VOL II-b Block B Report

Government of Nepal
National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority (NDRRMA)

Earthquake Housing Reconstruction Project (EHRP)
Project Implementation Unit (PIU)
Singhadurbar, Kathmandu
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT WITH DETAILED ASSESSMENT

OF PUBLIC FACILITIES (PACKAGE-1)
Reference No.: NP-NDRRMA-313477-CS-CQS
VOLUME II: Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Report

Draft Report of Facility 4 MJN
BLOCK B
Shree Mahadev Janata Namuna (MJN) Ma. Vi.
Hariwon, Sarlahi
June 2023
Development Partner: Submitted By Joint Venture of:

The World Bank ECoCoDE Nepal-SILT JV 1 | P a g e
IBRD.IDA Lalitpur-01, Lilamarga, Kupandole
Email: ecocode09@gmail.com
Draft Report: Detailed Project Report with Detailed Assessment of Public Facilities (Package 1)
PROJECT AND REPORTS OVERVIEW

Project Name: Detailed Project Report with Detailed Assessment of Public Facilities (Package-1)
Client: National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority (NDRRMA), Earthquake
Housing Reconstruction Project (EHRP)
Consultant: EcoCoDE Nepal-Silt JV
Project Agreement Date: 15 February 2023
Deliverables Details:
Deliverables Report Names Remarks
Inception Inception Report Submitted
Report
Phase-I Report Phase-I Main Report Submitted
Additional 8 volumes for each of 8
facilities
Phase-II Report Phase-II Main Report Submitted
Additional 8 volumes for each of 8
facilities
Draft Report Volume I: Summary Report This report is under
Volume II: Vulnerability Volume II: Vulnerability
Assessment Report Assessment Report
Volume III: Detailed Project
Report
Volume IV: Design Report and
Drawings
Volume V: Rate Analysis and Cost
Estimates
Volume VI: Photographs
Final Report
Current Report: Draft Report of Facility 4 MJN: BLOCK B,

Volume II: Vulnerability Assessment Report
Revision: Version I
First Submission: June 2023
ECoCoDE Nepal-SILT JV 2|Page

CONTENTS
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 7
2 Qualitative Vulnerability Assessment ................................................................................ 9
2.1 Field Investigation ....................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Qualitative identification of seismic vulnerability .................................................... 10
2.3 Damage assessment ................................................................................................... 12
2.4 Condition of non-structural and non-building components ...................................... 16
2.5 Synopsis of qualitative assessment ........................................................................... 19
3 Quantitative Seismic Vulnerability Assessment .......................................................... 20
3.1 Preparation of as-built drawings ............................................................................... 20
3.2 Experimental characterization ................................................................................... 20
Test results ........................................................................................................................ 21
Test summary and interpretation ...................................................................................... 25
3.3 Preliminary vulnerability evaluation ......................................................................... 26
Configuration related checks ............................................................................................ 26
Strength check .................................................................................................................. 26
Synopsis of preliminary evaluation .................................................................................. 27
4 Detailed Seismic Vulnerability Evaluation................................................................... 28
4.1 Evaluation procedure................................................................................................. 28
4.2 General information .................................................................................................. 28
4.3. Load calculations ....................................................................................................... 29
4.3 Load Cases and Combinations .................................................................................. 30
4.4 Modeling and analysis ............................................................................................... 31
Modal periods and mass participation ratios .................................................................... 33
Seismic weight and base shear ......................................................................................... 34
Element level demand and capacities ............................................................................... 34
5 Final remarks .................................................................................................................. 39

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 41

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Front elevation of MJN block B ............................................................................. 8

Figure 1-2: Back elevation of MJN block B .............................................................................. 8
Figure 2-1: Crack map for MJN block B ................................................................................. 12
Figure 2-2: EMS-98 damage grading system for RC and masonry buildings ......................... 16
Figure 3-1: Location of Push Shear test and Foundation Exploration ..................................... 22
Figure 3-2: Push shear test setup. ............................................................................................ 23
Figure 4-1: 3-D View of the FE Model ................................................................................... 32
Figure 4-2: FE Model showing the geometry and adopted meshing [mesh size 0.3 m × 0.3 m]
.................................................................................................................................................. 33
Figure 4-3: Stress contours for tensile stress (envelope load combination) for long wall and
cross wall ................................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 4-4 Stress contours for compressive stress for long wall and cross wall ..................... 38
Figure 4-5: Stress contours for shear stress for long wall and cross wall ................................ 39

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: General information of MJN Block B ...................................................................... 7

Table 2-1: Modified seismic vulnerability identification checklist ......................................... 10
Table 2-2 Details of crack taxonomy as presented in Figure 2-1. ........................................... 13
Table 2-3: Structural Damage Summary ................................................................................. 15
Table 2-4: Non-structural components .................................................................................... 17
Table 3-1: Compressive strength test of bricks........................................................................ 21
Table 3-2: Push shear test results ............................................................................................. 22
Table 3-3: Properties of masonry............................................................................................. 26
Table 3-4: Average shear stress check in masonry shear wall................................................. 27
Table 4-1: General Information for detailed assessment of the building................................. 29
Table 4-2: Seismic Load Calculation....................................................................................... 30
Table 4-3: Material properties for numerical modeling........................................................... 32
Table 4-4: Modal Time Period and Mass Participation ........................................................... 33
Table 4-5: Seismic Weight and Base Shear ............................................................................. 34
Table 4-6: General description of wall .................................................................................... 36
Table 4-7:Permissible compressive stress of masonry ............................................................ 36

1 Introduction
This report, part of volume-II report, shall be read in conjunction with the other five volumes
of the report for holistic overview and inference. Volume-I summarizes the overall findings of
all the studied facilities, Volume-II presents the vulnerability assessment of each building for
all facilities. Volume-III presents detailed information on the scope of work and adopted
methodologies. Volume-IV presents the design details of required intervention and their
drawings. Volume-V presents rate-analysis and cost estimates in building level. This facility
report focusses on details of a facility and focusses on the experimental results for a facility.
Multi-hazard aspects and intervention required in the facility as a whole are highlighted,
whereas hazards related to individual buildings are presented in respective block reports.
This report covers vulnerability analysis of a single building, MJN block B. The features of the
building are summarized in Table 1-1. The building is a single storied masonry construction
with concrete flooring. The building is pictorially presented in Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2. The
building is a brick masonry single storied building constructed in cement mortar.
Table 1-1: General information of MJN Block B
S. N. Parameter Information
1 Facility name Shree Mahadev Janata Namuna Ma Vi
2 Location Hariwon, Sarlahi
4 Terrain Plain
5 Construction year 2055 BS
6 Structural type Load bearing (brick masonry)
7 Number of stories 1 story
8 Roof structure RC slab

Figure 1-1: Front elevation of MJN block B
Figure 1-2: Back elevation of MJN block B

As per the DUDBC (2011) guideline, seismic vulnerability assessment can be carried out in
two phases. Qualitative assessment is for planning purpose and for identifying the priorities
of intervention in the single building or building class as a whole. Quantitative assessment is
for identification of retrofitting strategy and for evaluating the extent of intervention that would
require in the building considering technical, economical, and practical feasibility. The
guideline while suggesting some methods of detailed assessment, also recommends adopting
other methods of detailed structural vulnerability assessment as applicable. Further details
regarding vulnerability assessment are presented in the following section of the report.

2 Qualitative Vulnerability Assessment
Vulnerability indicates the likelihood of consequences that are assumed to occur in the case of
exposure to some level of dynamic actions. When dynamic actions are exposed to a system or
sub-system or even components, there would be two likely scenarios: either damage could
occur, or the energy exposed will be dissipated. In this case, the likelihood can be quantified
through assessment. Assessments are of two types, fundamentally. For the quantitative
evaluation, numerical modeling, computational methods, and destructive as well as semi-
destructive approaches could be deployed. However, all these aspects are time consuming,
require a lot of energy, and manpower. On the other hand, through experienced practitioners,
rapid evaluation of the condition of any structure or component can be performed. For this,
subjective evaluation can be done before or after the occurrence of dynamic action. For seismic
evaluation, pre-earthquake assessment can effectively delineate the pathology of the structure.
The decision should be made in terms of strengthening, functionality change, or even
replacement. On the other hand, when vulnerability assessment is considered in the case of
post-event scenario, either strengthening or continuation of use can be the purpose. A trained
practitioner can go to the field with pre-defined checklists and assign the condition level of the
structure. This is very subjective approach but if experienced practitioners perform, the output
can be near reality. For many strengthening practices across the globe, subjective evaluation
based qualitative assessment is widely practiced. The outputs of vulnerability assessment can
provide insights regarding local interventions such as local repair, and also global performance
checking.
2.1 Field Investigation
Structural characterization and vulnerability understanding as well as decision making requires

realistic dissemination and comparison of various parameters. To obtain such parameters,
initial screening to detailed numerical modeling is required. Numerical modeling and decision-
making regarding functionality of structures and target performance level are supported by
actual material and geometrical attributes of the structure. To characterize material and
geometrical properties, field investigation was performed. Some semi-destructive as well as
non-destructive evaluations were performed. Field visit was conducted by a team of engineers
to characterize the existing building geometrically and mechanically. The first visit led by an
architect was focused on preliminary assessment including preparation of as-built drawings,
while the second visit led by a structural engineer was focused on rigorous qualitative

assessment and conduction of suitable in-situ tests. The third visit let by a senior structural
engineer validated the prepared drawings, supplemented the necessary tests, and verified the
proposed interventions to the structure.
2.2 Qualitative identification of seismic vulnerability
In MJN block B, based on the on-site condition assessment and evaluation of the structure by
the engineer’s team, significant strengthening and detailed evaluation was recommended. This
confirms that no elaborated qualitative analysis is required. However, to better document the
existing vulnerabilities, a checklist developed by Department of Urban Development and
Building Construction (DUDBC, 2011) was used, as shown in Table 2-1. The parameters are
rearranged by grouping similar attributes, for precise understanding.
Table 2-1: Modified seismic vulnerability identification checklist
S. N Category Parameter Value Remarks

1 Lateral load resisting system Shear stress in shear walls * Detailed check
2 Building System Shape C
3 Building System Proportion in plan C
4 Building System Plumb line C
5 Building System Load path C
6 Building System Redundancy C
7 Building System Geometry C
8 Building System Weak story C
9 Building System Soft story C
10 Building System Vertical discontinuity C
11 Building System Mass C
12 Building System Adjacent building C No gap but same
floor levels
13 Building System Deterioration of concrete C
14 Building System Masonry units C
15 Building System Masonry joints C
16 Lateral load resisting system Height to thickness ratio C
17 Lateral load resisting system Masonry layup C
18 Lateral load resisting system Plan irregularities C
ECoCoDE Nepal-SILT JV 10 | P a g e
19 Additional factors for stone No of stories C

buildings
20 Additional factors for stone Unsupported wall length C
buildings
21 Geological site Area history C
22 Geological site Liquefaction C
23 Geological site Slope failure C
24 Building System Mezzanine NA
25 Lateral load resisting system Opening in diaphragm near NA
shear walls
26 Lateral load resisting system Opening in diaphragm near NA
exterior masonry shear wall
27 Lateral load resisting system Diaphragm reinforcement NA
around openings
28 Lateral load resisting system Gable bands NA
29 Lateral load resisting system Diagonal bracing NA
30 Lateral load resisting system Lateral restrainers NA
31 Building System URM wall cracks NC
32 Lateral load resisting system Wall anchorage NC
33 Lateral load resisting system Connections NC
34 Lateral load resisting system Vertical reinforcements NC
35 Lateral load resisting system Horizontal bands NC
36 Lateral load resisting system Corner stitch NC
37 Building System Torsion NK
C = Compliance
NC = Non-Compliance
NA = Not applicable
NK = Not known
* The parameter is evaluated in detail.
The checklist shows that the presence of cracks, poor wall anchorage, poor connections
between roof and wall, absence of continuous bands and corner stitch indicate that, the structure
need significant intervention. Hence, it is decided to perform detailed vulnerability evaluation
to identify the vulnerability condition in detail and propose suitable intervention needs. For
this, detailed quantitative evaluation is presented in the following section of the report.
2.3 Damage assessment
The existing cracks in the building were documented per their location in a standard taxonomy
as marked in Figure 2-1. Details of the cracks are also supplemented in Table 2-2.
Figure 2-1: Crack map for MJN block B
Table 2-2 Details of crack taxonomy as presented in Figure 2-1.
Crack C1: Crack starting from opening, Crack C2: Crack at beam-wall connection
which continues throughout the wall. The region.
crack is visible in interior and exterior
walls.
Crack C3: Continued crack from crack 2. Crack C4: Crack continued from crack 3.
Crack C5: Continued crack 4. Crack C6: Crack between opening at sill level.
Crack C7: Crack at opening. Crack C8: Shear crack at opening.
Crack C4: Vertical and diagonal cracks.
Crack C9: Horizontal crack around

opening.
Table 2-2 shows that opening regions are particularly vulnerable and thus reflect significant
damage. To improve such damages, interventions are required. Mechanisms such as tensile and
shear cracks were visible in block B of MJN. Most of the damage mechanisms were however
found to be local damage modes. The overall damage summary for MJN block B is summarized
in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3: Structural Damage Summary
Structural Damage Condition Remarks

a) Tilting of exterior/internal No
walls
b) Diagonal cracks in structure Yes Minor crack in a few locations
c) Vertical cracks in structure Yes Moderate crack at back elevation
d) Separation of adjacent walls No
e) Crack in columns N/A
f) Crack in beam-column joint N/A
g) Settlement of foundation No
h) Crack on apron Yes Minor crack in a few locations
i) Crack on roof No
j) Crack in staircase N/A
Based on the component level damage modes, global damage grade was defined using
European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98) scale. The EMS-98 scale is used to characterize
damage modes for both structural as well as nonstructural components. A generic
representation of EMS-98 damage grading system is presented in Figure 2-2.
Figure 2-2: EMS-98 damage grading system for RC and masonry buildings
Based on the classification system presented in Figure 2-2, the overall damage is summarized
as:
Overall structural damage: Moderate
Overall non-structural damage: Slight
Damage Grade: DG3 (III as per Figure 2-2) Damage grade DG3 indicates that there should be
significant interventions before the functionality of the block is restored. Also, to ensure full
functionality, strengthening is required.
2.4 Condition of non-structural and non-building components
The condition assessment of non-structural and non-building components is particularly

sensitive in the case of likely occurrence of dynamic excitation. Non-building components such
as flowerpots may fall and may lead to injuries to fatalities. Assessment was conducted through
field observations and interviews. The identified condition, vulnerabilities, and suitable
interventions for risk mitigation are summarized in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4: Non-structural components
1. Architectural Elements: Condition Intervention

a) Parapets / Railings None* -
b) Flowerpots at height None* -
c) Suspended ceilings None* -
d) Roof covering RC Slab -
e) Stairways None* -
*None indicates absence of particular component. This indicates no intervention is
required
2. Sanitation, water supply and Conditions Intervention
mechanical components
a) House drainage system None* -
b) Pipelines None* -
c) Storage tanks Not applicable -
d) Fire protection systems None Fire extinguishers are
required in some
location since this
block is used as office
and account section.
e) Generator Not applicable -
f) Container for hazardous Not applicable -
materials, etc.
3. Electrical Components Conditions Intervention
a) Electrical wiring Exposed wiring Rewiring to be done
for the whole block.
b) Motors / Pumps None -
c) Light fixtures None -
d) Computers, ceiling fans Loose ceiling fans Anchor/fix
etc.
e) Earthing None Earthing required
4. Building and facility Condition Intervention
components
a) Infill Wall / unsupported Maximum 5.81m Perform

wall unsupported wall strengthening and
improve anchorage
b) Compound Walls Not at building level -
c) Overhead tiles, cladding, None* -
antenna
d) Desks and benches None -
e) Inflammable items such as None* -
gases, kerosene, petrol etc.
f) Library stacks None -
g) Tall file cabinets Yes Anchor, fix, and
tighten tall cabinet.
h) Furniture No desk benches -
i) Heavy items below head Yes -
level
j) Opening of doors in No Advantageous if opened
outside direction in outside direction
k) Heavy items on ground Yes -
floor
l) Periodic maintenance of No Regular maintenance is
structure required
m) Trimming of tree branches Yes Few tree branches need
to be trimmed.
n) Structure located in plain Yes -
land
o) Wheelchair accessible No Ramp should be
rooms and toilets constructed.
Bold texts in Table 2-4 indicate the interventions that are adopted in the current design. Table
2-4 also lists some interventions for nonstructural and non-building components that are
instrumental in reducing various risks posed by natural/anthropogenic hazards. Other suggested
intervention can be implemented by the facility on their own or in coordination with related
governmental and non-governmental bodies. Since components and interventions do not
necessarily focus on single hazard, interventions may be planned according to functionality

requirements and most prominent natural hazard considerations.
2.5 Synopsis of qualitative assessment
The qualitative assessment was conducted through site visits, and visual assessment of building
and non-building components of the building. Simple measurements and damage mapping was
also carried out for better understanding of the structure. The assessment concluded that,
quantitative evaluation is necessary, as significant strengthening is required in the building.
Structural damage was also observed in the building together with some level of nonstructural
damage. The overall damage grade as per the EMS-98 classification system is assigned as DG3,
which also prompts further actions regarding strengthening.
3 Quantitative Seismic Vulnerability Assessment
The quantitative phase of assessment involves a more detailed seismic evaluation with
complete analysis of the building for seismic strengthening measures as modifications to
correct/reduce seismic deficiencies identified during the evaluation procedure in qualitative
evaluation phase. Detail information about the building is required for this step of evaluation.
Seismic retrofit becomes necessary if the building does not meet minimum requirements of the
current seismic code. The most important issue to evaluate seismic capacity of an existing
building is the availability and reliability of structural drawings.
For MJN block B, from qualitative assessment, quantitative evaluation has been suggested.
Hence, the evaluation procedure and results are presented in this report. Quantitative evaluation
is further divided into two stages. The first stage includes on-site measurements, and
conduction of appropriate tests for geometrical and mechanical characterization of the
structure, along with simple numerical checks as and when applicable. The second stage
includes detailed structural analysis for the detailed vulnerability assessment and to identify
appropriate intervention and extent of intervention.
3.1 Preparation of as-built drawings
For proper understanding of structural system, and detailed analysis, as-built drawings along
with structural details is a must. As the drawings of this block were not initially available,
architectural drawings were prepared first.
3.2 Experimental characterization
The mechanical characteristics of construction materials are important to assess their

resistance. Furthermore, various engineering properties of the structure are the key parameters
to depict vulnerability. While the common range of the material characteristics such as
compressive strength, shear strength, etc. are prescribed by various codes and guidelines,
additional field tests improve the reliability of the data that could be deviated from the standard
practices. Hence, some representative tests were also conducted based on the condition of the
structure, and the importance of the information in vulnerability evaluation. Thus, after
preparation of as-built drawing, structural assessment team conducted representative tests at
site. Various nondestructive tests were carried out to identify the important structural
characteristics of the building. Foundation exploration was also conducted to identify the
footing dimensions and foundation soil properties. The dimensions of other structural elements
were also identified through field measurements and documented for the detailed analysis of
the structure. For masonry structures, in-situ push shear tests were conducted to determine the
bed-joint shear strength of the masonry, while brick samples were also collected from site and
tested at lab to determine their compressive strength.
Test results
Push shear tests were conducted in three locations in block A and block B. As construction
system of Block A and block B was found to be very similar, the data are averaged from all
tests. Push shear test locations is presented in Error! Reference source not found.. A typical
push shear testing setup is shown in. Brick samples were collected form the push shear test
location and tested at lab. The result of brick compression strength test and push shear test are
shown in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2, respectively.
Table 3-1: Compressive strength test of bricks
Brick Size of brick (mm) Surface Load Compressive

samples area (m2) (KN) strength (MPa)
Length (L) Breadth (B) Thickness
(t)
MJ1 230 115 63 0.02645 400 15.12
MJ2 225 109 58 0.024525 550 22.43

MJ3 230 108 70 0.02484 470 18.92
Average Crushing Strength (N/mm2) 18.82
The observed compressive strength of brick is significantly higher than commonly observed
strength of contemporary bricks. As bricks were manufactured decades ago, the high strength
can be attributed to better quality production during the time of building construction.
However, for design and evaluation purposes, lower bound strength of 15 MPa is considered.
Table 3-2: Push shear test results
Location Brick surface Pressure at first Shearing force Shear strength

area slide
mm2 kg/cm2 N N/mm2
1 (Block A) 24975 150 9491.18 0.19
2 (Block A) 24975 200 12654.90 0.25

3 (Block B) 24975 300 18982.35 0.38
Average 0.27
Figure 3-1: Location of Push Shear test and Foundation Exploration
Figure 3-2: Push shear test setup.

The bed-joint shear strength was observed to vary from 0.19 MPa to 0.28 MPa with average of
0.27 MPa, which shows high variability of strength from place to place. The corresponding
gravity load stress at the test location was about 0.06 MPa. Hence the permissible shear strength
is calculated from various approaches as follows:
a. FEMA-356 method:
 Expected shear strength, 𝑣 = 0.75 0.75𝑣 + /1.5
o Average bed-joint bed shear strength, 𝑣 =𝑣 = −𝑃
 = 0.27 MPa
 Stress due to gravity loads, 𝑃 ≅ 0.06 𝑀𝑃𝑎

 𝑣 = 0.21 𝑀𝑃𝑎
 Gravity stress at critical location, = 0.06 MPa
 Expected shear strength, 𝑣 = 0.13125 MPa

b. DUDBC 2016, method 1 (when shear test data is available):
 Permissible masonry shear strength, v = 0.1 𝑣 + 0.15
o 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑑 𝑗𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ, 𝑣 = 0.21 𝑀𝑃𝑎
o 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠, = 0.06 MPa
o Thus, 𝑣 = 0.03 𝑀𝑃𝑎
c. DUDBC 2016, method 2 (when shear test data is not available):
 Permissible masonry shear strength, v = 0.1 + ×
o G𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠, = 0.06 MPa
o Thus, 𝑣 = 0.11 𝑀𝑃𝑎

d. IS 1905:1987 approach (when field test data is not available):
 Permissible masonry shear strength, 𝜏 = 0.1 +
o 𝜎 = 0.06 𝑀𝑃𝑎
o Thus, 𝜏 = 0.11 MPa
e. IS1905:1987 reverse approach:
 Permissible masonry shear strength, 𝜏 = 0.1 +
 With analogy, 𝜏 = 𝑐 + for test data
o Observed shear stress, 𝜏 = 0.27 MPa

o Gravity stress at test location, 𝜎 = 0.06 MPa
o Thus, observed bed-joint strength, 𝑐 = 𝜏 − = 0.26 MPa
o Adopting Factor of safety, factor of safety (FOS) = 3

o Expected bed-joint shear strength, 𝑐 = = 0.086 𝑀𝑃𝑎
 Expected shear strength, 𝜏 = 𝑐 +
o Gravity stress at critical location, 𝜎 = 0.06 MPa

o Expected shear strength, 𝜏 = 0.096 MPa
From five approaches of calculation above, most consistent result was obtained from approach
(c), (d) and (e), whereas approach (a) slightly overestimated the value. However, approach (b)
was too conservative. Thus, the appropriate value of 0.096MPa is adopted from approach (e)
that utilizes both test information, and codal provisions that is used for the detailed analysis
and design of the structure.
3.2.1.1 Foundation Exploration
Foundation exploration was done to obtain the necessary data regarding the type, size, depth
of foundation as well as the soil type of the facility. Location of foundation exploration was
selected considering the availability of exploration and to assure least disturbance to occupants.
Excavation was done at the corner of the building with the pit as shown in Figure 3-3. The
observed footing dimension is presented in the form of drawing as shown in Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-3: Foundation exploration details

Test summary and interpretation
The summary of engineering parameters obtained from field and laboratory tests is as follows:
Compressive Strength of Brick: 15 MPa
Observed bed joint shear strength of masonry: 0.26 MPa
Foundation: 760 mm wide at a depth of 1180 mm from GL
Bearing Wall: 230 mm thick brick in cement
Foundation soil: Gravel mixed soil with bearing pressure of about 150 KPa
These properties are used for numerical analysis of the building in the later section of the report.
For modeling, various empirical formulations are to be used due to the lack of first-hand
measurements. Using empirical formulations, modeling parameters were identified as
summarized in Table 3-3. Some codal recommendations were also used to demarcate several
properties of masonry as detailed in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3: Properties of masonry
S.N. Description Value Unit Remarks

1 Brick strength 15 MPa Destructive testing
2 Mortar Cement
3 Mortar type (M2 type) Common construction practice
(1:6 mix)
4 Mortar strength 3 MPa
5 Basic compressive strength, 1.03 IS 1905:1897 Table 8
fb
6 Compressive strength 4.12 MPa four times the basic
(fm=4fm’) compressive strength
7 fm = 0.433×fb0.64×fmo0.36 3.64 MPa fb = 15 MPa, fmo = 3 MPa
8 Elasticity of wall 2001.30 MPa Adopt 2000 MPa
(Em=550×fm)
3.3 Preliminary vulnerability evaluation
Preliminary evaluation was done to identify vulnerability of the building. It is an approximate

procedure based on state-of-the-art parameters and practices to identify the level of
vulnerability using primarily observed information with simple checks and calculations.
Although approximate, further decision regarding intervention is largely governed by this step.
Configuration related checks

Configuration related checks were assessed and presented in vulnerability identification
checklist as presented in qualitative assessment. The major checks such as load path,
redundancy, geometry, mezzanines, weak story, soft story, vertical discontinuities, mass
irregularities, high torsion, serious pounding, and short columns, all satisfy the recommended
criteria. Building configuration directly affects vulnerability scenario hence preliminary check
can lead to further intervention planning to seismic gap definition.
Strength check
a. Seismic base shear:
Seismic horizontal base shear is determined based on NBC 105:2020
b. Shear stress in masonry walls:
Average shear stress in masonry shear walls (𝜏 = ) , shall be less than
0.1 MPa for unreinforced masonry wall buildings (Using IITK-GSDMA Guidelines
for Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening of Buildings).
Using the criteria as set above, analytical checks were conducted as summarized in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4 shows that the capacity parameters do not fulfill the recommendations by the
guidelines.
Table 3-4: Average shear stress check in masonry shear wall
Parameter Unit X Y
Seismic base shear KN 398.87 398.87
Average wall thickness mm 230 230
Effective wall area mm2 3263500 3416250
Average shear stress MPa 0.12 0.12
Permissible stress MPa 0.1 0.1
Remarks Not compliant
Synopsis of preliminary evaluation

In a nutshell, the following observations can be made from preliminary evaluation:
 Criteria of preliminary evaluation: The building fails to comply the requirements of
preliminary evaluation.
 Building height: Building in not three story or higher.
 Foundation: Foundation soil is not obviously liquefiable or incompetent.
 Faults: No faults are identified within 12 km of the site.
 Connections of primary structural members: Connection of wall-wall and roof-wall
was judged to be insufficient.
Hence, detailed quantitative evaluation is a must for the building.
4 Detailed Seismic Vulnerability Evaluation
The detailed vulnerability evaluation is based on determining the probable capacities of

structural elements under critical load combinations and comparing them with the probable
seismic demands. It involved numerical modeling to determine demands of each structural
elements and comparison with capacities of respective elements. Using detailed evaluation,
intervention design can be performed. Also, the numerical outputs of detailed vulnerability
assessment provide insights regarding selection of strengthening approaches.
4.1 Evaluation procedure
Seismic demands were evaluated as per the NBC 105:2020. Other loadings (dead loads and
live loads) were calculated based on IS 875:1987. Linear dynamic structural analysis was done
for the load actions for the masonry structure, and the demands for each component was
determined from critical load combinations as per NBC 105:2020.
The demands on each component were compared with the capacities of respective components
to identify whether the components have sufficient capacity against their demands based on
their demand to capacity ratios. Furthermore, global check such as drift limits are also checked.
Vulnerability condition of the building is considered to be acceptable if the following
conditions are satisfied:
a. All critical elements of lateral load resisting elements have strengths greater than the
computed forces and drift checks are satisfied.
b. Except for a few elements, all critical elements have strengths greater than computed
actions and drift checks are satisfied. It needs to be ensured that the failure of these
elements will not lead to loss of stability or initiate accumulated damage.
c. Supplemental criteria are also satisfied, or non-compliant parameters assessed in
seismic vulnerability identification checklist are appropriately addressed.
4.2 General information
During the assessment of the building, following basic information of the building were
collected as presented in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: General Information for detailed assessment of the building
S.N. Parameter Information
1 Facility name Shree Mahadev Janata Namuna Ma Vi
2 Location Hariwon, Sarlahi
4 Terrain Plain
5 Construction Year 2055 BS
6 Structural Type Load Bearing (Brick masonry in cement mortar)
7 Number of stories 1 story
8 Plan configuration Rectangular
Vertical
9 Regular
configuration
Ground coverage
10 62.63 m2
area
11 Wall thickness 230 mm
12 Wall type Brick in cement mortar
13 Brick strength 15 MPa
14 Mortar M2 Grade (1:6 Cement sand mortar)
15 Building occupancy Functional
16 Beam 250 ×300 mm (provided at roof level)
17 Slab RC 100 mm thick
18 Roof Structure RC beam-slab
4.3. Load calculations
4.3.1. Dead Load
Dead loads are the permanent loads that are not supposed to change during the structure’s
design life. The dead loads included in the design are:
a. Unit-weight of materials:
i. Brick Masonry: 19.2 KN/m3
ii. Concrete: 25 KN/m3
4.3.2. Seismic Load (NBC 105:2020)
Seismic load was calculated based on NBC 105:2020. Basically, horizontal seismic forces shall
be considered in structures. The seismic load calculation of building according to NBC
105:2020 is shown in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2: Seismic Load Calculation
Seismic Load Calculation (As per NBC 105:2020)

Parameters Symbol Formula Value Clause
Story height H 3.073 m 3.073

Seismic Zoning factor Z 0.3 Cl. 4.1.4
Importance factor I 1.25 Cl.4.1.5
Ductility Factor 1.5 Cl. 5.3
Over strength Factor for ULS Ωµ 1.1 Cl. 5.4
Over strength Factor for SLS Ωs 1 Cl. 5.4
Time Period (Empirical) T’ KH^3/4 0.12
0.05*3.073^0.75
Time Period (T) 1.25T’ 0.15
Spectral Shape factor (Soil Ch(T) 2.5 Cl. 4.1.2
Type C)
Elastic Site Spectra for ultimate Cu(T) Ch(T)ZI 0.94 Cl.4.1.1.
state
Horizontal Base Shear Cud(T) 𝐶𝑢 (𝑇) 0.57
Coefficient for ultimate 𝑅 ∗ 𝛺µ
Elastic Site Spectra for Cs(T) 0.2Cu (T) 0.19 Cl.4.2

serviceability state
Horizontal Base Shear Csd(T) 𝐶𝑠(𝑇) 0.19
Coefficient for serviceability 𝛺𝑠
4.3 Load Cases and Combinations
Several load combinations assumed to be acting on the building are taken from NBC 105:1994.
Minimum eccentricity of 10% is considered in earthquake load cases in numerical modeling.
Load case for drift check in Serviceability Limit State:

a. ELx (SLS)
b. ELy (SLS)
Load case for drift check in Ultimate Limit State:
a. ELx (ULS)
b. ELy (ULS)
Load combinations are used are as follows:
a. DL + LL
b. 0.7DL+EQ_X
c. 0.7DL+EQ_Y
d. 0.7DL-EQ_X
e. 0.7DL-EQ_Y
f. DL+LL+EQ_X
g. DL+LL+EQ_Y
h. DL+LL-EQ_X
i. DL+LL-EQ_Y
where,
DL = Dead Loads
LL = Live Loads
EQ = Earthquake Load
4.4 Modeling and analysis
Finite element computer program "SAP 2000" was primarily used to model and evaluate the
structure. The software provides excellent design and analysis capabilities. Line (or frame)
elements were used to model rafters and purlin. Assuming that they are fixed at plinth level, all
brick walls are depicted as area (shell) elements. The 3D FE model is created in accordance
with the architectural blueprints (Figure 4-1), and the necessary material attributes are assigned.
Mesh size of 0.3×0.3 m is used for analysis as shown in Figure 4-2. For the purpose of
analyzing the structure in accordance with the codal provisions, linear static and dynamic
analyses are performed. The material properties adopted in FE modeling is as shown in Table
4-3.
Table 4-3: Material properties for numerical modeling
S.N. Material Density (KN/m3) Modulus of elasticity (MPa) Poisson’s

ratio
1 Masonry 19.2 2000 0.25
(As per IS 875-1: 1987)
2 Concrete 24 19365 0.20
(M15 grade)
Figure 4-1: 3-D View of the FE Model
Figure 4-2: FE Model showing the geometry and adopted meshing [mesh size 0.3 m × 0.3
m]
Modal periods and mass participation ratios
The modal periods and mass participation ratios are presented in Table 4-4. Modal analysis is
performed to depict the dynamic characteristics of the building. Together with modal period,
mass participation can be obtained from modal analysis. Some codal provisions recommend
minimum mass participation ratios for some significant modes. Not just the nonlinear dynamic
analysis prompts modal analysis, but also basic checks require it. The time period in the 1st
mode appears to be 0.066 sec. 83.231% and 81.241% of mass is participated up to 12th mode
in X and Y direction, respectively.
Table 4-4: Modal Time Period and Mass Participation
Step Sum Sum

Output Step Num Period UX UY Sum UZ
Case Type Unitless Sec Unitless Unitless Unitless
MODAL Mode 1 0.066062 0.82324 0.00035 2.877E-06
MODAL Mode 2 0.060589 0.8236 0.81067 5.717E-06
MODAL Mode 3 0.048866 0.82604 0.81068 0.06059
MODAL Mode 4 0.048183 0.8269 0.81069 0.20268
MODAL Mode 5 0.044925 0.82832 0.81069 0.20268
MODAL Mode 6 0.038391 0.82832 0.81073 0.20324
MODAL Mode 7 0.037166 0.83017 0.81073 0.20326
MODAL Mode 8 0.034951 0.83097 0.81073 0.20334

MODAL Mode 9 0.033196 0.83117 0.8113 0.21647
MODAL Mode 10 0.032811 0.83125 0.81131 0.21669
MODAL Mode 11 0.032487 0.83186 0.81191 0.22942
MODAL Mode 12 0.032172 0.83231 0.81241 0.22951
Further modal analysis is not performed in the assessment phase as the results showed that
strengthening is necessary. Hence, necessary number of modes are considered in the analysis
for strengthening design.
Seismic weight and base shear

Mass source is defined as per NBC 105:2020. Dead load factor of 1.0 is considered for mass
source whereas for live load factor 0.3 is considered for all type of live loads except for storage
areas where the live load factor of 0.6 is considered. The summary of seismic weight and base
shear is presented in Table 4-5. Table 4-5 shows that the ultimate base shear is 398.87 KN,
whereas the serviceability based base shear is 132.96 KN. The seismic weight is estimated as
699.78 KN.
Table 4-5: Seismic Weight and Base Shear
Percent Ecc C K Weight Used Base Shear

Load Path Dir Unitless Unitless Unitless KN KN
EQ_X (U) X 0.1 0.57 1 699.776 398.872
EQ_Y (U) Y 0.1 0.57 1 699.776 398.872
EQ_X (S) X 0.1 0.19 1 699.776 132.957
EQ_Y (S) Y 0.1 0.19 1 699.776 132.957
*(U) and (S) in first column represents the ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state
conditions.
Element level demand and capacities

The demand at elemental level is presented in the form of stresses determined from structural
analysis using FE modeling. The capacities of elements are also determined based on codal
provisions, test information, and engineering judgements. The evaluation is presented in the
following sections.
4.4.1.1 Tensile Stresses
With reference to the IS 1905, Cl 5.4.2. design of masonry assumes that masonry is not capable
of taking direct tension, i.e. the capacity of masonry in tension is zero.
Figure 4-3 presents the tensile stress contours (Demand) in the structure in envelope load
combination. The maximum tensile stress was found to be concentrated around the edges of
the openings of the long wall and the edges of cross wall with the value around 0.33 MPa and
0.40 MPa, respectively.
Figure 4-3: Stress contours for tensile stress (envelope load combination) for long wall and
cross wall
The analysis shows that, in one or more critical load combinations, there will be tension in most
of the parts of the wall. Hence, enhancements to provide the tensile strength to the wall is
necessary in the building.
4.4.1.2 Compressive Stresses
The permissible compressive stress is calculated using IS 1905 (Code of practice for structural
use of unreinforced masonry). The general description of the representative wall is presented
in Table 4-6, while the calculation of the permissible compressive stress is presented in Table
4-7. The capacity of wall in compression is 0.91 MPa.
Table 4-6: General description of wall
Parameters Value
Story 1
Brick grade 15 MPa
Mortar grade M2 (Cement mortar)
Thickness of wall (T) 230 mm
Length of wall 6.40 m
Height of wall 3.048 m
Table 4-7:Permissible compressive stress of masonry
Parameters Symbol Clause Calculation Value

(IS1905)
Basic Compressive fb 5.4.1 Brick Grade 15 MPa, Mortar M2 1.03
Stress MPa
Area reduction ka 5.4.1.2 Length of wall=6.401 m 1
factor A=L×T=6.401×0.23=1.47 m2 >
0.2m2
Shape kp 5.4.1.3 H/w = 55/115 = 0.478 1
modification factor
Eccentricity factor ecc. All bearings are considered full 1
factor width: e=0, e/t =0
Stress reduction Ks 5.4.1.1 λ= min of (h/t) or (l/t) 0.89

factor h=0.75H = 0.75 × 3.049 = 2.28 m
(Fixed-Fixed)
Following 13 C for effective length
of wall): l = L = 6.401 m
λ is min of:
h/t = 9.91 (adopt)
l/t =27.83
Corresponding to λ= 10 (for
conservative design) and
eccentricity =0
Permissible fper fb x ka x kp x ks x ecc. factor 0.91
Compressive = 1.03 x 1 x 0.89 x 1 x 1 MPa
Stress
The calculated compressive stress (demand) in wall in envelope load combination (critical
cases from all load combination) is presented in Figure 4-4. The maximum compressive stress
was found to be around the corners of the openings of the long wall and around the edges of
the cross walls with their values of around 0.8 MPa and 0.7 MPa, respectively.
Figure 4-4 Stress contours for compressive stress for long wall and cross wall
The analysis shows that the compressive capacity is higher than the demands. Hence,
compression capacity is sufficient in the structure.
4.4.1.3 Shear Stresses
The permissible shear stress (capacity) is evaluated to be 0.096MPa as presented in section 0,

while the observed shear strength from test was about 0.27 MPa.
Figure 4-5: Stress contours for shear stress for long wall and cross wall
The calculated shear stress (demand) due to various critical load combination (envelope load
combination) is presented in Figure 4-5. The maximum shear stress was found to be around the
piers of the long wall and around the edges of the cross walls with their values of around 0.25
MPa and 0.15 MPa, respectively.
The analysis showed that, the shear stress demands are much higher than the shear stress
capacities, although the demand was found slightly below the uncorrected observed shear
strength observed from field test. This shows that, the shear capacity of the wall is not sufficient
and enhancement is required.
5 Final remarks
Assessment of MJN block B has been carried out for various structural and non-structural
components against seismic and other hazards. The observations are summarized as follows:
 There are some non-compliant features in the building that necessitate
improvement of structural system of the building.
 Structural damage is present in the building requiring some repair.
 Preliminary evaluation suggested that detailed evaluation is necessary for
the building.
 Detailed evaluation suggested that the structural enhancement of the
building is necessary, specially to improve shear and tensile strength.
To sum up, strengthening is necessary for MJN block B. The building being single story only,
and the demand not much higher than that the capacities, simple techniques such as splints and
bands is suitable for the building, which is cost effective as well. Furthermore, various
improvements for non-structural components and non-building components are also proposed.
The conclusions of this volume lead to the formulations and proposals presented in Volume
IV.
Bibliography
● FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) – 74, Reducing the

Risks of Non-structural Earthquake Damage
● Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Report @ UNICEF
● Comprehensive School Safety Minimum Package
● https://www.beca.com/ignite-your-thinking/ignite-your-thinking/october-
2020/building-better-the-importance-of-non-structural-elements-in-earthquakes
● https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267626646_Seismic_design_requirements_f
or_non-structural_components_of_highrise_buildings#pf2

VOL II-b Block B Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

VOL II-b Block B Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Government of Nepal

National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority (NDRRMA)

DETAILED PROJECT REPORT WITH DETAILED ASSESSMENT

VOLUME II: Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Report

Development Partner: Submitted By Joint Venture of:

PROJECT AND REPORTS OVERVIEW

Current Report: Draft Report of Facility 4 MJN: BLOCK B,

ECoCoDE Nepal-SILT JV 2|Page

2 Qualitative Vulnerability Assessment ................................................................................ 9

2.1 Field Investigation ....................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Qualitative identification of seismic vulnerability .................................................... 10

2.3 Damage assessment ................................................................................................... 12

2.4 Condition of non-structural and non-building components ...................................... 16

2.5 Synopsis of qualitative assessment ........................................................................... 19

3 Quantitative Seismic Vulnerability Assessment .......................................................... 20

3.1 Preparation of as-built drawings ............................................................................... 20

3.2 Experimental characterization ................................................................................... 20

Test results ........................................................................................................................ 21

Test summary and interpretation ...................................................................................... 25

3.3 Preliminary vulnerability evaluation ......................................................................... 26

Configuration related checks ............................................................................................ 26

Strength check .................................................................................................................. 26

Synopsis of preliminary evaluation .................................................................................. 27

4 Detailed Seismic Vulnerability Evaluation................................................................... 28

4.1 Evaluation procedure................................................................................................. 28

4.2 General information .................................................................................................. 28

4.3. Load calculations ....................................................................................................... 29

4.3 Load Cases and Combinations .................................................................................. 30

4.4 Modeling and analysis ............................................................................................... 31

Modal periods and mass participation ratios .................................................................... 33

Seismic weight and base shear ......................................................................................... 34

Element level demand and capacities ............................................................................... 34

5 Final remarks .................................................................................................................. 39

ECoCoDE Nepal-SILT JV 3|Page

ECoCoDE Nepal-SILT JV 4|Page

Figure 1-1: Front elevation of MJN block B ............................................................................. 8

ECoCoDE Nepal-SILT JV 5|Page

Table 1-1: General information of MJN Block B ...................................................................... 7

ECoCoDE Nepal-SILT JV 6|Page

Table 1-1: General information of MJN Block B

1 Facility name Shree Mahadev Janata Namuna Ma Vi

2 Location Hariwon, Sarlahi

5 Construction year 2055 BS

6 Structural type Load bearing (brick masonry)

7 Number of stories 1 story

8 Roof structure RC slab

ECoCoDE Nepal-SILT JV 7|Page

Figure 1-1: Front elevation of MJN block B

Figure 1-2: Back elevation of MJN block B

ECoCoDE Nepal-SILT JV 8|Page

2 Qualitative Vulnerability Assessment

2.1 Field Investigation

Structural characterization and vulnerability understanding as well as decision making requires

ECoCoDE Nepal-SILT JV 9|Page

2.2 Qualitative identification of seismic vulnerability

S. N Category Parameter Value Remarks

19 Additional factors for stone No of stories C

2.3 Damage assessment

Figure 2-1: Crack map for MJN block B

Table 2-2 Details of crack taxonomy as presented in Figure 2-1.

Crack C7: Crack at opening. Crack C8: Shear crack at opening.

Crack C4: Vertical and diagonal cracks.

Crack C9: Horizontal crack around