds of the entire accelerograms shown
in Figs. 3(a)–3(c). This part was chosen because it was
substantially predominant in terms of the magnitude
of the acceleration. Three components (NS, EW, UD)
were adopted at the same time. They were combined
in the ratio of NS:EW:UD=1:0.3:0.3 (CEN, 2005). The
ratio of the NS direction was higher since this direction
was considered more influential to the studied pagoda,
considering the response spectra (see, Fig. 3(d)). A
Rayleigh damping model was considered. For the value
of a0 and a1, 1.1781 and 0.0020 were adopted. The
presented values have been determined by considering
20
Displacement (mm)
10
-10
-20
Base shear force (kN)
NS+EW+UD
NS+EW
NS
Displacement (mm)
(c)
Fig. 11 NDA of Changu Narayan temple: (a) displacement time-history at the top of the tiers (b) base shear-displacement relation
at the top of the first tier and principal strain contours, (c) at 27.1 seconds with NS+EW+UD components, (d) at 27.1 s
with NS component and (e) at 27.1 s with NS+EW components
463
the natural frequency of the first and second mode of
the model. The damping coefficient was assumed to be
equal to 5%. The Newmark-beta method was used for the
time integration. Time intervals equal to 0.002 seconds
were assumed. The constant average acceleration was
considered. The parameters were γ=0.5 and β=0.25. The
entire model of the pagoda was used for the NDA.
The absolute maximum displacement was observed
at 27.1 seconds at the top of the fourth tier (Fig. 11(a)).
The observed value was -22.9 mm and the corresponding
base shear was 533 kN. The maximum base shear was
912.7 kN at 26.3 seconds. Base shear-displacement
relations of the top of the ground and first tier are shown
in Fig. 11(b). At 27.1 seconds, diagonal damage appeared
over the opening of the longitudinal and transversal walls
in the ground tier (Fig. 11(c)). The upper portion of the
transversal walls of the first tier showed shear damage.
The vertical damage at the corner of the ground and
1st tier
Ground tier
Time (s)
(a)
(b)
Z
X
Y
(d) (e)
464 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 20

first tier suggests out-of-plane movement of both tiers.
The observed damage patterns correspond to the actual
structure. The four corners of the walls of the ground tier
were severely damaged, as discussed in Section 2.2.
Two additional analyses were carried out to examine
the contribution of each component of the earthquake on
the studied pagoda. In one analysis, NDA was conducted
only with the NS component adopted while the other
analysis with the horizontal components (NS+EW)
combined. In the latter case, the ratio (NS:EW=1.0 : 0.3)
was considered (CEN, 2005). For the analysis with the
single component, a half model was used. In Fig. 11(b),
the dots show the absolute maximum responses obtained
from the two analyses. Figures 11(c)–11(e) show that
the three analyses (NS, NS+EW, NS+EW+UD) showed
similar damage patterns. Presumably, influences of the
NS component were dominant in the seismic behavior
of the Changu Narayan temple. As a result, the two
additional analyses presented results similar to the
analysis with the three components (NS+EW+UD).

120
80
Displacement (mm)

40
0
-40
-80
-120 1st tier
4th tier
-160
Time (s)
(a)
Base shear (kN)

4th tier (NS+EW+UD) 1st tier (NS+EW+UD)

NS+EW NS
Displacement (mm)
(b)

(c) (d)

Y
X

(e) (f)
Fig.12 NDA of Kumbeshwar temple: (a) displacement time-history at the top of tiers (b) base shear-displacement relation at the
top of the fourth tier and principal strain contours with NS+EW+UD components, (c) at 27.0 s and (d) at 27.5 s,
(e) with NS component at 27.0 s and (f) with NS+EW components at 27.0 s
No. 2 Yohei Endo and Toshikazu Hanazato: Seismic assessment of two multi-tiered pagodas damaged by the 2015 Nepal earthquake
4.6.2 Kumbeshwar temple
A Rayleigh damping model was also considered for
the NDA of Kumbeshwar temple. 0.7496 and 0.0028 are
adopted for a0 and a1, respectively. The same Newmark-
beta method as discussed in Section 4.6.1 was used.
Time intervals were 0.002 seconds. The three directions
of the Gorkha earthquake (NS, EW, UD) were combined
in the same ratio as mentioned in Section 4.6.1.
The absolute maximum displacement was -171.3 mm at
27.0 s (Fig. 12(a)). The corresponding base shear was
103.0 kN. At this moment, substantial damage was
observed in the entire second and third tier (Fig. 12(c)).
Base shear-displacement relations of the top of the first
and fourth tier are presented (Fig. 12(b)). The absolute
maximum base shear was -359.5 kN at 5.0 s. It is seen
that the fourth tier is even more deformed than the first
tier. The maximum positive displacement (102.9 mm)
was seen at 27.5 seconds. At this moment, extensive
damage was seen in the lower portion of the fourth tier,
just under the openings (Fig. 12(d)). It would correspond
to the mechanism observed in the actual structure as
discussed in Section 2.2 (see, Fig. 2(b)).
Three additional analyses were conducted with
different combinations of the components (NS, UD,
NS+EW). In the case of NS+EW, the same ratio was
used as presented in Section 4.6.1. As for the analysis
only with the UD component, very little damage
appeared. In Fig. 12(b), the dots show the absolute
maximum responses obtained from the two analyses
(NS, NS+EW). When only the single component (NS,
UD) or horizontal components (EW+NS) were adopted,
little damage appeared in the fourth tier (Figs. 12(e)-
12(f)). It is speculated that the vertical component played
a certain role in the collapse of the upper portion of the
fourth tier, although the contributions of the horizontal
components cannot be ignored.
4.6.3 Comparison of the results
The two pagodas showed considerably different
absolute maximum responses. The Changu Narayan
14
12
Storey height (m)
10
8
6
NS+EW+UD
4 NS+EW
NS
2 m-IPA
ϕ-IPA
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Storey drift (%)
(a)
Fig. 13 Comparison of inter-storey drift between pushover analyses and NDA: (a) Changu Narayan temple and (b) Kumbeshwar
temple
465
temple demonstrated -22.9 mm at 27.1 seconds
(Vmax=912.7 kN) and the Kumbeshwar temple showed
-171.3 mm at 27.0 seconds (Vabs, max=-359.5 kN). When
the damage patterns presented by NDA were compared,
the Kumbeshwar temple was much more severely
damaged than the Changu Narayan temple.
The inter-story drifts are compared between PA and
NDA. As for the Changu Narayan temple, Φ-PA and
NDA showed comparable inter-story drifts (Fig. 13(a)).
On the other hand, m-PA overestimated inter-story drift
both in the ground and first tier compared to Φ-PA and
NDA. As for the Kumbeshwar temple, all NDA results
showed similar inter-story drifts. The m-PA showed
nearly uniform inter-story drifts (Fig. 13(b)). Φ-PA
presented much larger inter-story drifts in the upper tiers
than in the lower tiers. This is reasonable, considering
the concentration of lateral forces in the upper tiers and
their limited stiffness (see, Fig. 10(b)).
The lateral force distribution patterns are compared
between PA and NDA. At the beginning of the analysis
of the Changu Narayan temple (i.e., NDA at 5.0 s in
Fig. 10(a)), the lateral force distribution patterns of
NDA were similar to those of m-PA. When the damage
of the structure was reached at a moderate level (NDA
at 27.1 seconds), the lateral load distribution patterns
became similar to those of Φ-PA. At the end of the
analysis (NDA at 40 s), the lateral force patterns were
again similar to those of m-PA. As for the Kumbeshwar
temple, the same tendency was seen until the moderate
level damage (NDA at 16.7 s) (Fig. 10(b)). However,
once the structure was significantly damaged (NDA at
27.0 s), the sign of the lateral forces was changed twice
around the second tier. At close to the end of the analysis
(NDA at 38.7 s), the change of the load sign appeared
around the first tier. This observation may suggest that
the lateral force distribution patterns of NDA changes
according to the damage state of the structure.
5 Conclusions
A seismic assessment of common structural features
20
16
Storey height (m)
12
8 NS+EW+UD
NS+EW
NS
4 m-IPA
ϕ-IPA
0.8 0 1 2 3
Storey drift (%)
(b)
466 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
of two multi-tier pagodas was carried out and some
observations are discussed in this section. Pagodas are
vulnerable to both in-plane and out-of-plane movement.
The vulnerability to in-plane movement comes from
large openings in the ground tier while the vulnerability
of the pagoda in out-of-plane movement is from the
limited strength of the masonry. The penetrometer tests
conducted in this study implied that the strength of
earthen mortar could be noticeably different between the
exterior and interior side of the wall.
It is important to discretize pagodas with solid
elements for the creation of reliable models. The walls
discretized with solid elements presented the overlap
of the walls of the upper three tiers of the Kumbeshwar
temple physically more precisely than those discretized
with shell elements, which was previously presented
by the authors (Endo and Hanazato, 2019). The
contribution of timber members cannot be ignored in
the pagodas. In this study, the Mohr-Coulomb friction
model was adopted to include the interface behavior
between timber members and masonry walls. However,
it is not straightforward to include timber members since
experimental evidence is not sufficient regarding such
interface behavior.
As for the considered earthquake, the NS component
was more critical to the studied pagodas than the other
two components (EW, UD). However, when NDA was
conducted with the combination of the EW, NS, UD
components, the damage patterns were closer to the actual
structure than NDA with NS or NS+EW components.
For one of the studied pagodas, the contribution of
the UD component was particularly significant. It is
recommended that the three components be applied at
the same time for NDA of multi-tier pagodas.
The analyses suggested the significance of NDA for
the seismic assessment of multi-tier pagodas in spite of
its computational cost. On the other hand, PA did not
present damage patterns comparable to the damage
observed in the actual structures. In further studies, PA
may have to be applied with different force distribution
patterns from the ones used in this study. In fact, the
analyses herein showed that the lateral force patterns of
NDA were changed in accordance with the progress of the
damage level. They were similar to the mass distribution
patterns at the beginning, to first-mode patterns at a
moderate damage level, and to sign-changing patterns at
a severe damage level. Different PA techniques may also
be suggested including adaptive pushover analysis. This
study presented a seismic assessment of two multi-tiered
pagodas. The conclusions provide useful suggestions
on how to perform efficient seismic analyses of slender
structures and to conduct further studies on similar
subjects, including historical slender structures.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank Dr. Rohit Ranjitkar for suggestions
in conducting the current study. The authors are also
Vol. 20
grateful to KUMONOS in conducting 3D laser scanning
of the Kumbeshwar temple.
References
Amatya S (2007), Monument Conservation in Nepal: My
Experience with the World Heritage Sites of Kathmandu
Valley, Kathmandu: Vajra Publications.
Aril KC, Sharma K and Pokharel B (2017),
“Performance of Heritage Structures During the Nepal
Earthquake of April 25, 2015,”  Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, 23(8): 1346–1384.
Bartoli G, Betti M, Spinelli P and Tordini B (2006),
“An ‘Innovative’ Procedure for Assessing the Seismic
Capacity of Historical Tall Buildings: the ‘Torre Grossa,’
Masonry Tower, Proc V Int Conf Struct Anal Hist Constr
SAHC, 929–937.
Bayraktar A, Hökelekli E, Halifeoğlu FM, Mosallam
A and Karadeniz H (2018), “Vertical Strong Ground
Motion Effects on Seismic Damage Propagations of
Historical Masonry Rectangular Minarets,” Engineering
Failure Analysis, 91: 115–128.
Bernier RM (1979), The Nepalese Pagoda: Origins and
Style, New Delhi: S. Chand.
Binda L and Saisi A (2001), State of the Art of Research
on Historic Structures in Italy, Dept. of Structural
Engineering, Politecnico of Milan, Italy.
Bonapace C and Sestini V (2003), Traditional Materials
and Construction Technologies Used in the Kathmandu
Valley, Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization.
Bonapace C and Sestini V (2011), “L'Arte del Cotto, tra
oriente ed occidente,” Bollettino Ingegneri, 7: 15–22. (in
Italian)
Casolo S, Milani G, Uva G and Alessandri C (2013),
“Comparative Seismic Vulnerability Analysis on Ten
Masonry Towers in the Coastal Po Valley In Italy,” Eng
Struct, 49: 465–490.
Center for Applied Research and Development (CARD)
(2009), Measured Drawing of Kumbeshwar Temple,
Institute of Engineering, Pulchowk Lalitpur.
Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data (CESMD)
(2019), Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data.
https://www.strongmotioncenter.org, accessed April 30,
2019.
CEN (1996), Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry Structures
Part 1-1: General Rules for Buildings -Reinforced and
Unreinforced Masonry, Brussels: European Committee
for Standardization.
CEN (2005), Eurocode 8: Design of Structures For
Earthquake Resistance-Part 1: General Rules, Seismic
Actions And Rules For Buildings, Brussels: European
Committee for Standardization.
Chetouane B, Dubois F, Vinches M and Bohatier C
(2005), “NSCD Discrete Element Method for Modelling
No. 2 Yohei Endo and Toshikazu Hanazato: Seismic assessment of two multi-tiered pagodas damaged by the 2015 Nepal earthquake
Masonry Structures,” Int J Numer Methods Eng, 64: 65–
94. https ://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1358
Clementi F, Ferrante A, Giordano E, Dubois F and Lenci
S (2020), “Damage Assessment of Ancient Masonry
Churches Stroked by the Central Italy Earthquakes of
2016 by the Non-Smooth Contact Dynamics Method,”
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 18(2): 455–486.
Clementi F, Milani G, Ferrante A, Valente M and
Lenci S (2020), “Crumbling of Amatrice Clock Tower
During 2016 Central Italy Seismic Sequence: Advanced
Numerical Insights,” Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale,
14(51): 313–335.
Clementi F, Lenci S and Sadowski T (2008), “Fracture
Characteristics of Unfired Earth,” International Journal
of Fracture, 149(2): 193–198.
Coïsson E, Ferrari L, Ferretti D and Rozzi M (2016),
“Non-Smooth Dynamic Analysis of Local Seismic
Damage Mechanisms of the San Felice Fortress in
Northern Italy,” Procedia engineering, 161: 451–457.
Colas AS, Morel JC and Garnier D (2008), “Yield
Design of Dry‐Stone Masonry Retaining Structures—
Comparisons with Analytical, Numerical, and
Experimental Data,” International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,
32(14): 1817–1832.
D'Altri AM, Milani G, de Miranda S, Castellazzi,
G and Sarhosis V (2018), “Stability Analysis of
Leaning Historic Masonry Structures,” Automation in
Construction, 92: 199–213.
D'Ambrisi A, Mariani V and Mezzi M (2012), “Seismic
Assessment of a Historical Masonry Tower with
Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analyses Tuned on
Ambient Vibration Tests,” Engineering Structures, 36:
210–219.
Department of Archaeology Nepal (DoA) (2019),
Updated Report Kathmandu Valley World Heritage Site
(Nepal) (C 121 bis) 1 FEBRUARY 2019, Retrieved from
https://whc.unesco.org/document/171737
Department of Urban Development and Building
Construction (DUDBC) (1994a), Nepal National
Building Code, 109:1994 Masonry: Unreinforced,
Kathmandu: Department of Urban Development and
Building Construction, Kathmandu.
DUDBC (1994b), Nepal National Building Code,
112:1994 Timber, Department of Urban Development
and Building Construction, Kathmandu.
Dymiotis C and Gutlederer BM (2002), “Allowing for
Uncertainties in the Modelling of Masonry Compressive
Strength,” Construction and Building Materials, 16(8):
443–452.
Endo Y and Hanazato T (2018), “Seismic Analysis
of a Three-Tiered Pagoda Temple Affected by the
2015 Gorkha Earthquake,” International Journal of
Architectural Heritage, 1–14.
Endo Y and Hanazato T (2019), “Seismic Behavior of
a Historic Five-Tiered Pagoda in Nepal,” Structural
467
Analysis of Historical Constructions, 1337–1345,
Springer, Cham.
Endo Y, Yamaguchi K, Hanazato T and Mishra C
(2020), “Characterisation of Mechanical Behavior
of Masonry Composed of Fired Bricks and Earthen
Mortar,”  Engineering Failure Analysis, doi.
org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.104280
Hendry AW and Malek MH (1986), “Characteristic
Compressive Strength of Brickwork from Collected Test
Results,” Masonry Int, 7: 15–24.
Institute of Cultural Affairs Nepal (2015), A Photo-
Compiled Report on Cultural Heritages of Nepal (Before
and After the Major Earthquake in 2015), Retrieved from:
https://www.ica-usa.org/uploads/1/1/3/3/113379689/
earthquake_report.pdf
Ip K, Dizhur D, Sorrentino L, Masia M, Griffith M
and Ingham J (2018), “Critical Review of Numerical
Modelling Techniques for Seismic Response of
Complex URM Buildings,” 10th Australasian Masonry
Conference.
Jaishi B, Ren WX, Zong ZH and Maskey PN (2003),
“Dynamic and Seismic Performance of Old Multi-Tiered
Temples in Nepal,” Eng Struct, 25(14): 1827–1839.
Japan National Research Institute for Cultural Properties
(2016), Project for Investigation of Damage Situation of
Cultural Heritage in Nepal, Project Report. Retrieved
from https://www.tobunken.go.jp/japanese/publication/
pdf/Nepal_NRICPT_2016_ENG_s.pdf
Japan Society of Civil Engineers (1991), Guideline
for Investigation and Test of Soft-Rock, Tokyo: Japan
Society of Civil Engineers. (in Japanese)
Kaushik HB, Rai DC and Jain SK (2007), “Stress-Strain
Characteristics of Clay Brick Masonry Under Uniaxial
Compression,” J Mater Civ Eng, 19(9): 728–739.
Kawashima K, Ponce D, Fujita K, Hanazato T, Morii
M and Hosaka Y (2018), “Restoration of Seismically-
Vulnerable Historical Masonry Structures Struck by an
Earthquake (11) Microtremor Measurement Of Layer
Tower Buildings 2,” 2018 Architectural Institute of
Japan Conference September 4-6 2018, Sendai, Japan
(2 pages). (in Japanese)
Kim S, Fujita K and Hanazato T (2017), “Restoration
of Seismically-Vulnerable Historical Masonry
Structures Struck by an Earthquake Part3 Micro Tremor
Measurement and Damage of Multi Storied Pagodas by
2015 Nepal Gorkha Earthquake,” 2017 Architectural
Institute of Japan conference, 31 August–3 September
2017, Hirsoshima, Japan (2 pages). (in Japanese)
Langenbach R (1989), “Bricks, Mortar and Earthquakes,”
APT Bulletin, 31(3-4): 31–43.
Lemos JV (2007), “Discrete Element Modeling
of Masonry Structures,” International Journal of
Architectural Heritage, 1(2): 190–213.
Lenci S, Clementi F and Sadowski T (2012),
“Experimental Determination of the Fracture
Properties of Unfired Dry Earth,” Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, 87: 62–72.
468 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
Lenci S, Piattoni Q, Clement F and Sadowski T (2011),
“An Experimental Study on Damage Evolution of
Unfired Dry Earth Under Compression,” International
Journal of Fracture, 172(2): 193–200.
Manie J and Kikstra WP (2017), DIANA User's Manual
Material Library (Release 10. 2). Delft: TNO DIANA
BV.
Marto Testing Machine Company (2019), Marto Testing
Machine Company. http://www.maruto-group.co.jp,
Accessed April 30, 2019.
Maskey PN (2012), “History and Construction System
of Traditional Buildings in Kathmandu Valley in Disaster
Risk Management for the Historic City of Patan,” Nepal/
Final Report of the Kathmandu Research Project, Kyoto:
Rits-DMUCH (pp 6–9.)
Menon A, Shukla S, Samson S, Aravind N, Romão
X and Paupério E (2017), “Field Observations on the
Performance of Heritage Structures in the Nepal 2015
Earthquake,” In 16th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering. (13 pages).
Mehrotra A and DeJong M (2017), “The Performance
of Slender Monuments During the 2015 Gorkha, Nepal,
Earthquake,” Earthquake Spectra, 33(1_Suppl): 321–343.
Milani G, Casolo S, Naliato A and Tralli A (2012),
“Seismic Assessment of a Medieval Masonry Tower
in Northern Italy by Limit, Nonlinear Static, and
Full Dynamic Analyses,” International Journal of
Architectural Heritage, 6(5): 489–524.
Moreau JJ (1988), Unilateral Contact and Dry
Friction in Finite Freedom Dynamics, In: Moreau JJ,
Panagiotopoulos PD (eds), Nonsmooth Mechanics and
Applications, Springer, Vienna, pp. 1–82.
Moreira S, Ramos LF, Oliveira DV and Lourenço PB
(2014), “Experimental Behavior of Masonry Wall-
to-Timber Elements Connections Strengthened with
Injection Anchors,” Engineering Structures, 81: 98–109.
Peña F, Lourenço PB, Mendes N and Oliveira DV
(2010), “Numerical Models for the Seismic Assessment
of an Old Masonry Tower,” Engineering Structures,
32(5): 1466–1478.
Poiani M, Gazzani V, Clementi F, Milani G, Valente M
and Lenci S (2018), “Iconic Crumbling of the Clock
Tower in Amatrice After 2016 Central Italy Seismic
Sequence: Advanced Numerical Insight,” Procedia
Structural Integrity, 11: 314–321.
Preciado A (2015), “Seismic Vulnerability and Failure
Modes Simulation of Ancient Masonry Towers by
Validated Virtual Finite Element Models,” Engineering
Failure Analysis, 57: 72–87.
Rahgozar A and Hosseini A (2017), “Experimental and
Numerical Assessment of In-Plane Monotonic Response
of Ancient Mortar Brick Masonry,”  Construction and
Building Materials, 155, 892–909.
Ranjitkar RK (2006), Heritage Homeowner’s
Preservation Manual: Kathmandu Valley World Heritage
Site, Nepal: Advice for Maintenance of Historic Houses
Vol. 20
in the Kathmandu Valley, UNESCO Bangkok.
Reddi LN, Jain AK and Yun HB (2012), “Soil Materials
for Earth Construction: Properties, Classification and
Suitability Testing,” Modern Earth Buildings, pp. 155–
171, Woodhead Publishing.
Roca P, Cervera M and Gariup G (2010), “Structural
Analysis of Masonry Historical Constructions. Classical
and Advanced Approaches,” Archives of Computational
Methods in Engineering, 17(3): 299–325.
Sadegh K, Alireza B, Masoud T, Hamid H and Roohollah
ND (2020), “Static and Dynamic Analysis on Slope
Stability Using a DFN-DEM Approach on the Right
Abutment of the Karun 4 Dam,” Earthquake Engineering
and Engineering Vibration, 19(4): 937–951.
Sarhosis V, Milani G, Formisano A and Fabbrocino F
(2018), “Evaluation of Different Approaches for the
Estimation of the Seismic Vulnerability of Masonry
Towers,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16(3):
1511–1545.
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): 1679–703. doi:10.1007/
s10518-013-9569-6.
Shrestha DB, Singh CB (1972), The History of Ancient
and Medieval Nepal, HMG Press: Kathmandu.
Soti R, Abdulrahman L, Barbosa AR, Wood RL,
Mohammadi ME and Olsen MJ (2020), “Case study:
Post-Earthquake Model Updating of a Heritage Pagoda
Masonry Temple Using AEM and FEM,”  Engineering
Structures, 206: 109950.
Takai N, Shigefuji M, Rajaure S, Bijukchhen S,
Ichiyanagi M, Dhital MR and Sasatani T (2016), “Strong
Ground Motion in the Kathmandu Valley During the
2015 Gorkha, Nepal Earthquake,” Earth, Planets and
Space, 68(1): 10. doi:10.1186/s40623-016-0383-7.
Theodossopoulos D and Sinha B (2013), “A Review of
Analytical Methods in the Current Design Processes and
Assessment of Performance of Masonry Structures,”
Construction and Building Materials, 41: 990–1001.
TNO DIANA (2017), DIANA 10.2-Finite Element
Analysis, Delft: TNO DIANA.
Torelli G, D'Ayala D, Betti M and Bartoli G (2020),
“Analytical and Numerical Seismic Assessment of
Heritage Masonry Towers,” Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering, 18(3): 969–1008.
UNESCO (2019), UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
http://whc.unesco.org. Accessed April 30 2019
Valente M and Milani G (2016a), “Non-Linear Dynamic
and Static Analyses on Eight Historical Masonry Towers
in the North-East of Italy,” Engineering Structures, 114:
241–270.
Valente M and Milani G (2016b), “Seismic Assessment
of Historical Masonry Towers By Means of Simplified
Approaches and Standard FEM,” Construction and
Building Materials, 108: 74–104.
No. 2 Yohei Endo and Toshikazu Hanazato: Seismic assessment of two multi-tiered pagodas damaged by the 2015 Nepal earthquake 469

Vecchio FJ and Collins MP (1986), “The Modified Engineering, 134(6): 961–972.

Compression Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete
Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI Journal 83(2): 219–
231.
Vintzileou E (2008), “Effect of Timber Ties on the
Behavior of Historic Masonry,” Journal of Structural
Weise K, Gautam D and Rodrigues H (2018), “Response
and Rehabilitation of Historic Monuments After the
Gorkha Earthquake,” In Gautam D and Rodrigues H
(Eds.) Impacts and Insights of the Gorkha Earthquake,
pp. 65–94, New York, NY: Elsevier.