A Book On Seismic Retrofitting Design Tehniques

Seismic Retrofitting Design and Techniques
A BOOK ON SEISMIC
RETROFITTING
Design and Techniques
Retrofitting Techniques
Construction Guidelines
Ready to Use examples:
From Preliminary Assessment to Retrofitting
Design
 Case studies
 Vulnerability Assessment
 Retrofitting
Dr. Hari Darshan Shrestha
Professor, Pulchowk Campus
Institute of Engineering
Tribhuvan University
DEDICATION
TO MY MOTHER LATE NANU LAXMI SHRESTHA

PREFACE
This Seismic Retrofitting Design and Techniques book is intended for professional practitioners with
enough background and experience on analysis, design and construction of new buildings. Along with
some knowledge on vulnerability evaluation of existing buildings, retrofitting practices and quality
control measures. The Book will be useful for civil engineering students and practitioner to have better
understanding of the retrofitting design and techniques such as vulnerability assessment, detail
analysis, retrofitting design & techniques, construction process etc. The book however will be useful
for general persons also to have better understanding of the vulnerability assessment, retrofitting
techniques, construction process.
This book contains step-by-step process and/or framework for vulnerability evaluation, retrofit design
and implementation of retrofit. However, is not recommended replicating the design values and
recommended measures as strengthening of existing building is unique for each building.
Generalizations of the design values have practical limitations.
The design values, drawings and other information have been checked thoroughly but there may be
discrepancies and typo errors. The intention of this book is to provide framework of calculation and
not the exact values. Therefore, the values should be checked and confirmed by professionals in case
they would like to use it for any further processing.
Different standards, state-of-the-art research results and professional judgment have been applied to
derive the final results. Change in the standards and state-of-the-art will not be reflected in these
results and professionals and users of this book are recommended to follow the recent knowledge in
this regard. Some examples and figures in this book are taken from Seismic Retrofitting Guidelines of
Buildings in Nepal.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This Book is an outcome of the years of effort and dedication of many people from different
walks of life. I would like to extend our deepest gratitude to the UNDP Nepal and Department
of Urban Development and Building Construction. Similarly also would like to express my
sincere thanks to Civil Engineering Department, Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering,
Tribhuvan University.
I greatly appreciate the contribution of Mr Vijay Singh, Mr. Man Thapa and Narwsh Giri from
UNDP Nepal, and Dr Ramesh Singh, Secretary Government of Nepal) for their contribution.
I indebted to Dr. Jishnu Subedi (Centre of Resilience Development, CoRD) and Mr Manohar
Rajbhandary, (MRB Associates) for their support and contributions. I would also like to thank
the team from Centre of Resilience Development (Cord), for their continuous contribution
and effort.
I would also like to express sincere gratitude to my family, brother Lok Darshan Shrestha, his
wife Melina Shrestha, my wife Sunita Shrestha and kids Aradhika Drashana, Tejaswini
Darshana, Shailab Darshan, Priyesh, Tejaswi Darshan, Suprit Darshan,
My greatest appreciation goes to Center of Resilient (CoRD) and all the people for their
interest and active support in publication of this book.
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
2 RETROFITTING GENERAL ................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 REALIZATION OF RETROFIT REQUIREMENT ............................................................................ 2
2.2 SELECTION OF ENGINEER/ARCHITECT .................................................................................... 2
2.3 NOTIFICATION TO MUNICIPALITY OR CONCERNED AUTHORITY ............................................ 2
2.4 ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES OR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ................................... 4
2.5 REVIEW EXISTING CONDITION OF BUILDING .......................................................................... 4
2.6 CARRY OUT VULNERABILITY EVALUATION.............................................................................. 4
2.7 CARRY OUT PRELIMINARY DESIGN WITH COST ESTIMATE ..................................................... 5
2.8 DETAIL DESIGN ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.9 PREPARE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN ........................... 5
2.10 SUBMISSION TO THE AUTHORITY ........................................................................................... 5
2.11 MONITORING AND QUALITY CONTROL .................................................................................. 5
2.12 QUALITY ASSURANCE .............................................................................................................. 5
3 HAZARD ASSESSMENT..................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 LIQUEFACTION ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.2 EARTHQUAKE INDUCED LANDSLIDE ....................................................................................... 9
MULTI-HAZARD CONSIDERATION IN REHABILITATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS............................. 10
4 LOCAL SITE ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................................. 12
4.1 SOIL INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................. 12
4.1.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................................... 12
4.1.2 EXTENT OF SITE EXPLORATION ..................................................................................... 12
4.1.3 DEPTH OF EXPLORATION .............................................................................................. 12
4.1.4 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE.................................................................................. 13
5 REPAIR OF FOUNDATION WORK ................................................................................................... 14
5.1 CASE STUDY OF REPAIR OF FOUNDATION WORK OF A BUILDING ....................................... 15
6 REPAIR OF COLUMN...................................................................................................................... 16
Engineer shall provide detailed drawings of connection of the columns with foundation and Beam. . 16
7 REPAIR OF BEAM ........................................................................................................................... 18
8 REPAIR OF WALL ........................................................................................................................... 19
9 NON-STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS................................................................................................ 20
Section I................................................................................................................................................. 30
1. EXAMPLE –A 1 ............................................................................................................................... 32
PRELIMINARY VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BUILDING.................................................................. 32
1.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 32
SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS: ........................................................................................................ 47
2. EXAMPLE – B1: BRICK MASONRY ................................................................................................. 49
EARTHQUAKE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF FIELD OFFICE BUILDING ........................................... 49
2.1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 49
2.2 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 49
2.3 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 50
2.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEM ........................................................ 50
2.5 BUILDING DRAWINGS ........................................................................................................... 52
2.6 PROBABLE DAMAGE GRADE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING TYPOLOGY AT DIFFERENT
INTENSITIES ....................................................................................................................................... 56
2.7 IDENTIFICATION OF VULNERABILITY FACTORS ..................................................................... 56
2.8 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 58
2.9 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................ 58
ANNEX 1: BUILDING TYPOLOGY IDENTIFICATION ........................................................................... 59
ANNEX 2: CLASSIFICATION OF DAMAGE GRADES:........................................................................... 60
ANNEX 3: MODIFIED MERCALLY INTENSITY SCALE (MMI Scale) ..................................................... 61
ANNEX 4: STRESS CHECK CALCULATIONS ........................................................................................ 64
2.9.1 CALCULATION OF BASE SHEAR ..................................................................................... 65
2.9.2 CALCULATION OF STOREY SHEAR ................................................................................. 67
2.9.3 SHEAR STRESS CHECK:................................................................................................... 67
2.9.4 ANNEX 5: CHECKLIST FOR FIELD ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 67
2.9.5 CHECKLIST FOR FIELD ASSESSMENT (TYPE 2: BRICK IN CEMENT MORTAR) ................. 68
3. EXAMPLE - B2: ADOBE BUILDINGS ............................................................................................... 72
EARTHQUAKE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BUILDING ................................................................. 72
3.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 72
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEM ........................................................ 72
3.3 BUILDING DRAWINGS ........................................................................................................... 74
3.4 PROBABLE DAMAGE GRADE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING TYPOLOGY AT DIFFERENT
INTENSITIES ....................................................................................................................................... 75
3.5 IDENTIFICATION OF VULNERABILITY FACTORS ..................................................................... 76
3.6 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 77

3.7 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................ 78
ANNEX 1: BUILDING TYPOLOGY IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................ 79
ANNEX 2: CLASSIFICATION OF DAMAGE GRADES:........................................................................... 80
3.8 DEFINITIONS OF QUANTITY .................................................................................................. 82
3.9 ANNEX 4: CHECKLIST FOR FIELD ASSESSMENT ..................................................................... 85
3.9.1 Public building (Type 1: Brick in Mud mortar) .............................................................. 85
4. EXAMPLE - B3: REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS ................................................................... 88
STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT AND RETROFITTING OF THE ..................................................................... 88
THREE STORIED BUILDING .................................................................................................................... 88
4.1 ASSESSMENT OF THE BUILDING............................................................................................ 88
4.1.1 LOCATION OF THE BUILDING IN THE SEISMIC HAZARD MAPS ..................................... 88
4.1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING ................................................................................... 88
4.1.3 BUILDING TYPOLOGY IDENTIFICATION ......................................................................... 88
4.1.4 IDENTIFICATION OF VULNERABILITY FACTORS ............................................................. 90
4.2 SURVEY FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS RESULTS.......................................................................... 90
4.2.1 MATERIAL VULNERABILITY ............................................................................................ 90
4.2.2 BUILDING VULNERABILITY ............................................................................................ 90
4.3 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 93
4.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING SEISMIC SAFETY ..................................................... 93
ANNEX 1: CHECKING DIFFERENT VULNERABILITY FACTORS OF THE BUILDING ............................... 95
4.4.1 BUILDING SYSTEM ......................................................................................................... 95
4.4.2 Lateral Force Resisting System...................................................................................... 96
4.4.3 Diaphragms ................................................................................................................... 97
4.4.4 Connections .................................................................................................................. 98
ANNEX 2: RELATED STRESS CHECK CALCULATIONS .......................................................................... 98
ANNEX 3: MODIFIED MERCALLY INTENSITY SCALE (MMI Scale) .................................................... 105
ANNEX 4: EUROPEAN MACRO SEISMIC SCALE (EMS 98) ................................................................ 108
ANNEX 5: DAMAGE GRADES OF MASONRY BUILDINGS ................................................................. 109
ANNEX 6: DEFINITIONS OF INTENSITY DEGREES............................................................................. 110
4.5 DEFINITIONS OF QUANTITY ................................................................................................ 113
CRACKS IN INFILL MASONRY .............................................................................................................. 113
Section - II ........................................................................................................................................... 114
1. EXAMPLE - 1 ................................................................................................................................ 115
ENGINEERED BUILDING....................................................................................................................... 115

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFITTING DESIGN OF RC FRAME BUILDING ................................... 115
1.1 BUILDING DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 115
General Building Description: ............................................................................................................ 115
1.2 BUILDING DRAWINGS: ........................................................................................................ 116
1.3 STRENGTH RELATED CHECKS: ............................................................................................. 118
1.3.1 CALCULATION FOR SHEAR STRESS CHECK ......................................................................... 118
1.4 RETROFITTING OPTIONS: .......................................................................................................... 124
Option1: RC JACKETING ON COLUMNS....................................................................................... 124
Option2: STEEL JACKETING ......................................................................................................... 125
Option3: SHEAR WALL ADDITION WITH COLUMN JACKETING ................................................... 126
1.5 COST ESTIMATION OF RETROFITTING OPTIONS: ...................................................................... 128
1.6 RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................................. 128
2. EXAMPLE -2 ................................................................................................................................. 132
OCCUPANCY CHANGE ......................................................................................................................... 132
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF RESIDENTIAL RCC BUILDING CONVERTED INTO HEALTH CLINIC ............... 132
Vulnerability evaluation and retrofitting of following buildings has been carried out using two
approaches........................................................................................................................................... 132
2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 132
2.1.2 BUILDING DRAWINGS ........................................................................................................ 133
2.1.3 STRUCTURAL DATA ............................................................................................................ 135
2.2 LOAD CALCULATIONS ................................................................................................................ 135
2.2.1 LIVE LOAD CALCULATION ................................................................................................... 136
3. EXAMPLE - 2 (A) .......................................................................................................................... 147
STRENGTH BASED APPROACH ............................................................................................................ 147
ANALYSIS IN STAAD ......................................................................................................................... 147
WIRE FRAME ................................................................................................................................... 148
COLUMN ......................................................................................................................................... 148
BEAM............................................................................................................................................... 148
RETROFITTING DRAWINGS: ............................................................................................................ 150
4. EXAMPLE – 2(B) ........................................................................................................................... 154
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS USING NON-LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS (STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS) OF
EXISTING BUILDING “EXAMPLE -2” BEFORE RETROFITTING ............................................................... 154
4.1 OUTPUT ..................................................................................................................................... 154
4.2 PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING STRUCTURE ................................................................................ 154
4.3 PLASTIC HINGES MECHANISM .................................................................................................. 155

4.4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION ........................................................................................ 156
5. EXAMPLE – 2(C) ........................................................................................................................... 157
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS USING NON-LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS (STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS) OF
EXISTING BUILDING “EXAMPLE -2” AFTER RETROFITTING ................................................................. 157
5.1 OUTPUT ..................................................................................................................................... 157
5.2 DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE (DBE) ........................................................................................... 157
5.2.1 Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE).......................................................................... 157
5.1 PLASTIC HINGES MECHANISM ............................................................................................ 158
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................... 158
6. EXAMPLE -3 ................................................................................................................................. 159
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (Masonry) .................................................. 159
6.1 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 160
7. EXAMPLE -4 ................................................................................................................................. 164
ANLYSIS AND DESIGN OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING - STRENGTH BASED METHOD (Masonry) ......... 164
BUILDING DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 164
Section – III .......................................................................................................................................... 174
Case Studies ........................................................................................................................................ 174
1. EXAMPLE 1- MASONRY BUILDING .............................................................................................. 175
ANALYSIS AND RETROFITTING DESIGN OF SDN PADASUKA II SCHOOL BUILDING ............................. 175
1.1 BUILDING DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................ 175
1.2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 176
1.2 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................. 176
1.3 RETROFITTING DESIGN.............................................................................................................. 178
1.3.1 RETROFITTING APPROACH ................................................................................................. 178
1.3.2 RETROFITTING PROCESS .................................................................................................... 179
1.4 IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................... 183
1.4.1 POST-EARTHQUAKE CONDITION........................................................................................ 183
2. EXAMPLE 2: RCC BUILDING ............................................................................................................ 185
ANALYSIS AND RETROFITTING DESIGN OF SDN 13 SYAMTALIRA ARUN............................................. 185
2.1 BUILDING DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................ 185
2.1.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 185
2.1.2 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 185
2.1.3 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT (cracks observed, sizes of elements/ walls and others) .... 186
b. Assessment ................................................................................................................................. 186

2.3 RETROFITTING DESIGN.............................................................................................................. 188
2.4 IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................... 196
2.5 COST CALCULATION .................................................................................................................. 197
2. EXAMPLE - 3 (ADOBE) ................................................................................................................. 198
ANALYSIS AND RETROFITTING DESIGN OF SULTAN DAKI HIGH SCHOOL, URI BLOCK, DIST. BARAMULA,
KASHMIR - A RURAL EXAMPLE ............................................................................................................ 198
1 INTRODUCTION
Retrofitting is commonly used terminology for strengthening and/or rehabilitation of structures

carried out to increase performance of the structure against different hazards. Retrofitting requires
unique solution to each individual building and generalization, as in the new construction, has practical
limitations. There are specific requirements in each and every step of retrofitting such as vulnerability
assessment, design, planning, layout, construction sequence, quality control and safety assurance.
Construction is very important aspect of retrofitting as each building requires unique technique and
duplicating similar approach may not always be the efficient way. An improper construction process
not only damages the structure but also will be unsafe for the workers. An example of bad construction
planning is shown in Figure 1 which shows that due to improper construction sequence an existing
building (which was supposed to be retrofitted) was damaged completely and new building had to be
constructed. Figure 1 (a) shows an existing structure which was supposed to be retrofitted. As the
dismantling process started, the workers dismantled all supporting elements of the structure and whole
structure became useless as see in Figure 1(c).
In order to establish a proper process for construction, the retrofitting design itself should provide
detailed process of Existing Building
construction along with
drawing as and when
required. This guideline Dismantle
process
shall be followed along
started
with the Design
Guidelines for (a)
(b)
Retrofitting.
Improper dismantling sequence
led to complete collapse of the
structure and only one unstable
column was left standing
Figure 1: Improper construction sequence led to complete collapse of the structure during retrofitting
1
2 RETROFITTING GENERAL
The process of seismic evaluation and retrofit is a risk reduction process and owners must understand
that the process aims to balance the relative risk rather than transferring risk to design professionals
and/or contractors and ‘guaranteed’ performance may not always be achievable.
A recommended step-by-step process to realize retrofitting is given in Figure 2. The process shall serve
only as guideline and depending upon the scope and size of the project, few steps from the process
may be skipped or few additional steps may be added.
2.1 REALIZATION OF RETROFIT REQUIREMENT

The purpose of retrofitting shall be established before proceeding for rehabilitation, strengthening or
retrofitting of a building. Retrofitting may be required from any of the following reasons:
1. Codal requirements to meet the prescribed requirements in NNBC 105 and other relevant
codes.
2. Change in use such as conversion of residential building to a school building
3. Functional change such as requirement of a large conference room or addition of additional
floors not included in the previous design
4. Upgrading performance of the building
2.2 SELECTION OF ENGINEER/ARCHITECT

To execute retrofit project qualified structural engineer or Architect with sufficient knowledge and
experience in retrofit design or both are required. As retrofitting works require competency not only
in regular structural engineering practices but also in state-of-the-art structural engineering know how,
a competitive selection process of the engineers should be followed.
In case such a competitive process cannot be justified from scope and size of the project, consultation
with the municipality or concerned authority should be carried out before selecting engineer/architect.
2.3 NOTIFICATION TO MUNICIPALITY OR CONCERNED AUTHORITY
With the help of engineer, the owner shall give a preliminary notice to the municipality or the
concerned authority stating purpose of the retrofitting and get go-ahead letter from the authorities.
This is essential to record the intended purpose of the work and also to record the team of engineer(s)
involved
2
Review Existing Condition of

Realization of Retrofit
Building
Requirement
Selection of Engineer/Architect Carry out Vulnerability

Evaluation
Notification to Municipality or Carry out Preliminary Design

concerned authority with Cost Estimate
Is
Establish Performance Objectives or
Design Requirements Retrofitting
Feasible?
Detail design
Submit to
Any Municipality/Authority
Chang for Peer Review
Prepare Construction
Documents and Quality
Assurance Plan
Is change Monitor Construction

in design and Implement Quality
required? Control Measures
Figure 2: Step-by-Step approach to evaluation, design and construction planning process
3
2.4 ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES OR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
In consultation with the owner/client and as per requirement of the relevant NNBC or other relevant
codes, the design team shall establish the seismic performance objectives and/or design requirements.
It should be noted that performance of a building may be different at different level of hazards and
attaining a certain level of performance objectives consist of achieving a certain level of performance
for a specific level of seismic hazard.
Similarly, the codal provisions for design requirements are different for different level of hazard. For
example, IS code adopts following specification of hazard and expected level of damage1.
The design approach adopted in this standard is to ensure that structures possess at least a
minimum strength to withstand minor earthquakes (<DBE), which occur frequently, without
damage; resist moderate earthquakes (DBE) without significant structural damage though
some non-structural damage may occur; and aims that structures withstand a major
earthquake (MCE) without collapse. Actual forces that appear on structures during
earthquakes are much greater than the design forces specified in this standard. However,
ductility, arising from inelastic material behavior and detailing, and overstrength, arising
from the additional reserve strength in structures over and above the design strength, are
relied upon to account for this different in actual and design lateral loads.
2.5 REVIEW EXISTING CONDITION OF BUILDING
Some of the preliminary information are essential before proceeding to the decision of retrofitting.
Age of the building, design code (if any), existing condition of the building, change in use, buildings
and physical facilities in the neighborhood of the building which can have impact on safety of the
building, availability of drawings and other technical information such as geotechnical investigation
report and intended future use of the building.
2.6 CARRY OUT VULNERABILITY EVALUATION
The vulnerability evaluation of the building shall be carried out first as preliminary investigation and
then, if required, detailed investigation. Preliminary investigation such as geometrical properties and
existing condition of the building and detailed investigation can be carried out as suggested in the
guideline developed by DUDBC under ERRRP project2 or any other relevant guidelines.
1
IS 1893: 2002 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures: Part 1 General Provisions and Buildings
2
Seismic Vulnerability Evaluation Guideline Part I-final, DUDBC, GON
4
2.7 CARRY OUT PRELIMINARY DESIGN WITH COST ESTIMATE
At this stage it is advisable that engineers decide on feasibility of retrofitting for the building. Although
detailed cost estimate requires detailed design, it is advisable to use engineering judgement on whether
or not to proceed for retrofitting of the building. The decision, it is underscored, may depend on many
other circumstances and economic viewpoint only may not be justified. For example, a historic
building may require retrofitting even though the project may not be advised on economic analysis.
2.8 DETAIL DESIGN
If the retrofitting is decided to carry out, detailed design is required before construction intervention.
The detailed design shall be carried out according to the retrofitting guideline recommended for the
particular building type.
2.9 PREPARE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

PLAN
The design engineer shall prepare construction drawings and documents according to the detailed
design. A quality assurance plan to ensure enough quality control measures at sites shall also be
prepared. These documents shall form the basis for selecting contractor for the purpose of retrofitting.
2.10 SUBMISSION TO THE AUTHORITY
The detailed design of retrofitting along with necessary documents stating the need to retrofit and
works of vulnerability evaluation shall be submitted to the municipality or concerned authorities for
approval. The authorities may submit, if required, the design details to peer review before giving
approval.
2.11 MONITORING AND QUALITY CONTROL

It’s the responsibility of the engineer to monitor the construction work and ensure quality assurance
plan is being properly implemented. Any changes in the design dictated by the ground situation as the
construction progresses shall be carried out by the engineer.
Such changes shall be brought to the notice of the authority and approval shall be received before
preceding the construction work.
2.12 QUALITY ASSURANCE
Quality assurance program must be put in place to assure appropriate approach during evaluation,
design and construction of all retrofit projects.
5
Vulnerability evaluation of each buildings require from preliminary visual assessment to detailed
structural analysis. Depending on the scope of the project, size of the structure and location, a detailed
geotechnical investigation may be required which should be decided by the engineer and the team.
Retrofit design shall be carried out only after detailed investigation of the existing structural system.
The retrofit options depend on building features, scope and objective of the project and cost. The
designer shall modify designs and drawings, if necessary, to reflect conditions encountered in the site
as the construction progresses.
The designer “shall be responsible for performing periodic structural observation of the rehabilitation
work. Structural observation shall be performed at significant stages of constrcution, and shall include
visual observation of the work for substantial conformance with the construction documents and
confirmation of conditions assumed during design. Structural observation shall be performed in
addition to any special inspection and testing that is otherwise required for the work3.”
Retrofit design should be peer reviewed by a team of engineers independent from the project.
The designer shall, along with design drawings and specifications, also prepare quality assurance plan
with provisions for special inspection and testing reports.
Construction planning and execution is the most critical part of any retrofit project. The importance of
construction quality on building performance in general and the likelihood of encountering unforeseen
conditions in retrofit construction in particular warrant special attention to construction monitoring
and quality assurance4.
3
FEMA 356
4
ATC-40
6
Quality control in field is very important to achieve the required performance

of a building. Simple and easily available measures such as slump test are
very effective in the field.
Continuous monitoring and supervision is required. Quality check of finished

product is recommended.
7
3 HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Local geotechnical investigation is always recommended before retrofitting. In case of small scale
projects such for individual residential buildings, enough information from secondary sources shall be
collected if detailed geotechnical investigation is not practical.
Multi-Hazard mapping is essential before approaching for retrofitting. Retrofitting which contributes
positively to one hazard can behave adversely in another hazard. A CGI roof is recommended for
earthquake as it attracts less earthquake force and will not lead to fatal hazard in case of failure.
However, CGI roof, if not properly anchored, performs poorly in wind and is inconvenient for
occupants (particularly in schools) during rains.
Although seismic performance is the major criterion for retrofitting decision making, other potential
hazards at the site shall also be considered for the project. Retrofitting an important public building for
seismic safety, for example, may not guarantee against other potential hazards at the site. Other
potential hazards that need to be considered are fire, floods and landslides. Proper necessary measures
need to be adopted to ensure continued use of the facilities for those hazards also.
Besides hazards independent from earthquake, earthquakes also cause secondary hazards such as
landslide, liquefaction, surface fault rupture and fire. Measures to mitigate such hazards should be
included in the project design according to the scope and size of the project.
3.1 LIQUEFACTION
Liquefaction is the rapid loss of shear strength in cohesion less soils subjected to dynamic loading,
such as from an earthquake. Sometimes the shear strength falls to nearly zero, while other time it only
drops to a lower then a normal value. In a more general manner, soil liquefaction has been defined as
the transformation “from a solid state to liquefied state as a consequence of increased pore pressure
and reduced effective stress (Marcuson, 1978).”
Liquefaction of a site results in settlement as well as lateral spreading of soils. Liquefaction

susceptibility maps for Kathmandu are available from different studies. Although the maps are not
definitive and not available for specific sites, broad interpretation may be drawn using the maps.
Reference maps from two separate studies are given in Annex....
8
3.2 EARTHQUAKE INDUCED LANDSLIDE
Earthquake induced landslide of a slope can occur when earthquake and gravity forces within the slide
mass temporarily exceed slope stability. The value of ground acceleration within the slide mass
required to initiate slope instability is called the critical or yield acceleration.
Figure 3.2.1: Location of a building in slopped terrain
For sites where earthquake induced landslide is possible, a geotechnical engineer should evaluate the
extent of landslide and its effect on the foundation of the building. Proper measures to mitigate the
effect of such landslides shall be adopted in design of the retrofitting work.
Whether landslide should be considered in the design depends on the site’s susceptibility to landslide,
which depends on the soil/geologic conditions, the slope angle, and the critical acceleration. Following
table gives guidance for determining when landslide should be considered. NNBC 108 has the
following provision for earthquake induced landslide.
Locating an important building on slopig ground in the mountainous terrain should be preceded by
examination of the hill slope stability conditions and identification of necessary structures for
counteracting the effects of the adverse conditions.
On a sloping ground, the location of all buildings should meet the requirements shown in Figure 3.2.2,
unless special slope stability measures are taken.
9
Figure 3.2.2: Earthquake Induced Landslides
MULTI-HAZARD CONSIDERATION IN REHABILITATION OF EXISTING

BUILDINGS
Four factors causing positive effect during all hazards.

1. Two or more means of access:
Means of access is the primary requirement for better utilization of facilities after any type of
hazard impact. So, having more than two accesses is beneficial for all hazards.
2. Proper building system:
A building system with complete load-path properly connected structural and non-structural elements
and robust structures are beneficial against all hazards. The general load path of a building is as
follows: seismic forces originating throughout the building are delivered through structural
connections to horizontal diaphragms; the diaphragms distribute these forces to vertical lateral-force-
resisting elements such as shear walls and frames; the vertical elements transfer the forces into the
foundation; and the foundation transfers the forces into the supporting soil. For winds, the force comes
directly from vertical elements and diaphragms but the response is similar. There must be a complete
lateral-force-resisting system that forms a continuous load path between the foundation, all diaphragm
levels, and all portions of the building for proper seismic performance. If there is a discontinuity in
the load path, the building is unable to resist seismic forces regardless of the strength of the existing
10
elements. Mitigation with elements or connections needed to complete the load path is necessary to
achieve the selected performance level.
3. Strong building material:
Reinforced concrete or reinforced masonry structural walls perform better for all hazards. They have
good performance for earthquake, flood, and fire when correctly designed and constructed.
4. Ductile structures:
Ductile detailing of steel and RC structure and proper connections provides better non - linear response
and a structure that is more resistant to collapse. Elements and connections need to be added so as to
increase ductile behavior of the structure in order to enhance performance of existing structures.
Five factors causing negative effect to all hazards

Following five factors cause negative effects to building structures in any hazards:
1. Re-entrant corner plan forms
 May cause stress concentrations and torsional forces in earthquakes
 Contribute to localized high-wind pressures
2. Very irregular three dimensional building forms
 May create indirect load paths, stress concentrations and torsional forces in earthquakes
 May contribute to localized high wind pressures
 Aggravate evacuation during fire emergencies
3. Large Overhangs
 Vulnerable to vertical earthquakes and wind forces, needs careful engineering
4. Indirect vertical load path
 Undesirable for seismic and wind hazards because poor structural integrity increases likelihood
of collapse
 Fire may further weaken structure
5. Long, slender and independent masonry load-bearing walls
 Very poor performance in earthquakes and high winds
 Undesirable for all hazards because of possibility of collapse.
(Adapted with some modifications from Hospital Preparedness for Emergencies)
11
4 LOCAL SITE ASSESSMENT
4.1 SOIL INVESTIGATION

Depending upon the scope and size of the project, detailed soil investigation to obtain bearing capacity
of the soil, soil profile, shear strength and Standard Penetration Test shall be carried out. The following
provision is recommended in NNBC 108.
4.1.1 GENERAL
All site investigation should address the following basic questions:
i. Is there any danger of inherent natural susceptibility of the land to the process of sliding and
erosion?
ii. Will the construction adversely affect the existing conditions and trigger landslide, erosion,
land subsidence, poor pressure generation due to blockage of or otherwise the sub-surface flow
of water; will the construction adversely affect the water table?
iii. What will be the extent of settlement of the building?
iv. Is the sub-surface capable of taking the load to the proposed construction?
v. Is there any other natural/geological process likely to threaten the integrity of the building ?
(eg. Chances in a river course, flooding failure of an irrigation canal? )
vi. What are the possible engineering solutions for ensuring stability of the building foundation in
view of identified condition?
Answers to some of these questions can be found by examining the existing local knowledge, records
of any past exploration in the adjacent area and the behavior of existing similar structures. If
satisfactory answers to the questions can be found, it wil be necessary to undertake additional site
investigation including subsurface exploration , in-situ and laboratory testing, geophysical surveys and
testing, probing, etc.
4.1.2 EXTENT OF SITE EXPLORATION
The extent of exploration will depend upon the geological and geomorphological nature of the terrain,
and on the importance of the building and the scale of the project. Large scale engineering geological
mapping of the site and previous practices of construction in the adjacent area could form the basis for
deciding the extent of exploration for an important building.
4.1.3 DEPTH OF EXPLORATION
The depth to be explored should be adopted based on the geological conditions at the site, e.g the depth
and type of subsurface soil, depth of weathering, the depth of ground water fluctuation, the depth of
12
frost action, etc. Generally, the exploration should be carried out to the depths at which the induced
stress due to the loads from the construction dissipates substantially and the strata can carry the load
without undesirable settlement and with an acceptable factor of safety against failure. Past experiences
and performance of adjacent buildings could be of prime importance in deciding about the depth of
exploration which shall not be less than one and a half times the estimated width or the lower dimension
of the footing below the foundation level. In hilly areas, exploration up to the depth sound bed rock
will generally be sufficient.
For the analysis of liquefaction susceptibility, 20 m should suffice as the depth of exploration.
4.1.4 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE
The allowable bearing pressure should be calculated as per current good engineering practices.
13
5 REPAIR OF FOUNDATION WORK
The retrofitting of foundation, if required, shall be carried out in stages so that only a minimum of the
structure is left unsupported in the foundation.
A schematic diagram of stage-wise retrofitting of foundation for load-bearing masonry structure is

shown in Figure 3. Similar strategy shall be adopted for RCC framed structure as well.
A separate construction drawing showing the sequence of construction for foundation work shall be
prepared, if necessary.
1 6 3 5
4 2
These two sides of These two sides of

foundation can be opened in foundation, for example,
Stage 1 can be opened in Stage 5
2 4
5 3 6 1
Figure 4: Schematic diagram showing stage-wise retrofitting of foundation of load-bearing masonry walls
14
5.1 CASE STUDY OF REPAIR OF FOUNDATION WORK OF A BUILDING
In order to increase size of the

footing and also to increase
depth of footing, the
foundation is opened. The
process can be carried along
with column jacketing, if
The concrete is laid in the opened

foundation. Although reinforcement
of the foundation is not shown here,
reinforcement required from design is
inserted. The reinforcement in the
column is observed in the photo.
Completed foundation work for a

corner column.
15
6 REPAIR OF COLUMN
In Moment Resisting Frame structure, Columns are the main structural element transferring the lateral
load to the ground. Weaker columns lead to formation of hinge during dynamic loading and a sway
mechanism is easily formed which leads to complete collapse of the structure. Therefore, earthquake
resistant building codes and the ductile detailing codes recommend ‘strong column, weak beam’
concept.
Repair of column, like repair of foundation and repair of wall in load bearing masonry structures, needs
special care as intervention in one column can lead to complete collapse of the structure.
Different techniques of column repair are commonly used and concrete jacketing is one of the most
widely used methods. In concrete jacketing, the lateral spaces of column need to be cleared in order to
accommodate additional reinforcement and concrete.
Engineer shall provide detailed drawings of connection of the columns with foundation and Beam.
The walls should be connected with the columns by inserting horizontals reinforcement bars if the
designer feels so.
The sides of a column are being

opened for jacketing the corner
column
The opening should be enough to

accommodate reinforcement, additional
concrete and workmanship.
16
Reinforcement placed in a corner

column.
The reinforcement fabrication of

conventional practice may not be
suitable for example the complete
circular rings ca not be inserted.
Similar is the case for formwork. A

conventional formwork may not be
suitable to cast concrete around an
existing column and two halves as
shown in the photographs may be
required.
17
7 REPAIR OF BEAM
Beams need to properly connected

with the columns and the
reinforcement of column should
continue toward the beam.
Opening of beam soffit needs special

attention as the beam may deflect
substantially due to gravity load.
Like in column, complete loop rings

are not possible to insert in the
beams. U-shaped rings with proper
connection may be suitable and
engineer should decide on type of
bars and rings
18
8 REPAIR OF WALL
Gable walls are not recommended

in earthquake prone areas. They
should be removed and replaced
with other materials such as CGI
sheet. In case gable walls are
unavoidable, Gable beam properly
connected with the columns shall be
placed.
The walls should be properly ties

with the columns by providing
reinforcement. In case infill walls
are not tied, they should be
protected by horizontal rings against
out of plane failure.
19
9 NON-STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS
(The content is adapted from Hospital Preparedness for Emergencies Workbook)
Non-structural Components
The non-structural parts of a building include all parts of the building and its contents with the
exception of the structure, in other words: everything except the columns, floors, beams etc. Common
non-structural components include ceilings, windows, office equipment, computers, inventory stored
on shelves, file cabinets, water tanks, generators, transformers, heating, ventilating, and air
conditioning (HVAC) equipment; electrical equipment; furnishings; lights etc. Typically, non-
structural items are not analyzed by engineers and may be specified instead by architects, mechanical
engineers, electrical engineers, and interior designers. In most cases, they are purchased by the owners
after the construction is finished without the involvement of any design professional.
Damage to Non-structural Components
Damage to a particular non-structural

item may pose differing degrees of risk
in each of these three categories. In
addition, damage to the item may
result in direct injury or loss, or the
injury or loss may be the secondary
effect or consequence of the failure of
the item.
• Life safety
• Property loss and
• Loss of functions
20
Figure 5: Non-structural damage in bed-room and sitting room (Source: Hospital Preparedness for Emergencies, Lectures)
RISK EVALUATION OF NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
The risk evaluation is based on the consequences of failure of the particular element:
1. Risk to Life: If loss of the element poses risk of loss of life or injury to hospital
occupants. Building occupants can be injured or killed by falling OFCs (non-structural
components).
2. Loss of Property: Those elements whose damage means a significant loss of asset to
the hospital. This can involve heavy costs because of the cost of OFCs (non-structural
components).
3. Loss of Function: If loss of element impairs the functioning of the hospital. Disruption
to normal functions will cause post-earthquake down time and loss of function just when the
community’s demand for hospital services may be extreme.
21
Each non-structural element should be evaluated for each of these criteria to determine its risk.
Risk Rating (for each component and for each criterion):
H High
M Moderate
L Low
Priority:
The priority rating should consider the combination of vulnerability and consequences. The following
matrix is recommended. The priority will be used to prioritize mitigation and cost-benefit evaluations.
Vulnerability Consequences
High (H) Medium (M) Low (L)
High (H) 1 4 7
Medium (M) 2 5 8
Low (L) 3 6 9
Vulnerability rating is defined as follows:
• Low Vulnerability means that are components is reasonably well restrained, and there
is a low probability of failure during a design earthquake (as specified in the performance
objective).
• Moderate Vulnerability means that the component is restrained, but there is a moderate
probability of failure during a design earthquake.
• High Vulnerability means that the identified component is either poorly restrained, or
not restrained at all, or there is a high probability of failure during a design earthquake.
Consequences rating are defined as follows:
• Low Consequences: failure of the component represents a low adverse impact on the
functional use of the building, and / or, the component is located where its failure presents a
22
low risk (no injury to minor injury) to the occupants of the building. An example is an air
conditioning unit on the ground in a locked compound behind a building.
• Moderate Consequences: means that failure of the component represents a moderate

adverse impact on the functional use of the building, and / or, the component is located where
its failure presents a moderate risk (minor to moderate injury) to the occupants of the building.
An example is an air conditioning unit in a mechanical room.
• High Consequences: failure of the component represents a high adverse impact on the
functional use of the building, and / or, the component is located where its failure presents a
high risk (death or serious injury) to the occupants of the building. An example is an air
conditioning unit in the ceiling above an entrance corridor.
Mitigation Measures
Non-structural mitigation measures are easy and cost effective. For easy understanding and
remembrance, major mitigation measures can be assigned to 6R.
6 R's mitigation measures are:
• Removal
• Relocation
• Restrain
• Reinforcement
• Replacement
• Reduction
Removal: Removal is probably the best mitigation option in many cases. In all hospitals, the survey
team found several examples of unnecessary or non-essential documents and materials stored near the
working place or near important equipment. One solution would be better fastenings or the use of
stronger supports, but the most effective solution would be removal and replacement.
Relocation: Relocation would reduce danger in many cases. For example, a very heavy object on top
of a shelf could fall and seriously injure someone as well as break thereby causing economic losses.
But by relocating heavy equipment and materials from upper shelves to lower shelves the risk could
23
be mitigated. This is the case in most of hospitals where the functionality of the stores of operation
theaters could be improved by doing so.
Cupboards and bookshelves kept near an exit door or passage, which can obstruct the way and cause
human death or injury during an earthquake event, are typical examples that were found in all hospitals.
These bookshelves and cupboards could easily be relocated to other places where the potential dangers
would be reduced.
Restrain: Restricted mobility for certain objects such as gas cylinders and power generators is a good
measure. It does not matter if the cylinders shift as long as they do not fall and break their valves.
Sometimes back-up power generators are mounted on springs to reduce the noise and vibrations when
they are working, but these springs would amplify ground motion. Therefore, restraining supports or
chains should be placed around the springs to keep the generator from shifting or being knocked off
their stands.
Reinforcement: Reinforcement is feasible in many cases. For example, an un-reinforced infill wall or
a chimney may be strengthened without great expense by covering the surface with wire mesh and
cementing it.
Replacement: Replace with something that does not represent a seismic hazard is appropriate in some
situations. For example, a heavy, tiled roof does not only make the roof of a building heavy, it is also
more susceptible to the movement of an earthquake. The individual tiles tend to come off thus creating
a hazard for people and objects. One solution would be to change it with a lighter, safer roofing
material.
Removal!!!
Anchorage
Strapping
Figure: Removal, strapping and anchorage reduces the risk due to non-structural components (Source:
Hospital Preparedness for Emergencies, Lectures)
24
Reduction: Redundancy or duplication of items is advisable. Emergency response plans that call for
additional supplies are a good idea. It is possible to store extra amounts of certain products providing
a certain level of independence from external supplies, which could be interrupted in case of an
earthquake.
Rapid response and repair is a mitigation measure used on large oil pipelines. Sometimes it is not
possible to do anything to prevent the rupture of a pipeline in a given place, therefore spare parts are
stored nearby and arrangements are made to enter the area quickly in case a pipe breaks during an
earthquake. A hospital should have spare plumbing, emergency power supplies and other necessary
components on hands, together with the suitable tools in order to ensure that repairs can be easily made
if something is damaged. For example, during an earthquake the water pipes may break; it may be
impossible to take prior measures to totally eliminate this risk, but it is possible to ensure that
everything necessary for quick repairs is at hand. With prior earthquake planning, it is possible to save
the enormous costs of water damage with a minimum investment in a few articles.
Figure 6: Reinforcement of elevated/extended elements increases safety of such components during

earthquakes
(Source: Hospital Preparedness for Emergencies, Lectures)
Other mitigation measures
25
There are other easy-to-use mitigation measures also. Five of them are listed below:
1. Anchorage
2. Flexible couplings
3. Modification
4. Hooking
5. Strapping
1. Anchorage
Anchorage is the most widely used precaution. It is a good idea to use bolts, cables or other materials
to prevent valuable or large components from falling or sliding. The heavier the object, the more likely
it is that it will move due to the forces produced by an earthquake. Autoclave machines in all hospitals
are good example. They are heavy and can easily fall and break. The simple solution is to anchor the
feet of the machines to the concrete floor.
Some equipment and components of a system can easily be bolted to the floor. Transformers, water
treatment tanks, communication equipment and control panels of X-ray are typical examples of
equipment that can be anchored to the floor.
In most medical facilities and administration sections, cupboards, fridges and racks storing medical
equipment, books, documents or chemicals pose life safety hazards as well as functional and / or
property losses. This can easily be prevented by anchoring them to the wall using angles and nails as
this will stop them from overturning.
2. Flexible Couplings
If there is a tank outside the building with a rigid connection pipe joining the building and the tank
together, the tank will vibrate at various frequencies, in different directions and with amplitudes
different to those of the building all of, which will cause the pipe to break. A flexible pipe between the
two parts would prevent ruptures of this kind. Flexible couplings are necessary because separate
objects each move independently in response to an earthquake; some move quickly, others slowly.
Consequently, flexible piping is necessary near heavy equipment, at the joint of two buildings and in
seismic joints of the same building.
3. Modification
26
Modification is a possible solution for an object that represents a seismic hazard. For example, earth
movements twist and distort a building possibly causing the rigid glass in the windows to shatter and
launch sharp glass splinters onto the occupants and the passers-by around the hospital. Rolls of
transparent adhesive plastic may be used to cover the inside surfaces and prevent them from shattering
and threatening those inside. The plastic is invisible and reduces the likelihood of a glass window
causing injuries.
4. Hooking
In all hospitals, much equipment likes ECG monitors, suction units, ventilators, incubators, B.P.
monitors, resuscitation equipment, etc. were found on rollers or roller trolleys, and the roller systems
are necessary for better mobility. But this equipment on rollers can slide and impact with people, the
walls, beds or other things causing impact hazard to the other object or person and damage to the piece
of equipment itself.
Development of a proper hooking system using chains and hooks can protect the equipment and can
decrease the impact hazard the time of use or storage. Provision of a hooking system on beds could be
one way of hooking equipment at the time of use. At the time of storage, the equipment can be hooked
to the wall by chains.
Some equipment on roller trolleys can also be protected from falling by strapping the equipment to the
trolley and hooking the trolley to the wall. Some slender objects like oxygen cylinders can also be
hooked using chains.
5. Strapping
In most of the hospitals, the supplies and contents of laboratories, medical stores, general stores, CSSD
stores and OT stores are kept unsecured on shelves and in racks and would fall down and brake during
earthquakes. To mitigate this risk is not difficult; once the racks and cupboards have been anchored to
the wall, the contents can easily be secured by using strapping thus preventing chemical bottles and
medicine stored on the shelves from falling down.
Multi-Hazard Consideration
27
The following checklist can be used for decision making in strengthening of non-structural elements.
Response for Different Hazards

S.N. Fixing Method
Earthquake Flood Wind Fire
1 Diagonal bracing of hung ceiling  0 0 
2 Anchorage/bracing of system components    0
3 Anchorage/bracing of ducts    0
4 Vibration-isolated equipment fixing  0 0 0
5 Anchorage of roof top equipment  0  0
6 Anchorage of pipe support  0  
7 Anchorage/bracing of electrical cabinet  0  
8 Bracing of emergency batteries    
Ductile connections of non-load bearing

9  0 0 X
walls
Non-structural Elements
1 Parapet X 0 0 
2 Use of Un reinforced CMU for partition X X X 0
3 Gypsum wall board partition  X 0 
4 Tile roofs X 0 X 
5 Lightweight insulation cladding  0 X 0
Location of system components above flood

6 X  0 0
level
7 Brick veneer on exterior wall X X X 0
28
Part – II
29
Section I
Vulnerability Assessment
A. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
Example - A 1: School Building
B. DETAIL ASSESSMENT
Example - B1: Brick Masonry Building
Example - B2: Adobe Buildings
Example - B3: Reinforced Concrete Buildings
30
A. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
31
1. EXAMPLE –A 1
PRELIMINARY VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BUILDING
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This section includes the preliminary condition assessment of the existing buildings using a
multiple hazard retro-maintenance Safety Toolkits developed by the UN-Habitat in partnership
with UNISDR Asia Pacific Secretariat. The toolkit has been developed to facilitate the
assessment of the safety of critical infrastructures, focusing on schools and hospitals in South
Asia and available in UN Habitat. UN-Habitat Nepal in association with Centre of Resilient
Development (CoRD) has tested the Toolkit in two public schools of Lalitpur Sub-metropolitan
City, a government hospital of Bhaktapur Municipality and all the public schools of Kirtipur
Municipality.
The Retrofitting Toolkit evaluates MULTI-HAZARD Retrofitting need of school at a particular

site. It uses a checklist to calculate the safety compliance level of existing school buildings
based on a semi-objective method. The safety compliance index of an existing building is
evaluated by answering checklists of different possible hazards at a particular place. The
Toolkit includes the four hazards - seismic, wind, flood, and fire. In this study, only earthquake
and fire hazards are relevant. Thus safety compliance index of an existing school building is
evaluated by answering checklists of seismic and fire.
Table 1: WEIGHTS
Hazard Weights
Category Weights
Issue Weights Planning 0.2 W seis 1
VI 3
Architectural 0.3 Wwind
I 2
Structural 0.3 Wflood
LOW 1
Non-structural 0.2 Wfire 1
32
In this study, the four control parameters/weights – Issue Importance/weights, Compliance

Index, Category Weights and Hazard Weights were put forward by the Expert Group Meeting
Held at Kathmandu (25th -26th March 2012). However, in any other context, the country level
experts may change these to suit the local conditions
Compliance Index (CI) depends upon the category weight and hazard weight. It is expressed
in percentage and divided into five options as indicated in the following table. The CI value
equals to 0.75% is called ‘Cutoff Level’. The building that has CI value less than cutoff level
requires retrofitting measures.
Table 3: Compliance Index
If not addressed at all 0
Low compliance 0.25
Medium compliance 0.50
High compliance 0.75

Completely addressed 1
Adarsha Kanya Secondary School, Patan Darbar Square, Lalitpur, Nepal
Adarsha Kanya Secondary School has three buildings attached with the historic Patan Darbar
Square. The building is two storey adobe load bearing buildings with timber floor and CGI
roofing. The location, plan and elevation details are shown in the following figures:
33
B3 was
field
tested
34
35
ADARSHA KANYA NIKETAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, LALITPUR, NEPAL
Figure : The process of field test and some defects in Building B3 (Classrooms)
36
Table VI .1: Asset Register

Facilities No of Function of facility Who age Constru Maintenance Type of construction methods adopted in the building Describe the
mark as/ storey & no of rooms construct facility ction history maintenance
Foundation Wall Roof Floor finish
site plan ed cost requirements of the
(USD) building **
Not Not Brick in cement Cement

1 Classroom; 10 35 yrs Not known Not known Timber with CGI 3
known known mortar plaster
B1
Class+ lab
Not Not Reinforced Brick Cement
B2 3 50 yrs Not known Not known Brick in mud mortar 3
known known Concrete plaster
8
Not Not Cement

Not known Not known B3A1=B3A2=Timber+
known known plaster
B3 2 Class; 12 36 Brick in surkhi CGI; B3B=Steel truss 4
+CGI
Not Not Brick in cement lime Inter. Timber floor + Cement

B4 2 Office+ library; 4 36 Not known Not known 3
known known surkhi timber truss & CGI plaster
GF: office
4
Bahadur Not Brick in cement
B5 3 FF: community 200 Not known Not known Wooden floor with tile Tile flooring
shah known surkhi Heritage building
special attention
TF: hall
Not Not Brick in cement Cement

T1 1 Toilet; 2 D.E.O Not known Wall footing Timber with CGI 2
known known mortar plaster
37
** Type 1 if the building/ facility is in good condition - no need for maintenance, Type 2 if the building/ facility is in OK condition, need for routine maintenance, Type 3 if the building/ facility
needs minor repair, Type 4 if the building/ facility needs major repairs, Type 5 if the building/ facility is unsafe – to be replace
Table VI .2: Condition Assessment of Furniture
Furniture/ Equipment Total Nos Repair needs (nos) Replacement needs (nos) Supply of new (nos)
Desks 162+138 45
Chairs 28
Boards (white) 26
Tables 1+62+14=77
Computers and attachments 24 16
Acids in Lab (Hso4+HCL) 2+1=3
Photocopier 1
Almirah 14+19+4=37
Photocopier 1
Lab equipment 68
Book shelves in classroom 1
Funnel 15
Cubical flask 12
Microscope 2
Kerosene burner 16
Specimens 23
38
Table VI.3: Retrofitting Needs of Furniture and Equipment
Anchorage → Type 1, Material of anchorage, Present condition of the Mention the level of
Location-- If yes, 0, if no type 1, where applicable anchor equipment/furniture
Type 1 if
If > GF(1)
protected
Furniture/ Age anchored, /FF(2)
Good as new (1), OK(2), Type 1, If PL > 300mm from high
Equipment (years) how many /SF(3)
At On At min. maint. (3), medium from HFE, Type 2, if wind, type 0
years back /TF(4) Metal Wood other
base top sides maint (4), major maint lower than HFE, Type 3, for no
/>TF(5)
(4),replacement (5) of < 300mm below HFE
Desks 30-40 NA 1,2,3 0 0 0 NA NA NA 1 1

Chairs 30-40 NA 1,2,3 0 0 0 NA NA NA 1 1
Boards 4 4 1,2,3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
Tables 25 NA 1,2,3 0 0 0 NA NA NA 1 1
Computers
Not
and 7 2 0 0 0 NA NA NA 1 1
anchored
attachments
Not
Acids in Lab 3 1 0 0 0 NA NA NA 1 1
anchored
Not
Photocopier 5 2 0 0 0 NA NA NA 1 1
anchored
Not
Almirah 23 1,2,3 0 0 0 NA NA NA 1 1
anchored
Lab Not
14 1 0 0 0 NA NA NA 1 1
equipment anchored
** This should be supplemented with photos
39
Table VI .4: Summary of Defects: B3
SCHOOL BUILDING MAINTENANCE PROGRAMME Date of inspection 26th April, 2012
Quantity- Priority- urgent,

S Age of Location of the Unit Estimated Time
Defect type Defect description volume/ important, less
No facility defect cost cost frame
Area/ length important
2 Wall cracks cracks diagonal B3/R7,R9,R10,R1 4m Important
corner cracks, no tie up

Cracks in the wall
3 between the main wall B3/R5 3m Important
corner/ joints
and cross wall
At several places in
15 sq m +15%
interior and exterior
4 Damaged plaster B3/R7,R9,R10,R1 of surface Important
damaged plaster to be
area
replaced
vertical crack on the wall- B3/R2, B3/R4
36 YEARS
5 Vertical cracks 13 ft Important
wider than 1mm B2/R5.
6 Floor cracks About 1.5mm wide crack B3A2/R8, B3B/R5. 10m Important
Majority of the floor to B3B/R4,R5;

7 Damaged floor finish 60 Sq m Important
be redone B3A2/R7 &8.
Horizontal cracks in Though non structural , 5 joists, 6m

8 B3B/R 4 &R5; Important
timber joists might reduce durability long each
Is concrete falling Poor quality concrete,

9 off in small patches? exposure to rains caused periphery of B3 10sqm Urgent
Can you see the rods this distress
10 Wall crack at lintel One time crack B3/R3 2m Important
40
RETROFITTING NEED ASSESSMENT (USING TOOLKIT II)
Compliance index 0 No safety as per norm, 1 100% Safety as per norms Figure VI.2: Weights considered
WEIGHTS
Figure VI.1: Showing Scores: Seismic, Fire and Multi-Hazard Safety
Compliance Index (cut off level 0.75): Seismic and Fire Fire Seismic
Issue Weights
Multi Hazard VI 3
compliance… 0.59
I 2
Non structural 0.35
0.25 LOW 1
Structural 0.25
0.68
Architectural 0.68 Category Weights

0.72
0.90 Planning 0.2

Planning
0.86
Architectural 0.3
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Structural 0.3
Non-structural 0.2
41
Hazard Weights
The weights shown on the right were put forward by the Expert Group Meeting
W seis 1
th th
Held at Kathmandu (25 -26 March 2012). However, in any other context, the Wwind
country level experts may change these to suit the local conditions. Wflood
Wfire 1
The following two Tables show the retrofitting needs of building B3:
Table VI .5: Retrofitting actions to be taken to enhance SEISMIC SAFETY of School at Lalitpur, Nepal
SEISMIC
ISSUE NO ISSUES REFERENCES/ REMARKS
COMPLIANCE
PLANNING
Type 0, If in-house backup sources of water has not been

P4 0.25
provided in the school
700 students +teachers needing 350sqm (existing

P6 Type 2, if there is open space, but not adequate for gathering 0.5
courtyard 814sqm (18mx44m)
ARCHITECTURAL ISSUES
42
SEISMIC
COMPLIANCE
Type 3, if the design is poor for evacuation of physically A special study to be undertaken by the community to
A3 0.1
challenged people make arrangements in this respect.
A special study to be undertaken by the community to

A4 Type 4, there is no emergency exist in design 0.05
improve this
STRUCTURAL ISSUES
Is the existing building safe according to the seismic micro

S1 Specialists' intervention is needed
zoning factors?
If the school is a Masonry Structure, were vertical

S5 reinforcements & horizontal bands provided in walls Inspection could not be done
according to code?
Was the reinforcement detailing done as per code to ensure

S6 Inspection could not be done
ductility of the structure?
S7 Type 0, If seismic load has not been considered in design 0.05
NON STRUCTURAL ISSUES
NS1 Type 0, if plumbing lines are not supported and braced 0.25
Is overhead water tank or elevated water tank safely placed

NS2 no fire projection facility
and anchored adequately
43
SEISMIC
COMPLIANCE
Type 0, if you have not provided flexible joints in lab and the
NS3 0.05
lines clamped at suitable points
Table VI .6: Retrofitting actions to be taken to enhance FIRE SAFETY of School at Lalitpur, Nepal
ISSUE NO ISSUES SEISMIC COMPLIANCE REFERENCES/ REMARKS
PLANNING
P3 Type 2, if there is open space, but not adequate for gathering 0.5
ARCHITECTURAL
A1 Type 0, if only one escape route exists in each classroom 0.05
Type 0, if there is no fire fighting water tank of adequate size
A6 0
nor a local source
This could be changed with least
A8 Type 0, if the doors open inside 0.05
investment
Consider relocating the kitchen or else

A9 Type 0, if kitchen is not at a safe distance from classrooms 0.05 make adequate provision for fire
fighting
STRUCTURAL
S1 Type 0, if structural members not insulated 0.25
NON-STRUCTURAL
44
ISSUE NO ISSUES SEISMIC COMPLIANCE REFERENCES/ REMARKS
Type 0, if used wires are not of national standards' approved

NS1 0.25
quality
NS3 Type 0, if Lightning arrester not been fixed 0
Type 0, if there is not fire extinguisher in the building,
NS5 0.25
especially in Chemistry lab
NS6 Type 0, if there is no provision for fire alarm 0.25
45
SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS:
The approach roads to the school are highly con gested and narrow. In a couple of places there are
sharp bends. One has to be very careful even when driving a small car. Access for fire engine will
be a problem even though there are two main access roads to the school. Very old buildings
surround the school and many of them are heritage buildings and need retrofitting need assessment.
Apart from that, in case of fire in these buildings, the approach road could become difficult for the
fire engine to access.
The masonry pillars of the building B3 are highly vulnerable to seismic forces. There is an urgent
need for reinforced skin around them to take lateral force safely. There are potential fire hazards
due to old wiring system and presence of timber as primary spanning system in many classrooms.
Apart from that lack of fire alarm and fire extinguisher, etc. were potential threats to the school.
The school did not have water reservoir for fire righting.
The condition assessment revealed that there were no evidence of regular housekeeping and routine
maintenance. The distresses were identified and recorded by the team consisting of a trainer and
the teachers from a few schools. The participants agreed that an increased awareness and capacity
building would have eliminated most of the defects. Because of long neglect on maintenance, the
rooms in B3 were damaged. The teachers involved in the survey, realized that it is they who can
keep up the school by close vigilance on the building and its facilities. The detailed list of distresses
is in Table VI .4
The lab needs immediate retrofitting of its pipe lines. The roof top water tank is highly vulnerable
and may fall down even with medium tremor.
The evacuation route of the school is very poor. However, it would not need much of money to find
out an emergency exist to the side lanes.
The B5 is a heritage building with exquisite ceiling pattern and spatial character. The two long
parallel walls have a differential settlement of more than 150mm, which is considerable. There is a
strong need for immediate detailed investigation on the foundation of B5 so that appropriate
underpinning actions could be taken.
The school is very poor for access of the physically challenged people.
The school teachers, education department’s representatives, a mason, etc. took part in the day long
exercise in the field testing. It had made them adequately aware on the way one should look after
a school to identify gaps and record data. The exercise was intended to enable the teachers and the
community members to monitor the building and facilities on a regular basis.
47
B. DETAIL ASSESSMENT
48
2. EXAMPLE – B1: BRICK MASONRY
EARTHQUAKE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF FIELD OFFICE

BUILDING
2.1 BACKGROUND
This report is based on the best engineering judgment arrived at from visual inspection and findings
during the site investigations. Also, non-destructive test to obtain the strength of the structural
members was carried out in the sites using Schmidt Hammer at possible locations.
This Report describes method and findings of the qualitative earthquake vulnerability assessment
done as per the requirement of the Client.
2.2 METHODOLOGY
This assessment is done based on visual inspection, drawings developed based on site
measurements, earthquake vulnerability factors identification, their qualitative analysis and short
mathematical calculations to check some vulnerability factors. For the assessment of the chosen
building structure, FEMA “Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings" (FEMA 310) has
been followed. FEMA 310 suggests the procedure for the identification of deficiencies in the
building structure; however, it does not give the level of vulnerability if the building is non-
compliant. The checklists suggested by FEMA 310 were followed and other pertinent observations
necessary for the assessment were noted during the site survey. The details of the checklists are
given in each section.
The preliminary assessment shall include the following:
- Detailed site survey of the structures.

- Development of drawings based on the site survey.
- Identification of the strengths and weaknesses of the building.
- Identification of structural vulnerability factors of the existing lateral force resisting system
of the structures.
- General recommendations that would serve as an aid for further detailed analysis and design
of retrofitting options.
49
2.3 INTRODUCTION
This section includes the qualitative earthquake vulnerability analysis of the structure: Field Office
Building. The analysis is based on available information and the information gathered during the
site survey of the existing structure.
2.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

The structure is Two and half storied with a storey height of 3.25 meters. It was built 10 years ago.
The structure is being used as Field Office. The building is situated in a flat land. The structure is
composed of load bearing walls of brick in cement-sand mortar masonry in the superstructure
250mm thick and brick in cement-sand mortar masonry in the foundation. The roof consists of RCC
slab, 125mm thick. The beams are provided at centre part of the building but at outer part, beams
are not provided, only lintel bands (250mm x 250mm) are provided around the wall.
The size of tie beam are different, at corner, size of tie beam are 250mm x 125mm up to 400mm
length, rest of other tie beams, size 150mm x 125mm around the wall.
Excavation for Foundation depth check
Foundation Exploration
Crack at wall Non-destructive strength test of slab
50
Crack at Plinth Protection. Tie Beam Exploration
Non-destructive strength test of beam

Crack at Parapet wall
Vertical crack on wall due to pipe duck
51
2.5 BUILDING DRAWINGS
52
53
54
55
2.6 PROBABLE DAMAGE GRADE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING

TYPOLOGY AT DIFFERENT INTENSITIES
From the visual observation and study of the available drawings of the building, the building under
study is identified as Type 2 or Brick in Cement masonry.
Refer: Annex 1 for details of the identification of different building typology.
Table: Probable damage grades of type-2 building typology at different intensities
MMI VI VII VIII IX X

Different Classes of
Damage Grades for
Weak DG2 DG3 DG4 DG5 DG5

Buildings
Average DG1 DG2 DG3 DG4 DG5
Good - DG1 DG2 DG3 DG4
(Note: The description of different damage degrees is provided in Annex 2 and the details of the
MMI scale is given in Annex 3)
We can see from table 3.1 that weaker buildings in the type-2 category suffer a damage grade of 5
at an intensity of X whereas good buildings of this type-2 category suffer a damage grade of 4 at an
intensity of X.
The building in Nepalgunj can be categorized as a weak building in the type-2 typology as we can
already observe cracks in the structural system.
2.7 IDENTIFICATION OF VULNERABILITY FACTORS

Different Vulnerability factors associated with the particular type of buildings are checked with a
set of appropriate checklist from FEMA 310, “Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings”.
The basic vulnerability factors related to Building system, lateral force resisting system,
connections, and diaphragms are evaluated based on visual inspection and review of drawings.
The influence of different vulnerability factors to the building on the basis of visual inspection for
building is tabulated below:
56
Table 3.2: Influence of Different Vulnerability Factors to the Structure of Field Office Building.
Increasing Vulnerability of the Building by

different vulnerability factors
Vulnerability Factors
High Medium Low N/A N/K
Load Path √
Weak Story √
Soft Story √
Geometry √
Vertical Discontinuity √
General
Mass √
Torsion √
Deterioration of Material √
Masonry Units √
Masonry Wall Cracks √
Lateral Force Redundancy √

Resisting
System Shear Stress √
Wall Anchorage √
Connection
Transfer of Shear Walls √
Plan Irregularities √
Diaphragm
Diaphragm Reinforcement at
√
Openings
57
2.8 CONCLUSION
After careful observation of the structures the following conclusions were reached. The existing
structure is likely to undergo heavy structural damage during earthquakes. The crack patterns
observed in the structure clearly indicates the lack of reinforcing of the walls. The cracks observed
in the corners and below slabs show that the structural components have not been properly
integrated for optimum structural performance during earthquakes. The beams are provided at
centre part of the building but at outer part ,beams are not provided , only lintel bands are provided
around the wall .
2.9 RECOMMENDATIONS
The existing cracks in the building indicate the necessity of retrofitting and rehabilitation work on
the structure. The following recommendations are made:
- Providing corner stitches and stitches at T-junctions.
- Providing splint and bandage wherever necessary.
- Providing continuous RCC band at the slab level.
- Provision of water proofing layer and IPC Layer in roof slab as top layer (IPC layer) is cracked
all over the roof.
58
ANNEX 1: BUILDING TYPOLOGY IDENTIFICATION

The major building types in Nepal are given in the following table. From the visual observation and study
of the available drawings of the building, the buildings are categorized in the following typologies.
S
Building Types in Nepal Description
No.
Adobe Buildings: These are buildings constructed in
sun-dried bricks (earthen) with mud mortar for the
construction of structural walls. The walls are usually
more than 350 mm.
Adobe, stone in mud, brick-in-mud (Low Strength Stone in Mud: These are stone-masonry buildings
1 constructed using dressed or undressed stones with
Masonry).
mud mortar. These types of buildings have generally
flexible floors and roof.
Brick in Mud: These are the brick masonry buildings
with fired bricks in mud mortar
These are the brick masonry buildings with fired bricks
in cement or lime mortar and stone-masonry buildings
2 Brick in Cement, Stone in Cement
using dressed or undressed stones with cement
mortar.
These are the buildings with reinforced concrete
frames and unreinforced brick masonry infill in cement
mortar. The thickness of infill walls is 230mm (9”) or
Reinforced Concrete Ordinary-Moment-Resisting-
3 even 115mm (41/2”) and column size is predominantly
Frame Buildings
9”x 9”. The prevalent practice of most urban areas of
Nepal for the construction of residential and
commercial complexes is generally of this type.
These buildings consist of a frame assembly of cast-in-
place concrete beams and columns. Floor and roof
framing consists of cast-in-place concrete slabs.
Lateral forces are resisted by concrete moment frames
Reinforced Concrete Intermediate-Moment- that develop their stiffness through monolithic beam-
4
Resisting-Frame Buildings column connections. These are engineered buildings
designed without earthquake load or with old codes or
designed for small earthquake forces. Some of the
newly constructed reinforced concrete buildings are
likely to be of this type.
These buildings consist of a frame assembly of cast-in-
place concrete beams and columns. Floor and roof
framing consists of cast-in-place concrete slabs.
Lateral forces are resisted by concrete moment frames
Reinforced concrete special-moment-resistant- that develop their stiffness through monolithic beam-
5
frames (SMRF) column connections. These buildings have joint
reinforcing, closely spaced ties, and special detailing to
provide ductile performance. Despite the fact that this
system should be adopted ideally for all new RC frame
buildings in Nepal, it is now only used as an exception.
Mixed buildings like Stone and Adobe, Stone and Brick
6 Others in Mud, Brick in Mud and Brick in cement etc. are
other building type in Nepal.
59
ANNEX 2: CLASSIFICATION OF DAMAGE GRADES:
A.2.1 Classification of damage to masonry buildings
Grade 1: Negligible to slight damage
(no structural damage,
slight non-structural damage)
Hair-line cracks in very few walls.
Fall of small pieces of plaster only.
Fall of loose stones from upper parts of buildings in very

few cases.
Grade 2: Moderate damage
(slight structural damage, moderate
non-structural damage)
Cracks in many walls.
Fall of fairly large pieces of plaster.
Partial collapse of chimneys.
Grade 3: Substantial to heavy damage
(moderate structural damage,
heavy non-structural damage)
Large and extensive cracks in most walls.
Roof tiles detach. Chimneys fracture at the roof line; failure

of individual non-structural elements (partitions, gable
walls).
60
Grade 4: Very heavy damage
(heavy structural damage,
very heavy non-structural damage)
Serious failure of walls; partial structural failure of roofs

and floors.
Grade 5: Destruction
(very heavy structural damage)
Total or near total collapse.
Definitions of quantity
ANNEX 3: MODIFIED MERCALLY INTENSITY SCALE (MMI Scale)

I. Very Weak Intensity
 Can only be noticed or felt by people who are in the right situation and circumstance
 Furniture's or things which are not correctly positioned may move or be slightly displaced
 Slight shaking or vibrations will form on water or liquid surfaces in containers
II. Slightly Weak Intensity
 Can be noticed or felt by people who are resting inside homes
 Things that are hanged on walls would slightly sway, shake or vibrate
 The shaking or vibrations on water or liquid surfaces in containers would be highly

noticeable
61
III. Weak Intensity
 Can be noticed and felt by more people inside homes or buildings especially those situated
at high levels. Some may even feel dizzy. The quake at this stage can be described as though
a small truck had passed nearby.
 Things that are hanged on walls would sway, shake or vibrate a little more strongly.
 The shaking or vibrations on water or liquid surfaces in containers would be more vigorous
and stronger
IV. Slightly Strong Intensity
 Can be noticed and felt by most people inside homes and even those outside. Those who are
lightly asleep may be awakened. The quake at this stage can be described as though a heavy
truck had passed nearby.
 Things that are hanged on walls would sway, shake or vibrate strongly. Plates and glasses
would also vibrate and shake, as well as doors and windows. Floors and walls of wooden
houses or structures would slightly squeak. Stationary vehicles would slightly shake.
 The shaking or vibrations on water or liquid surfaces in containers would be very strong. It
is possible to hear a slight reverberating sound from the environment
V. Strong Intensity
 Can be felt and noticed by almost all people whether they are inside or outside structures.
Many will be awakened from sleep and be surprised. Some may even rush out of their homes
or buildings in fear. The vibrations and shaking that can be felt inside or outside structures
will be very strong.
 Things that are hanged on walls would sway, shake or vibrate much more strongly and
intensely. Plates and glasses would also vibrate and shake much strongly and some may
even break. Small or lightly weighted objects and furniture would rock and fall off.
Stationary vehicles would shake more vigorously.
 The shaking or vibrations on water or liquid surfaces in containers would be very strong
which will cause the liquid to spill over. Plant or tree stem, branches and leaves would shake
or vibrate slightly.
62
VI. Very Strong Intensity
 Many will be afraid of the very strong shaking and vibrations that they will feel, causing
them to lose their sense of balance, and most people to run out of homes or building
structures. Those who are in moving vehicles will feel as though they are having a flat tire.
 Heavy objects or furniture would be displaced from original positions. Small hanging bells
would shake and ring. Outer surfaces of concrete walls may crack. Old or fragile houses,
buildings or structures would be slightly damaged.
 Weak to strong landslides may occur. The shaking and vibrations of plant or tree stem,
branches and leaves would be strong and highly noticeable.
VII. Damaging Intensity
 Almost all people will be afraid of the very strong shaking and vibrations that they will feel.
Those who are situated at high levels of buildings will find it very hard to keep standing.
 Heavy objects or furniture would fall and topple over. Large hanging bells will sound
vigorously. Old or fragile houses, buildings or structures would most definitely be
destroyed, while strong or new structures would be damaged. Dikes, dams, fishponds,
concrete roads and walls may crack and be damaged.
 Liquefaction (formation of quicksand), lateral spreading (spreading of soil surface creating

deep cracks on land) and landslides will occur. Trees and plants will vigorously shake and
vibrate.
VIII. Highly Damaging Intensity
 Will cause confusion and chaos among the people. It makes standing upright difficult even
outside homes / structures.
 Many big buildings will be extremely damaged. Landslides or lateral spreading will cause
many bridges to fall and dikes to be highly damaged. It will also cause train rail tracks to
bend or be displaced. Tombs will be damaged or be out of place. Posts, towers and
monuments may bend or completely be destroyed. Water and canal/drainage pipes may be
damaged, bend, or break.
 Liquefaction and lateral spreading causes structures to sink, bend or be completely

destroyed, especially those situated on hills and mountains. For places near or situated at
the earthquake epicenter, large stone boulders may be thrown out of position. Cracking,
splitting, fault rupture of land may be seen. Tsunami-like waves will be formed from water
63
surfaces whether from rivers, ponds or dams/dikes. Trees and plant life will very vigorously
move and sway in all directions.
IX. Destructive Intensity
 People would be forcibly thrown/fall down. Chaos, fear and confusion will be extreme.
 Most building structures would be destroyed and intensely damaged. Bridges and high
structures would fall and be destroyed. Posts, towers and monuments may bend or
completely be destroyed. Water and canal/drainage pipes may be damaged, bend, or break.
 Landslides, liquefaction, lateral spreading with sand boil (rise of underground mixture of
sand and mud) will occur in many places, causing the land deformity. Plant and trees would
be damaged or uprooted due to the vigorous shaking and swaying. Large stone boulders
may be thrown out of position and be forcibly darted to all directions. Very-very strong
tsunami-like waves will be formed from water surfaces whether from rivers, ponds or
dams/dikes.
X. Extremely Destructive Intensity
 Overall extreme destruction and damage of all man-made structures
 Widespread landslides, liquefaction, intense lateral spreading and breaking of land surfaces
will occur. Very strong and intense tsunami-like waves formed will be destructive. There
will be tremendous change in the flow of water on rivers, springs, and other water-forms.
All plant life will be destroyed and uprooted.
ANNEX 4: STRESS CHECK CALCULATIONS

The following is a detail of quick check calculations based on FEMA 310 for the seismic
evaluation of building under consideration.
Assumptions:
Unit weight of brickwork = 19 kN/m3
Dead load = 4.125 kN/m2
Live load = 3 kN/m2
Live load at roof = 1.5 kN/m2
Weight of plaster and floor finishes = 1 kN/m2
64
Characteristics strength of concrete of Beams and slabs = M20
Grade of steel = Fe415
SUMMARY OF LUMPED LOAD CALCULATION
LEVEL FLOOR AREA DEAD LOAD LIVE LOAD 25% LIVE LOAD SEISMIC WEIGHT
TOP FLOOR 66.31 273.53 99.46 24.865 298.395

1ST FLOOR 119.95 494.79 359.88 89.97 584.76
GROUND FLOOR 119.95 494.79 359.88 89.97 584.76
1467.915
2.9.1 CALCULATION OF BASE SHEAR

The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear is given by
Based on IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002, Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures,
Calculation of earthquake loads using Seismic coefficient method:
The design horizontal seismic coefficient, Ah = Z*I*Sa/2Rg
Where Z= Zone Factor
I = Importance Factor
R = Response Reduction Factor
Sa/g = Average Response Acceleration Coefficient
The total design lateral force or Design Seismic Base Shear (VB) along any principal direction is
determined by the following expression
VB = m1*Ah*W
Where, Ah = The Design Horizontal Seismic Coefficient
W = Seismic weight of the building
m1= Factor for reduced useable life = 0.67
The approximate fundamental natural period of vibration (Ta) in seconds, of all other buildings,
including moment-resisting frame buildings with brick infill panels, may be estimated by the
empirical expression:
Ta = 0.09h /d0.5
65
Where, h = Height of Building in meter =9.75
d = Base dimension of the building at the plinth level, in m, along the considered direction of the
lateral force
dx = 13.67m
dz = 10.238m
Tax = 0.09h /dx0.5
= 0.09*9.75/ (13.67) 0.5
= 0.237 <0.55
Taz = 0.09h /dz0.5
= 0.09*9.75/ (10.238) 0.5
= 0.274 <0.55
Therefore, Sa/g = 2.5 for medium soil (IS: 1893(Part 1): 2002
Z = 0.36
I = 1.5 (6.4.2, IS 1893 (Part 1) 2002)
Sa/g = 2.5 (from graph 1893 (part 1)-2002)
R = 1.5
Ah = ZISa/2Rg
= 0.36 * 1.5 *2.5/ 2 *1.5
= 0.45
Base shear = Vb = m1*Ah*W
= 0.67 * 0.45 * 1467.92
= 442.577 KN
66
2.9.2 CALCULATION OF STOREY SHEAR
Vbz= 442.577 KN
Floor Total Weight Wi (kN) Height hi 2 2 Qi (kN) Storey

Wi*hi Wi*hi
(m) Shear Vi
SWi*hi2
(kN)
TOP FLOOR 298.40 9.75 28,366.17 0.479 211.89 211.89
FIRST FLOOR 584.76 6.5 24,706.11 0.417 184.55 396.44
GROUND FLOOR 584.76 3.25 6,176.53 0.104 46.14 442.58
1,467.92 59,248.81 1.000 442.58
2.9.3 SHEAR STRESS CHECK:
Storey Shear Storey Shear Shearing Area Shear Stress

Floor Vj (kN) Vj (lb) (in2) (Psi) Remarks
<15Psi. Hence
TOP FLOOR 211.89 47634.78 6644.16 7.169420965 safe
<15Psi. Hence
FIRST FLOOR 396.44 89123.289 28169.28 3.163846893 safe
GROUND <15Psi. Hence
FLOOR 442.58 99495.97 28169.28 3.532073592 safe
Hence the structure is safe in Shear stress in the floor.
2.9.4 ANNEX 5: CHECKLIST FOR FIELD ASSESSMENT
PROJECT: Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment of FIELD OFFICE BUILDING . Kathmandu, Nepal

Building OFFICE Date of survey 22nd July,2010
Name of building Field Office Building Assessment team MRB
No. of storey Two storey and half Flooring material IPC Flooring
Structural system Load Bearing structure Roofing material RCC slab
Walling material Fired brick in cement Roof ceiling
Age of Building 10 yrs. (2000
morter AD)
cement morter Terrain Flat
Surkhi mortar.adobe (?)
67
2.9.5 CHECKLIST FOR FIELD ASSESSMENT (TYPE 2: BRICK IN CEMENT

MORTAR)
The checklist covers the basic vulnerability factors related to building systems, lateral force
resisting systems, connections and diaphragms which will be evaluated mostly based on visual
observation.
(Note: C = Compliance to the statement; NC = Not Compliance to the statement; N/A = Not
Applicable, NK = Not Known)
The evaluation of different statements is made and is noted by Underlined Bold letter.
2.9.5.1 General
The structure system of building is load bearing system, which is around 10 years old. The structure
is being used as Field Office. The building is situated in a flat land.
2.9.5.2 Building System: Type 2: Brick in Cement mortar

C NC N/A NK LOAD PATH: The structure shall contain one complete load path for Life Safety and
Immediate Occupancy for seismic force effects from any horizontal direction that serves
to transfer the inertial forces from the mass to the foundation.
The building contains a load path except the top floor.
C NC N/A NK WEAK STORY: The strength of the lateral-force-resisting system in any story shall not be
less than 80% of the strength in an adjacent story above.
The building is two and half storey. Top floor of the building does not meet this criterion.
This may suffer stress concentration
C NC N/A NK SOFT STORY: The stiffness of the lateral-force-resisting system in any story shall not be
less than 70% of the stiffness in an adjacent story above or below or less than 80% of the
average stiffness of the three stories above or below.
Only top floor does not meet this criterion.
C NC N/A NK GEOMETRY: There shall be no changes in horizontal dimension of the lateral-force-

resisting system of more than 30% in a story relative to adjacent stories.
C NC N/A NK VERTICAL DISCONTINUITIES: All vertical elements in the lateral-force-resisting system

shall be continuous to the foundation.
This is not a problem.
68
C NC N/A NK MASS: There shall be no change in effective mass more than 50% from one story to the
next.
C NC N/A NK TORSION: The distance between the story center of mass and the story center of rigidity
shall be less than 20% of the building width in either plan dimension.
C NC N/A NK DETERIORATION OF CONCRETE: There shall be no visible deterioration of concrete or

reinforcing steel in any of the vertical- or lateral-force-resisting elements.
Deterioration of concrete is not seen.
C NC N/A NK MASONRY UNITS: There shall be no visible deterioration of masonry units.
Deterioration of masonary is not seen.
C NC N/A NK MASONRY JOINTS: The mortar shall not be easily scraped away from the joints by hand
with a metal tool, and there shall be no areas of eroded mortar.
This is not a problem.
C NC N/A NK UNREINFORCED MASONRY WALL CRACKS: There shall be no existing diagonal cracks in
wall elements greater than 1/16" or out-of-plane offsets in the bed joint greater than
1/16".
Cracks observed in inner and outer walls.
C NC N/A NK PROPORTIONS: The height-to-thickness ratio of the shear walls at each story shall be less
than the following for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy:
Top story of multi-story building: 9
First story of multi-story building: 15
All other conditions: 13
The height-to-thickness ratio =3.25/ 0.25 = 13.
The building meets this criterion
C NC N/A NK VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT: There shall be vertical reinforcement at all corners and T-
junctions of masonry walls and it shall be started from foundation and continuous to
roof.
Absence of vertical reinforcement.
69
C NC N/A NK HORIZONTAL BANDS: There shall be steel or wooden bands located at the plinth, sill and
lintel levels of the building in each floor.
Presence of RCC horizontal band at lintel level.
C NC N/A NK CORNER STITCH: There shall be reinforced concrete or wooden elements connecting two
orthogonal walls at a vertical distance of at least 0.5m to 0.7m.
Corner stitches are available in the structure.
C NC N/A NK GABLE BAND: If the roof is slopped roof, gable band shall be provided to the building.
Flat roof available.
C NC N/A NK THROUGH-STONES: In case of stone building, the walls shall have plenty of through-
stones extending the whole width of the walls. The maximum spacing of such through-
stones shall be within 1.2m horizontally and 0.6m vertically.
Load bearing brick wall.
C NC N/A NK REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction shall be
greater than or equal to 2.
Only 2 shear walls in the some portion of the structure.
C NC N/A NK SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the un-reinforced masonry shear walls shall be
less than 15 psi for clay units and 30 psi for concrete units.
Shear stress of Ground Floor = 3.53 psi, First Floor = 3.16 psi,Top Floor = 7.169 psi << 15
psi .Hence Safe .Refer Annex 4 for details.
Diaphragms
C NC N/A NK OPENINGS AT SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragm openings immediately adjacent to the shear
walls shall be less than 15% of the wall length.
C NC N/A NK OPENINGS AT EXTERIOR MASONRY SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragm openings immediately

adjacent to exterior masonry shear walls shall not be greater than 4 ft. long.
Some openings are greater than 5 ft. long.
C NC N/A NK PLAN IRREGULARITIES: There shall be tensile capacity to develop the strength of the
diaphragm at re-entrant corners or other locations of plan irregularities
70
C NC N/A NK DIAPHRAGM REINFORCEMENT AT OPENINGS: There shall be reinforcing around all

diaphragms openings larger than 50% of the building width in either major plan
dimension.
C NC N/A NK DIAGONAL BRACING: If there is flexible diaphragms such as joists and rafters shall be
diagonally braced and each crossing of a joist/rafter and a brace shall be properly fixed.
C NC N/A NK LATERAL RESTRAINERS: For flexible roof and floor, each joists and rafters shall be
restrained by timber keys in both sides of wall.
Connections
C NC N/A NK WALL ANCHORAGE: Exterior concrete or masonry walls shall be anchored for out-of-
plane forces at each diaphragm level with steel anchors or straps that are developed into
the diaphragm.
C NC N/A NK TRANSFER TO SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragms shall be reinforced and connected for transfer
of loads to the shear walls and the connections shall be able to develop the shear
strength of the walls.
C NC N/A NK ANCHOR SPACING: Exterior masonry walls shall be anchored to the floor and roof
systems at a spacing 3 ft. or less.
71
3. EXAMPLE - B2: ADOBE BUILDINGS
EARTHQUAKE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BUILDING
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section includes the qualitative earthquake vulnerability analysis public Building. The analysis
is based on available information and the information gathered during the site survey of the existing
structure.
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
The building is two storied with a storey height of 3 meters. The site is mildly sloped with gravel
mixed soil type. The construction in the building has been done in four phases. The building is in
two levels, the upper block is at 300mm above
the lower block. The ground floor of the upper
block was constructed 13 years ago, and then the
ground floor of the lower block was constructed
about 10 years ago. The first floor of the upper
block was then constructed 8 years ago, after
which, the first floor of the lower block was
constructed 2 years back. The structural system
Exploration of foundation
is the load bearing wall system. The ground floor
wall is 350mm thick and of brick in mud mortar masonry. The first floor wall is 230mm thick and
of brick in cement mortar. The slab of first floor is of reinforced brick concrete 100mm thick with
10mm bar @ 250mm center to center. The slab
of the roof is of reinforced cement concrete
100mm thick with 10mm bars @ 200mm center
to center. No tie beam, ceiling band, sill band and
lintel band has been provided at ground floor.
However, ceiling band has been provided at the
first floor. A 40mm thick damp proof concrete
has been provided at the plinth level. The internal
Void between masonry units
walls and ceilings are plastered and painted. The
front exterior wall is finished with cement plaster and painted. The rest of the exterior walls are
fair-faced.
72
The reinforcement is in exposed condition in many places due to insufficient cover. Deflections are
noticed in the beams in some places. Cracks are observed between slab and wall connection.
Dampness is observed in many places due to seepage. The beam reinforcement is exposed at the
end as a result of which it is susceptible to rusting.
Rebar exposed in RBC slab Rebar exposed in RCC slab
Rebar exposed at beam ends Exposed reinforcement
Cracks at slab & wall connection
73
3.3 BUILDING DRAWINGS
74
3.4 PROBABLE DAMAGE GRADE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING

TYPOLOGY AT DIFFERENT INTENSITIES
From the visual observation and study of the available drawings of the building, the building under
study is identified as Type 1 or Adobe Brick in mud masonry as the walls are composed of brick in
mud mortar masonry in the ground floor and brick in cement masonry in the first floor. See Annex1
for details of the identification of different building typology.
75
Table: Probable damage grades of type-1 building typology at different intensities
MMI VI VII VIII IX X

Different Classes of
Damage Grades for
Buildings Weak DG4 DG5 DG5 DG5 DG5
Average DG3 DG4 DG5 DG5 DG5
Good DG2 DG3 DG4 DG4 DG5
(Note: The description of different damage degrees is provided in Annex 2 and the details of the
MMI scale is given in Annex 3)
We can see from table 1 that even the good buildings in the type-1 category suffer a damage grade
of 5 at an intensity of X. This building can be categorized as an average building in the type-1
typology as we can see cracks in the structural system of the building.
3.5 IDENTIFICATION OF VULNERABILITY FACTORS
connections, and diaphragms are evaluated based on visual inspection and review of drawings. The
checklist used for checking different vulnerability factors of the assessed building is given in Annex
4 of this report. However, the critical vulnerability factors of the building required quantitative
checking. Some of the important calculation sheets are attached with Annex 4 of this report.
The influence of different vulnerability factors to the building on the basis of visual inspection for
the different buildings
Table 3.2: Influence of Different Vulnerability Factors

Load Path √
General Weak Story √
Soft Story √
76

Geometry √
Vertical Discontinuity √
Mass √
Torsion √
Deterioration of Material √
Masonry Units √
Masonry Wall Cracks √
Lateral Redundancy √
Force
Resisting
Shear Stress √
System
Wall Anchorage √
Connection
Transfer of Shear Walls √
Plan Irregularities √
Diaphragm
Diaphragm Reinforcement at
√
Openings
3.6 CONCLUSION
The existing structure is likely to undergo heavy structural damage during earthquakes of high
intensity. The presence of cracks between the roof and walls indicate that the diaphragm is not
attached to the load bearing wall system properly. The difference in levels of the two blocks might
attract stress during earthquakes due to the short column effect. Also, the fact that the building was
constructed at four different stages and four different time frames makes the building even more
vulnerable to earthquakes. The good part here, however, is that cracks are not observed at the
connection of the new and old constructions. The beam sections seem inadequate for the beam span
as the deflection of the beam is visible. Masonry in mud mortar are generally weak in shear hence,
77
proper strengthening should be provided to withstand the shear forces that are bound to be imposed
on the structure during earthquakes.
3.7 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations can be made to improve the structural performance of the building:
- Provide continuous bands for improving integrity of the structure as a whole
- Provide corner stitches at corners and wall junctions.
- The roofing system should be properly braced to the walls to withstand lateral loads.
- The long walls should be strengthened by providing buttress to break span.
- The existing cracks should be grouted.
- The beams should be checked for deflection and shear stress and jacketed if necessary.
78
ANNEX 1: BUILDING TYPOLOGY IDENTIFICATION

The major building types in Nepal are given in the following table. From the visual observation and study
of the available drawings of the building, the buildings are categorized in the following typologies.
No. Building Types in Description

Kathmandu Valley
1 Adobe, stone in mud, Adobe Buildings: These are buildings constructed in sun-dried bricks
brick-in-mud (Low (earthen) with mud mortar for the construction of structural walls. The walls
Strength Masonry). are usually more than 350 mm.
Stone in Mud: These are stone-masonry buildings constructed using dressed
or undressed stones with mud mortar. These types of buildings have
generally flexible floors and roof.
Brick in Mud: These are the brick masonry buildings with fired bricks in mud
mortar
2 Brick in Cement, Stone These are the brick masonry buildings with fired bricks in cement or lime
in Cement mortar and stone-masonry buildings using dressed or undressed stones with
cement mortar.
3 Reinforced Concrete These are the buildings with reinforced concrete frames and unreinforced
Ordinary-Moment- brick masonry infill in cement mortar. The thickness of infill walls is 230mm
Resisting-Frame (9”) or even 115mm (41/2”) and column size is predominantly 9”x 9”. The
Buildings prevalent practice of most urban areas of Nepal for the construction of
residential and commercial complexes is generally of this type.
4 Reinforced Concrete These buildings consist of a frame assembly of cast-in-place concrete beams
Intermediate- and columns. Floor and roof framing consists of cast-in-place concrete slabs.
Moment-Resisting- Lateral forces are resisted by concrete moment frames that develop their
Frame Buildings stiffness through monolithic beam-column connections. These are
engineered buildings designed without earthquake load or with old codes or
designed for small earthquake forces. Some of the newly constructed
reinforced concrete buildings are likely to be of this type.
5 Reinforced concrete These buildings consist of a frame assembly of cast-in-place concrete beams
special-moment- and columns. Floor and roof framing consists of cast-in-place concrete slabs.
resistant-frames Lateral forces are resisted by concrete moment frames that develop their
(SMRF) stiffness through monolithic beam-column connections. These buildings
have joint reinforcing, closely spaced ties, and special detailing to provide
ductile performance. Despite the fact that this system should be adopted
ideally for all new RC frame buildings in Nepal, it is now only used as an
exception.
6 Others Mixed buildings like Stone and Adobe, Stone and Brick in Mud, Brick in Mud
and Brick in cement etc. are other building type in Kathmandu valley.
79
ANNEX 2: CLASSIFICATION OF DAMAGE GRADES:

A.2.1 Classification of damage to masonry buildings
Hair-line cracks in very few walls.
Fall of small pieces of plaster only.
Fall of loose stones from upper parts of buildings in very

few cases.
(slight structural damage, moderate
non-structural damage)
Cracks in many walls.
Fall of fairly large pieces of plaster.
Partial collapse of chimneys.
Large and extensive cracks in most walls.
Roof tiles detach. Chimneys fracture at the roof line; failure

of individual non-structural elements (partitions, gable
walls).
Serious failure of walls; partial structural failure of roofs

and floors.
Total or near total collapse.
80
A.2.2 Classification of damage to buildings of reinforced concrete
Fine cracks in plaster over frame members or in walls at the

base.
Fine cracks in partitions and infills.
(slight structural damage,
moderate non-structural damage)
Cracks in columns and beams of frames and in structural walls.
Cracks in partition and infill walls; fall of brittle cladding and

plaster. Falling mortar from the joints of wall panels.
Cracks in columns and beam column joints of frames at the

base and at joints of coupled walls. Spalling of conrete cover,
buckling of reinforced rods.
Large cracks in partition and infill walls, failure of individual

infill panels.
Large cracks in structural elements with compression failure of

concrete and fracture of rebars; bond failure of beam
reinforced bars; tilting of columns. Collapse of a few columns
or of a single upper floor.
Collapse of ground floor or parts (e. g. wings) of buildings.
81
3.8 DEFINITIONS OF QUANTITY
I. Very Weak Intensity
 Can only be noticed or felt by people who are in the right situation and circumstance
 Furniture's or things which are not correctly positioned may move or be slightly displaced
 Slight shaking or vibrations will form on water or liquid surfaces in containers
II. Slightly Weak Intensity
 Can be noticed or felt by people who are resting inside homes

 Things that are hanged on walls would slightly sway, shake or vibrate
 The shaking or vibrations on water or liquid surfaces in containers would be highly
noticeable
III. Weak Intensity
 Can be noticed and felt by more people inside homes or buildings especially those situated
at high levels. Some may even feel dizzy. The quake at this stage can be described as though
a small truck had passed nearby.
 Things that are hanged on walls would sway, shake or vibrate a little more strongly.
 The shaking or vibrations on water or liquid surfaces in containers would be more vigorous
and stronger
IV. Slightly Strong Intensity
 Can be noticed and felt by most people inside homes and even those outside. Those who are
lightly asleep may be awakened. The quake at this stage can be described as though a heavy
truck had passed nearby.
 Things that are hanged on walls would sway, shake or vibrate strongly. Plates and glasses
houses or structures would slightly squeak. Stationary vehicles would slightly shake.
 The shaking or vibrations on water or liquid surfaces in containers would be very strong. It
is possible to hear a slight reverberating sound from the environment
82
V. Strong Intensity
 Can be felt and noticed by almost all people whether they are inside or outside structures.
Many will be awakened from sleep and be surprised. Some may even rush out of their homes
or buildings in fear. The vibrations and shaking that can be felt inside or outside structures
will be very strong.
 Things that are hanged on walls would sway, shake or vibrate much more strongly and
intensely. Plates and glasses would also vibrate and shake much strongly and some may
even break. Small or lightly weighted objects and furniture would rock and fall off.
 The shaking or vibrations on water or liquid surfaces in containers would be very strong
which will cause the liquid to spill over. Plant or tree stem, branches and leaves would shake
or vibrate slightly.
VI. Very Strong Intensity
 Many will be afraid of the very strong shaking and vibrations that they will feel, causing
them to lose their sense of balance, and most people to run out of homes or building
structures. Those who are in moving vehicles will feel as though they are having a flat tire.
 Heavy objects or furniture would be displaced from original positions. Small hanging bells
 Weak to strong landslides may occur. The shaking and vibrations of plant or tree stem,
VII. Damaging Intensity
 Almost all people will be afraid of the very strong shaking and vibrations that they will feel.
Those who are situated at high levels of buildings will find it very hard to keep standing.
 Heavy objects or furniture would fall and topple over. Large hanging bells will sound
vigorously. Old or fragile houses, buildings or structures would most definitely be
destroyed, while strong or new structures would be damaged. Dikes, dams, fishponds,
concrete roads and walls may crack and be damaged.
 Liquefaction (formation of quicksand), lateral spreading (spreading of soil surface creating
vibrate.
VIII. Highly Damaging Intensity
83
 Will cause confusion and chaos among the people. It makes standing upright difficult even
outside homes / structures.
 Many big buildings will be extremely damaged. Landslides or lateral spreading will cause
many bridges to fall and dikes to be highly damaged. It will also cause train rail tracks to
bend or be displaced. Tombs will be damaged or be out of place. Posts, towers and
monuments may bend or completely be destroyed. Water and canal/drainage pipes may be
damaged, bend, or break.
 Liquefaction and lateral spreading causes structures to sink, bend or be completely
the earthquake epicenter, large stone boulders may be thrown out of position. Cracking,
move and sway in all directions.
IX. Destructive Intensity
 People would be forcibly thrown/fall down. Chaos, fear and confusion will be extreme.
 Most building structures would be destroyed and intensely damaged. Bridges and high
structures would fall and be destroyed. Posts, towers and monuments may bend or
completely be destroyed. Water and canal/drainage pipes may be damaged, bend, or break.
 Landslides, liquefaction, lateral spreading with sand boil (rise of underground mixture of
dams/dikes.
X. Extremely Destructive Intensity
 Overall extreme destruction and damage of all man-made structures

 Widespread landslides, liquefaction, intense lateral spreading and breaking of land surfaces
will occur. Very strong and intense tsunami-like waves formed will be destructive. There
will be tremendous change in the flow of water on rivers, springs, and other water-forms.
All plant life will be destroyed and uprooted.
84
3.9 ANNEX 4: CHECKLIST FOR FIELD ASSESSMENT
3.9.1 Public building (Type 1: Brick in Mud mortar)

C NC N/A NK LOAD PATH: The structure shall contain one complete load path for Life Safety and
Immediate Occupancy for seismic force effects from any horizontal direction that serves
to transfer the inertial forces from the mass to the foundation.
C NC N/A NK WEAK STORY: The strength of the lateral-force-resisting system in any story shall not be
less than 80% of the strength in an adjacent story above.
C NC N/A NK SOFT STORY: The stiffness of the lateral-force-resisting system in any story shall not be
less than 70% of the stiffness in an adjacent story above or below or less than 80% of the
average stiffness of the three stories above or below.
C NC N/A NK GEOMETRY: There shall be no changes in horizontal dimension of the lateral-force-

resisting system of more than 30% in a story relative to adjacent stories.
C NC N/A NK VERTICAL DISCONTINUITIES: All vertical elements in the lateral-force-resisting system

shall be continuous to the foundation.
C NC N/A NK MASS: There shall be no change in effective mass more than 50% from one story to the next.
C NC N/A NK SHAPE: The building shall be symmetrical in plan and regular in elevation.
C NC N/A NK PROPORTION IN PLAN: The breadth to length ratio of the building shall be within 1:3.
The breadth to length ratio of any room or area enclosed by load bearing walls inside
the building shall be also within 1:3. The building height shall be not more than three
times the width of the building.
C NC N/A NK NUMBER OF STOREYS: The building shall be up to one storey only.
C NC N/A NK FOUNDATION: The foundation width and depth shall be at least 75cm. Masonry unit shall
be of flat-bedded stones or regular-sized well-burnt bricks. Mortar joints shall not be
exceeding 20mm in any case. There shall be no mud-packing in the core of the
foundation.
Information about mud packing in the core of the foundation could not be obtained.
C NC N/A NK SLOPING GROUND: The slope of the ground where the building lies shall not be more
than 20o (1:3, vertical: horizontal)
C NC N/A NK PLUMBLINE: Walls of the foundation and superstructure shall be true to plumb line and
the width of the wall shall be uniform.
C NC N/A NK WALL CORE: There shall be no mortar packing in the core of the wall.
85
Information could not be obtained.
C NC N/A NK THROUGH-STONES/WYTHE CONNECTORS: In case of stone building, the walls shall have
plenty of through-stones extending the whole width of the walls. The maximum spacing
of such through-stones shall be within 1.2m horizontally and 0.6m vertically.
C NC N/A NK WALL THICKNESS: The minimum wall thickness for different storey heights shall not be
less than
No of Storey
Masonry Type
One Two
Stone 340-450 450
Brick 350 350
Adobe 350 450
C NC N/A NK UNSUPPORTED WALL LENGTH: The maximum length of unsupported wall shall not be
more than 8 times its thickness. If the length of unsupported wall is more than 12 times
its thickness, buttressing shall be provided.
Few walls do not meet the criteria.
C NC N/A NK HEIGHT OF WALLS: The thickness to height ratio of a wall shall not be more than 1:8 for
stone building, 1:12 for brick building and 1:10 for Adobe.
C NC N/A NK OPENINGS IN WALL: The maximum combined width of the openings on a wall between
two consecutive cross-walls shall not be more than 35% of the total wall length for one-
storey building and not more than 25% of the total wall length in two-storey building.
C NC N/A NK Maximum length of any openings shall not be longer than 1.2m.
Some openings are upto1.7m long.
C NC N/A NK POSITION OF OPENINGS: Openings shall not be located at corners or junctions of a wall.
Openings shall not be placed closer to an internal corner of a wall than half the opening
height or 1.5 times the wall thickness, whichever is greater. The width of pier between
two openings shall not be less than half of the opening height or 1.5 times the wall
thickness, whichever is greater. The vertical distance between two openings shall not be
less than 0.6m or half the width of the smaller opening, whichever is greater.
C NC N/A NK TORSION: The distance between the story center of mass and the story center of rigidity
shall be less than 20% of the building width in either plan dimension.
C NC N/A NK MASONRY UNITS: There shall be no visible deterioration of masonry units.
86
C NC N/A NK WALL CRACKS: There shall be no existing diagonal cracks in wall elements greater than
1/16" or out-of-plane offsets in the bed joint greater than 1/16".
C NC N/A NK MASONRY LAY-UP: Filled collar joints of multi-Wythe masonry walls shall have negligible
voids.
C NC N/A NK VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT: There shall be vertical reinforcement at all corners and T-
junctions of masonry walls and it shall be started from foundation and continuous to
roof.
C NC N/A NK HORIZONTAL BANDS: There shall be steel or wooden bands located at the plinth, sill and
lintel levels of the building in each floor.
C NC N/A NK CORNER STITCH: There shall be reinforced concrete or wooden elements connecting two
orthogonal walls at a vertical distance of at least 0.5m to 0.7m.
C NC N/A NK GABLE BAND: If the roof is slopped roof, gable band shall be provided to the building.
Lateral Force Resisting System
C NC N/A NK REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of walls in each principal direction shall be greater than
2.
3.9.1.1 Diaphragms
C NC N/A NK DIAGONAL BRACING: All flexible structural elements of diaphragms such as joists and
rafters shall be diagonally braced and each crossing of a joist/rafter and a brace shall be
properly fixed.
C NC N/A NK LATERAL RESTRAINERS: Each joists and rafters shall be restrained by restrainers in both
sides of the wall.
Connections
C NC N/A NK TRANSFER TO SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragms shall be reinforced and connected for transfer
of loads to the shear walls and the connections shall be able to develop the shear
strength of the walls.
C NC N/A NK ANCHOR SPACING: Exterior masonry walls shall be anchored to the floor and roof
systems at a spacing 3 ft. or less.
87
4. EXAMPLE - B3: REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS
STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT AND RETROFITTING OF THE

THREE STORIED BUILDING
This report is based on the best engineering judgment arrived at from visual inspection and
structural calculations. Structural drawings, architectural drawings and other additional information
was collected wherever possible. Also, non-destructive test to obtain the strength of the structural
members was carried out in the sites using Schmidt Hammer at possible locations.
4.1 ASSESSMENT OF THE BUILDING

Qualitative and some quantitative structural assessment of the building are done based on visual
observation and review of drawings, design details available for the building. Different seismic
vulnerability factors are checked and expected performance of the building is estimated for different
intensities of earthquakes. Different steps of the assessment process and their outcomes are
described in this section.
4.1.1 LOCATION OF THE BUILDING IN THE SEISMIC HAZARD MAPS

The building lies in the seismic zone V which is most vulnerable during earthquakes. Thus it is very
important to assure the design of the building for safety against earthquake loads.
4.1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING

The building was surveyed and checked against various parameters. The building is of reinforced
cement concrete frame system with masonry infill. The structure is three storied with storey height
of about 2.88 meters. The infill walls consist of 110mm thick masonry walls. The floor consists of
reinforced concrete beam and slab system. The beam size is not consistent throughout the structure.
The roof in the topmost floor consists of CGI sheet cladding in timber truss system. Some columns
in the topmost floor are not tied to the beam system and merely stand to support the timber truss
system. The building has not been constructed adopting ductile detailing codes which is a key for
survival during earthquakes.
4.1.3 BUILDING TYPOLOGY IDENTIFICATION

The major building types in Kathmandu Valley are given in the following table. From the visual
observation and study of the available drawings of the building the building under study is identified
as Reinforced Concrete Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame building (Type 3).
No. Description
88
Building Types in
Kathmandu Valley
Adobe buildings are buildings constructed in sun-dried bricks (earthen)

with mud mortar for the construction of structural walls. The walls are
usually more than 350 mm.
Adobe, stone-in-
mud, brick-in-mud Stone-in-mud are stone masonry buildings constructed using dressed
1
(low strength or undressed stones with mud mortar. These types of buildings have
masonry) generally flexible floors and roof.
Brick-in-mud are the brick masonry buildings with fired bricks in mud
mortar.
These are brick masonry buildings with fired bricks in cement or lime
Brick-in-Cement,
2 mortar and stone-masonry buildings using dressed or undressed
Stone-in-Cement
stones with cement mortar.
These are buildings with reinforced concrete frames and un-reinforced

Reinforced Concrete brick masonry infill in cement mortar. The thickness of infill walls is
Ordinary Moment 230 mm or even 115 mm and column size is predominantly 230 X 230
3
Resisting Frame mm. the prevalent practice of most urban areas of Nepal for the
buildings construction of residential and commercial complexes is generally of
this type.
These buildings consist of a frame assembly of cast-in-place concrete

beams and columns. Floor and roofing framing consists of cast-in-
Reinforced Concrete place concrete slabs. Lateral forces are resisted by concrete moment
Intermediate frames that develop their stiffness through monolithic beam-column
4
Moment Resisting connections. These are engineered buildings designed without
Frame Buildings earthquake load or with old codes or designed for small earthquake
forces. Some of the newly constructed reinforced concrete buildings
are likely to be of this type.
These buildings consist of a frame assembly of cast-in-place concrete

beams and columns. Floor and roof framing consists of cast-in-place
Reinforced concrete concrete slabs. Lateral forces are resisted by concrete moment frames
special moment that develop their stiffness through monolithic beam-column
5
resistant frames connections. These buildings have joint reinforcing, closely spaced
(SMRF) ties, and special detailing to provide ductile performance. Despite the
fact that this system should be adopted ideally for all new RC frame
buildings in Nepal, it is now only used as an exception.
Mixed buildings like Stone and Adobe, Stone and Brick in Mud, Brick in
6 Others mud and brick in cement etc are other building type in Kathmandu
valley.
89
4.1.4 IDENTIFICATION OF VULNERABILITY FACTORS

connections, and diaphragms are evaluated based on visual inspection and review of drawings. The
checklist used for checking different vulnerability factors of the assessed building is given in Annex
1 of this report. However, the critical vulnerability factors of the building required quantitative
checking.
4.2 SURVEY FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS RESULTS
4.2.1 MATERIAL VULNERABILITY

For the purpose of this study no material testing has been conducted so here only qualitative
judgments are made based on past experience. Reinforced concrete is the combination of plain
cement concrete and steel reinforcement, which combine to carry the load and its distribution,
deformation etc. The plain cement concrete is weak in tension and high in compression
performance. Hence, plain cement concrete alone cannot resist tensile forces (pulling) and is, by
itself, a brittle material. On the other hand, the steel is totally opposite in performance to the concrete
i.e. higher resistance in tension. A combination of both materials (reinforced concrete) results in
ductile members, which are capable of meeting the inelastic deformation demands imposed by
severe earthquakes. During earthquakes, ground shaking will generate vibrations in different
directions, which causes cyclic loading (also called dynamic loading) in the structural members
depending upon the ground soil condition, epicenter distance and material properties. Such
vibration forces will vary in magnitude, direction or position with time. If the structural elements
have enough capacity to sustain such vibration dynamic forces, they can undergo large deformation
(termed as displacement of the structure) but won't collapse. The reinforced concrete structure can
resist such reversal loads during seismic action because it has both tensile and compressive
properties (ductile character).
4.2.2 BUILDING VULNERABILITY

The configuration of the building is not in compliance with the requirements for structural safety,
in earthquakes. The building suffers from configuration deficiency, lack of integrity between
different building components although constructed of good and strong materials. However, the
building suffers from lack of earthquake resistance capacity. The Table 3.1 shows the influence of
these weaknesses on vulnerability of these building in qualitative terms (high, medium, low) on the
basis of visual inspection, review of drawings and short analysis of the building.
90
The building does not seem to incorporate earthquake resilience features such as seismic bands
etc. Also, at the topmost level, some of the columns are not tied to the beam system. The building
was not designed to meet seismic requirements. The other evidence of lack of seismic
consideration is the largely deficient configuration of the building.
4.2.2.1 Influence of Different Vulnerability Factors to the Seismic Performance of the

Building
The table 3.1 shows the influence of different vulnerability factors to the building on the basis of
visual inspection.
Table 3.1: Influence of Different Vulnerability Factors to the structure
Increasing Vulnerability of the Building by different

vulnerability factors
Not
High Medium Low N/A
known
Load Path √
Weak Story √
Soft Story √
Geometry √
Vertical
√
Discontinuity
General
Mass √
Torsion √
Deterioration of
√
Material
Cracks in Wall √
Cantilever √
Redundancy √
Shear Stress √
Axial Stress √
Lateral Short Captive

√
Force Column
Resisting
Strong
System
Column/Weak √
Beam
Beam Bars √
Column-Bar
√
Splices
91
Increasing Vulnerability of the Building by different

vulnerability factors
Not
High Medium Low N/A
known
Beam-Bar
√
Splices
Column Tie
√
Spacing
Lateral
Force Beam Stirrup
√
Resisting Spacing
System
Joint Reinforcing √
Joint Eccentricity √
Stirrup and Tie

√
hooks
Connectivity
between
Connection different √
structural
elements
Diaphragm
√
Continuity
Plan
√
Irregularities
Diaphragm
Diaphragm
Reinforcement √
at Openings
Pounding Effect √
Others
Nonstructural
√
Elements
4.2.2.2 Reinterpretation of the Building Fragility Based on Observed Vulnerability Factors

The assessment of different vulnerability factors show that the building falls under the average
category of Reinforced Concrete Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame building (Type 3) typology.
The performance of buildings to different earthquake intensity is given in Table 3.2
Table 3.2: Reinterpreted Fragility of the structure
MMI VI VII VIII IX
92
Building Performance - DG1 DG2 DG3
4.2.2.3 Probable Performance of the Building at Different Intensities

Based on interpretation of visual observations, study of construction materials, study of behavior
of similar buildings in past earthquake in and around Nepal, short calculations, identification of
structural deficiencies, lack of incorporation of earthquake resistance features discussed above the
performance of the buildings in terms of structural vulnerability has been estimated using different
fragility functions in different intensity of earthquakes.
(Note: The description of different damage degrees is provided in Annex 3)
The performance of the buildings in terms of structural and non-structural vulnerability is given in
Table 3.3 as per the qualitative assessment done above.
Table 3.3: Probable Performance of the Building
Performance of the Building

Item
MMI = VI MMI = VII MMI = VIII MMI = IX
Structural Damage Negligible Slight Slight-Moderate Moderate
4.3 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the qualitative assessment done above on the basis of the available information about the
building, the architectural and structural drawings and the limited non destructive test that could be
carried, it is concluded that the assessed building is likely to undergo moderate structural damage
at large earthquakes of intensity IX MMI. Otherwise the building is most likely to undergo slight
to moderate structural damage at moderate earthquakes of intensity of VIII MMI. This is not in
compliance with the stipulation of the Nepal, National Building Code that requires: “Structures
should be able to resist moderate earthquakes without significant damage”; and “Structures should
be able to resist major earthquakes without collapse”. Moreover, the reinforcement provided in the
columns as per the structural drawings is insufficient to withstand the lateral load exerted on the
structure during earthquakes.
4.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING SEISMIC SAFETY

The following actions are identified as the intervention remedies required for reducing the
earthquake risk in the assessed building:
93
 The selected columns should be provided with mild steel angles at corners and braced at
intervals. The columns are then wrapped with chicken wire mesh and plastered with 1:4 cement
plasters. The details are provided in Appendix 6. These columns are selected since the
reinforcement provided in these columns seems to be inadequate to withstand the load of the
structure.
 Reinforced concrete shear walls should be added in the structure to increase the shear capacity
of the structure. The shear walls are especially provided in the staircase areas because it is the
staircases that are affected most during earthquakes. Providing the shear wall at the staircase
level also minimizes the effect of short column.
94
ANNEX 1: CHECKING DIFFERENT VULNERABILITY FACTORS OF THE

BUILDING
Each of the evaluation statements on this checklist shall be marked compliant (C), non-compliant
(NC), or not applicable (N/A) or not known (NK) for a Tier 1 Evaluation. Compliant statements
identify issues that are acceptable according to the criteria of FEMA 310, while non-compliant
statements identify issues that require further investigation. Certain statements may not apply to the
structures being evaluated. The evaluation of different statements is made and is noted by
Underlined and Bold letter.
4.4.1 BUILDING SYSTEM

C NC N/A NK LOAD PATH: The structure shall contain one complete load path for Life Safety and Immediate
Occupancy for seismic force effects from any horizontal direction that serves to transfer the
inertial forces from the mass to the foundation.
C NC N/A NK ADJACENT BUILDINGS: An adjacent building shall not be located next to the structure being
evaluated closer than 4% of the height for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy.
C NC N/A NK WEAK STORY: The strength of the lateral-force-resisting system in any story shall not be less
than 80% of the strength in an adjacent story above or below for Life-Safety and Immediate
Occupancy.
C NC N/A NK SOFT STORY: The stiffness of the lateral-force-resisting system in any story shall not be less
than 70% of the stiffness in an adjacent story above or below or less than 80% of the average
stiffness of the three stories above or below for Life-Safety and Immediate Occupancy.
C NC N/A NK GEOMETRY: There shall be no changes in horizontal dimension of the lateral-force-resisting

system of more than 30% in a story relative to adjacent stories for Life Safety and Immediate
Occupancy, excluding one-story penthouses.
C NC N/A NK VERTICAL DISCONTINUITIES: All vertical elements in the lateral-force-resisting system shall be
continuous to the foundation.
C NC N/A NK MASS: There shall be no change in effective mass more than 50% from one story to the next
for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy.
C NC N/A NK TORSION: The distance between the story center of mass and the story center of rigidity shall
be less than 20% of the building width in either plan dimension for Life Safety and Immediate
Occupancy.
Refer Annex 2 C: Check for torsion
C NC N/A NK DETERIORATION OF CONCRETE: There shall be no visible deterioration of concrete or

reinforcing steel in any of the vertical- or lateral-force-resisting elements.
No such deterioration observed
95
4.4.2 Lateral Force Resisting System

C NC N/A NK REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of moment frames in each principal direction shall be
greater than or equal to 2 for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. The number of bays
of moment frames in each line shall be greater than or equal to 2 for Life Safety and 3 for
Immediate Occupancy.
Meets the criteria
C NC N/A NK INTERFERING WALLS: All infill walls placed in moment frames shall be isolated from structural
elements.
Infilled walls are attached to frames but not tied together
C NC N/A NK SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the concrete columns, calculated using the Quick
Check procedure of Section 3.5.3.2, shall be less than 100 psi or 2√f c for Life Safety and
Refer Annex 2A.3: Check for shear stress
C NC N/A NK AXIAL STRESS CHECK: The axial stress due to gravity loads in columns subjected to overturning
forces shall be less than 0.10f' c for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. Alternatively,
the axial stresses due to overturning forces alone, calculated using the Quick Check
Procedure of Section 3.5.3.6, shall be less than 0.30f' c for Life Safety and Immediate
Occupancy.
Refer Annex 2B: Check for axial stress
C NC N/A NK FLAT SLAB FRAMES: The lateral-force-resisting system shall not be a frame consisting of
columns and a flat slab/plate without beams.
Lateral force resisting system consists of columns and beams
C NC N/A NK SHORT CAPTIVE COLUMNS: There shall be no columns at a level with height/depth ratios less
than 50% of the nominal height/depth ratio of the typical columns at that level for Life
Safety and 75% for Immediate Occupancy.
Columns at the mid-landing of the staircases do not satisfy this criteria
C NC N/A NK NO SHEAR FAILURE: The shear capacity of frame members shall be able to develop the
moment capacity at the top and bottom of the columns
Refer Annex 2A 4.2
C NC N/A NK STRONG COLUMN / WEAK BEAM: The sum of the moment capacity of the columns shall be
20% greater than that of the beams at frame joints.
Refer Annex 2D: Check for strong column weak beam
96
C NC N/A NK BEAM BARS: At least two longitudinal top and two longitudinal bottom bars shall extend
continuously throughout the length of each frame beam. At least 25% of the longitudinal
bars provided at the joints for either positive or negative moment shall be continuous
throughout the length of the members for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy.
Reference from structural drawing
C NC N/A NK COLUMN-BAR SPLICES: All columns bar lap splice lengths shall be greater than 35 d b for Life
Safety and 50 d b for Immediate Occupancy and shall be enclosed by ties spaced at or less
than 8 d b for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy.
C NC N/A NK BEAM-BAR SPLICES: The lap splices for longitudinal beam reinforcing shall not be located
within l b /4 of the joints and shall not be located within the vicinity of potential plastic
hinge locations.
C NC N/A NK COLUMN-TIE SPACING: Frame columns shall have ties spaced at or less than d/4 for Life Safety
and Immediate Occupancy throughout their length and at or less than 8 d b for Life Safety
and Immediate Occupancy at all potential plastic hinge locations.
C NC N/A NK STIRRUP SPACING: All beams shall have stirrups spaced at or less than d/2 for Life Safety and
Immediate Occupancy throughout their length. At potential plastic hinge locations stirrups
shall be spaced at or less than the minimum of 8 d b or d/4 but no less than 100mm for
Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy.
As per structural drawing
C NC N/A NK JOINT REINFORCING: Beam-column joints shall have ties spaced at or less than 8d b for Life
Safety and Immediate Occupancy.
C NC N/A NK JOINT ECCENTRICITY: There shall be no eccentricities larger than 20% of the smallest column
plan dimension between girder and column centerlines. This statement shall apply to the
Immediate Occupancy Performance Level only.
C NC N/A NK STIRRUP AND TIE HOOKS: The beam stirrups and column ties shall be anchored into the
member cores with hooks of 135° or more. This statement shall apply to the Immediate
Occupancy Performance Level only.
As per structural drawing
4.4.3 Diaphragms
C NC N/A NK DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms shall not be composed of split-level floors. In wood
buildings, the diaphragms shall not have expansion joints.
C NC N/A NK PLAN IRREGULARITIES: There shall be tensile capacity to develop the strength of the
diaphragm at re-entrant corners or other locations of plan irregularities. This statement
shall apply to the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level only.
97
C NC N/A NK DIAPHRAGM REINFORCEMENT AT OPENINGS: There shall be reinforcing bars around all
diaphragms openings larger than 50% of the building width in either major plan dimension.
This statement shall apply to the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level only.
4.4.4 Connections
C NC N/A NK CONCRETE COLUMNS: All concrete columns shall be doweled into the foundation for Life
Safety and the dowels shall be able to develop the tensile capacity of the column for
ANNEX 2: RELATED STRESS CHECK CALCULATIONS

The following is a sample of quick check calculations based on FEMA 310 for the seismic
evaluation of building under consideration.
Assumptions:
● Unit weight of RCC = 24kN/m3; Unit weight of brick = 19 kN/m3
Live load = 3 kN/m2; Live load at roof level without access= 1.5 kN/m2
Weight of plaster and floor finish = 1.0 KN / m2
Weight of timber = 6.45 kN/m2
Lateral load is solely carried by frame elements. Stiffness of the walls is not considered.
 Grade of concrete = M20 for all structural elements
 Grade of steel = Fe 415
A. Calculation for Shear Stress check
A.1 Summary of lumped load calculation
LOAD MULTIPLIER
Dead 1
Live 0.25
Total mass for seismic weight calculation W = 9661.32 kN
A.2 Calculation of base shear (Using IS 1893 (Part I):: 2002)
98
Where Z=zone factor
I = Importance factor
R = Response reduction factor
Sa/g = average response acceleration coefficient
Ta = 0.09h /d0.5
Where, h = Height of Building in meter and
d = Base dimension of the building at the plint level, in m, along the considered direction of the
lateral force
I = 1 (6.4.2, IS 1893 (Part 1) 2002)
Z = 0.36
Ah = ZISa/2Rg
Tax = 0.09*h/dx0.5
= 0.09*8.64/29.530.5 = 0.1431 sec
Tay = 0.09*h/dy0.5
= 0.09*8.64/7.920.5 = 0.2763 sec
Sa/g = 2.5 (from graph 1893 (part 1)-2002)
R=5
Ah = ZISa/2Rg = 0.36*1*2.5/(2*5) = 0.09
The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear (VB) along any principal direction is
determined by the following expression
VB = Ah*W
Where, Ah = The design horizontal seismic coefficient
VB = 0.09 x 9661.32 = 869.52 kN
A.3 Distribution of base shear and calculation of storey shear
99
The design base shear (Vb) is distributed along the height of the building as per the following
expression:
Qi = Vb (Wi hi/ ∑ Wi hi)
Where
Qi = Design lateral force at floor i
Wi = Seismic weight of floor i
hi = Height of floor i measured from base
STORY STOREY FORCE STOREY SHEAR
Qi (kN) Vj (kN)
3FL 353.9 353.9
2FL 337.94 691.84
1FL 177.68 869.52
Level Storey Shears Ac nc nf1 nf2 nc-nf1 nc-nf2 Shear Stress
Vj (kN) Vj (lb) (in2) V1avg(psi) V2avg(psi)
3 353.9 79287.6 3991 41 11 4 30 37 13.6 11.01
2 691.84 154999.5 4158 41 11 4 30 37 25.47 20.65
1 869.52 194806.9 4747 45 11 5 34 40 27.16 23.08
Where,
Ac = Summation of the cross sectional area of all columns in the storey under consideration
nc = Total no. of columns
nf = Total no. of frames in the direction of loading
Vavg = Average shear stress (psi) in the columns of concrete frames
1  nc  V j


Vavg  
m  nc  n f  A
 c 
m = component modification factor = 2 for buildings being evaluated to the life safety performance
level
10
0
fc’ = specified compressive strength of concrete = 20 N/mm2

The average induced shear stresses are less that the permissible value of 100 psi or 2√fc’
(107.59 psi).
Hence, safe.
A.4 Calculation of Shear capacity of column using capacity design method

A.4.1 Checking shear capacity of column (E-3)
Shear capacity of column (E-3) required = 1.2(Ml+Mr)/hst
Ultimate capacity of beam = fy * Ast * deff
Where,
deff = d { 1 – ( Ast – Asc ) * fy / b * d * fck }
Calculation of Ml
Ast = 226 mm2 (3-16;3-12) ; b = 230mm ; d = 200mm
Asc = 226 mm2 ; fck = 20 N/mm2
fy = 415 N/mm2 ; Pt = 0.49 %
deff = 200 { 1 – ( 226 – 226 ) * 415/ (230 * 200 * 20) }
deff = 200 mm
Beam moment capacity Ml = 415 * 226 * 200 Nmm
= 18.76 KN –m = M2
Hence, Shear capacity of column (E-3) required = 1.2 (18.76+18.76) / 2.88
= 15.63 kN
Pt provided = 1206 * 100 / 230 * 350 = 1.5 %
From table 61, for Pt = 1.5 %, M20 concrete τc = 0.72 N/mm2
Shear capacity of concrete section = 0.72 * 230 * 310 / 1000 = 51.34 kN>15.63kN
Hence, safe.
A.4.2 Checking shear capacity of column (D-3)

Shear capacity of column (D-3) required = 1.2(Ml+Mr)/hst
Where,
10
1
deff = d { 1 – ( Ast – Asc ) * fy / b * d * fck }
Calculation of Ml
Ast = 427 mm2 (3-16;3-12) ; b = 230mm ; d = 350mm
Asc = 226 mm2 ; fck = 20 N/mm2
fy = 415 N/mm2 ; Pt = 0.53 %
deff = 350 { 1 – ( 427 – 226 ) * 415/ (230 * 350 * 20) }
deff = 332 mm
= 58.83 KN –m
M2 = 0
Hence, Shear capacity of column (E-3) required = 1.2 ( 58.83+0) / 2.88
= 24.51 kN
Pt provided = 1206 * 100 / 230 * 350 = 1.5 %
From table 61, for Pt = 1.5 %, M20 concrete τc = 0.72 N/mm2
Shear capacity of concrete section = 0.72 * 230 * 310 / 1000 = 51.34 kN>24.51kN
Hence, safe.
B. Axial Stress check
Axial stresses due to overturning forces as per FEMA 310
Permissible stress = 868 psi (0.3 fc’ )
The axial stress of columns subjected to overturning forces pot is given by
Pot = (1/m) (2/3) (V hn / L nf )( 1/ Ac )
Where,
nf = Total no. of frames in the direction of loading = 5
V= Base shear = 869.52 KN = 194806.9 P
hn = height ( in feet ) above the base to the roof level = 28.8ft
L = Total length of the frame ( in feet ) =98.43ft.
m = component modification factor = 2
10
2
Ac = Summation of the cross sectional area of all columns in the storey under consideration =
4747 in2
Pot = 0.8psi << 868 psi
Hence, Safe.
C. Check for torsion
Checking eccentricity between centre of mass and centre of stiffness at different floors
CENTER OF
STORY CENTER OF MASS STIFFNESS % ECCENTRICITY WIDTH
Xm Ym Xr Yr Ex Ey L B
ROOF 14.764 5.295 14.764 5.7 0.00 -4.19 29.528 9.673
2FL 14.764 5.297 14.764 5.643 0.00 -3.58 29.528 9.673
1FL 14.764 5.215 14.764 5.565 0.00 -3.62 29.528 9.673
D. Check for Strong column weak beam
Checking capacity of column E-3 at ground floor
Beam moment capacity Ml = 415 * 226 * 200 N-mm
= 18.76 KN –m = M2
Column moment capacity required = 1.2 * 18.76 = 22.51 KN –m
Column axial load = 364 KN (factored)
Pu / fck * b * D = 364 * 1000/ 20 * 230 * 350 = 0.23
Mu / fck * b * D 2 = 22.51 * 10 6 / 20 * 230 * 350 2 = 0.04
Using SP – 16, Pt required is 0.15 % whereas Pt provided is 1.5 % .
Hence, the strong column-weak beam criteria meet.
Checking capacity of column D-3 at ground floor
10
3
= 58.83 KN –m = M2
Column moment capacity required = 1.2 * 58.83 = 70.6 KN –m
Column axial load = 418 KN (factored)
Pu / fck * b * D = 418 * 1000/ 20 * 230 * 350 = 0.26
Mu / fck * b * D 2 = 70.6 * 10 6 / 20 * 230 * 350 2 = 0.125
Using SP – 16 , Pt required is 1.6 % whereas Pt provided is 1.5. %
Hence, the strong-column weak-beam criteria does not meet.
E. Check for out-of-plane stability of brick masonry walls
Wall Recommended Actual Height/

Wall type thick Height/ Thickness Thickness ratio in Comments
ness ratio (0.24<Sx≤0.35) building
Wall in first storey, 230 mm 18 2530/230=11 Pass
115 mm 18 2530/115 = 22 Fail
230 mm 16 2530/230=11 Pass

All other walls
115mm 16 2530/115 = 22 Fail
10
4
INTENSITY DESCRIPTION OF EFFECT
Very Weak Intensity
 Can only be noticed or felt by people who are in the right situation and circumstance
I
 Furniture or things which are not correctly positioned may move or be slightly displaced
 Slight shaking or vibrations will form on water or liquid surfaces in containers
Slightly Weak Intensity

- Can be noticed or felt by people who are resting inside homes
II - Things that are hung on walls would slightly sway, shake or vibrate
- The shaking or vibrations on water or liquid surfaces in containers would be highly
noticeable
Weak Intensity
- Can be noticed and felt by more people inside homes or buildings especially those
situated at high levels. Some may even feel dizzy. The quake at this stage can be described
as though a small truck has passed nearby
III
- Things that are hung on walls would sway, shake or vibrate a little more strongly
- The shaking or vibrations on water or liquid surfaces in containers would be more

vigorous and stronger
Slightly Strong Intensity
- Can be noticed and felt by most people inside homes and even those outside. Those who
are lightly asleep may be awakened. The quake at this stage can be described as though a
heavy truck has passed nearby
IV - Things that are hung on walls would sway, shake or vibrate strongly. Plates and glasses
houses or structures would slightly squeak. Stationary vehicles would slightly shake
- The shaking or vibrations on water or liquid surfaces in containers would be very strong.
It is possible to hear a slight reverberating sound from the environment
Strong Intensity
- Can be felt and noticed by almost all people whether they are inside or outside
V structures. Many will be awakened from sleep and be surprised. Some may even rush out of
their homes or buildings in fear. The vibrations and shaking that can be felt inside or outside
structures will be very strong
10
5
- Things that are hung on walls would sway, shake or vibrate much more strongly and
intensely. Plates and glasses would also vibrate and shake much more strongly and some
may even break. Small or lightly weighted objects and furniture would rock and fall off.
- The shaking or vibrations on water or liquid surfaces in containers would be very strong
which will cause the liquid surfaces in containers would be very strong which will cause the
liquid to spill over. Plant or tree stem, branches and leaves would shake or vibrate slightly.
Very Strong Intensity
- Many will be afraid of the very strong shaking and vibrations that they will feel causing
them to loose their sense of balance and most people to run out of homes or building
structures. Those who are in moving vehicles will feel as though they are having flat tyres.
VI
- Heavy objects or furniture would be displaced from original positions. Small hanging bells
- Weak to strong landslides may occur. The shaking and vibration of plant or tree stem,
Damaging Intensity
- Almost all people will be afraid of the very strong shaking and vibrations that they will
feel. Those who are situated at high levels of building swill find it very hard to keep standing.
- Heavy objects or furniture would fall and topple over. Large hanging bells will sound
VII vigorously. Old or fragile houses, buildings or structures would most definitely be destroyed,
while strong or new structures would be damaged. Dikes, dams, fishponds, concrete roads
and walls may crack and be damaged.
- Liquefaction (formation of quicksand), lateral spreading (spreading of soil surface creating

vibrate.
Highly Damaging Intensity

VIII - Will cause confusion and chaos among the people. It makes standing upright difficult
even outside homes/structures.
10
6
- Many big buildings will be extremely damaged. Landslides or lateral spreading will cause
may bridges to fall and dikes to be highly damaged. It will also cause train rail tracks to bend
or be displaced. Thombs will be damaged or be out of place. Posts, towers and monuments
may bend or completely be destroyed. Water and canal/drainage pipes may be damaged,
bend or break.
- Liquefaction and lateral spreading causes structures to sink, bend or be completely

the earthquake epicenter, large stone boulders may be thrown out of opposition. Cracking,
more and sway in all directions.
Destructive Intensity
- People would be forcibly thrown/fall down. Chaos, fear and confusion will be extreme
- Most building structures would be destroyed and intensely damaged. Bridges and high
structures would fall and be destroyed. Posts, towers and monuments may bend or break.
IX
- Landslides, liquefaction, lateral spreading with sand boil (rise of underground mixture of
dams/dikes.
Extremely Destructive Intensity
- Overall extreme destruction and damage of all man-made structures

X
- Widespread landslides, liquefaction, intense tsunami like waves formed will be
destructive. There will be tremendous chance in the flow of water on rivers, springs, and
other water-forms. All plant life will be destroyed and uprooted.
Devastative Intensity
XI - Severe damage even to well built buildings, bridges, water dams and railway lines;
highways become useless; underground pipes destroyed.
Extremely Destructive Intensity (Landscape changes)

XII
- Practically all structures above and below ground are greatly damaged or destroyed.
10
7
ANNEX 4: EUROPEAN MACRO SEISMIC SCALE (EMS 98)

Classifications used in the European Macro seismic Scale (EMS)
Differentiation of structures (buildings) into vulnerability classes
(Vulnerability Table)
10
8
ANNEX 5: DAMAGE GRADES OF MASONRY BUILDINGS
Classification from European Macro-seismic Scale (EMS 98)
Classification of damage to buildings of reinforced concrete
Fine cracks in plaster over frame members or in walls at the base.
Fine cracks in partitions and infills.
(slight structural damage,
moderate non-structural damage)
Cracks in columns and beams of frames and in structural walls.
Cracks in partition and infill walls; fall of brittle cladding and

plaster. Falling mortar from the joints of wall panels.
Cracks in columns and beam column joints of frames at the base

and at joints of coupled walls. Spalling of concrete cover,
buckling of reinforced rods.
Large cracks in partition and infill walls, failure of individual infill

panels.
10
9
Large cracks in structural elements with compression failure of

concrete and fracture of rebars; bond failure of beam reinforced
bars; tilting of columns. Collapse of a few columns or of a single
upper floor.
Collapse of ground floor or parts (e. g. wings) of buildings.
ANNEX 6: DEFINITIONS OF INTENSITY DEGREES
Arrangement of the scale:
a) Effects on humans
b) Effects on objects and on nature
(Effects on ground and ground failure are dealt with especially in Section 7)
c) Damage to buildings
Introductory remark:
The single intensity degrees can include the effects of shaking of the respective lower intensity
degree(s) also, when these effects are not mentioned explicitly.
I. Not felt
a) Not felt, even under the most favorable circumstances.
b) No effect.
c) No damage.
II. Scarcely felt
a) The tremor is felt only at isolated instances (<1%) of individuals at rest and in a specially
receptive position indoors.
11
0
b) No effect.
c) No damage.
III. Weak
a) The earthquake is felt indoors by a few. People at rest feel a swaying or light trembling.
b) Hanging objects swing slightly.
c) No damage.
IV. Largely observed
a) The earthquake is felt indoors by many and felt outdoors only by very few. A few people are
awakened. The level of vibration is not frightening. The vibration is moderate. Observers feel a
slight trembling or swaying of the building, room or bed, chair etc.
b) China, glasses, windows and doors rattle. Hanging objects swing. Light furniture shakes visibly
in a few cases. Woodwork creaks in a few cases.
c) No damage.
V. Strong
a) The earthquake is felt indoors by most, outdoors by few. A few people are frightened and run
outdoors. Many sleeping people awake. Observers feel a strong shaking or rocking of the whole
building, room or furniture.
b) Hanging objects swing considerably. China and glasses clatter together. Small, top-heavy
and/or precariously supported objects may be shifted or fall down. Doors and windows swing
open or shut. In a few cases window panes break. Liquids oscillate and may spill from well-filled
containers. Animals indoors may become uneasy.
c) Damage of grade 1 to a few buildings of vulnerability class A and B.
VI. Slightly damaging
a) Felt by most indoors and by many outdoors. A few persons lose their balance. Many people are
frightened and run outdoors.
b) Small objects of ordinary stability may fall and furniture may be shifted. In few instances
dishes and glassware may break. Farm animals (even outdoors) may be frightened.
c) Damage of grade 1 is sustained by many buildings of vulnerability class A and B; a few of

class A and B suffer damage of grade 2; a few of class C suffer damage of grade 1.
VII. Damaging
a) Most people are frightened and try to run outdoors. Many find it difficult to stand, especially on
upper floors.
11
1
b) Furniture is shifted and top-heavy furniture may be overturned. Objects fall from shelves in
large numbers. Water splashes from containers, tanks and pools.
c) Many buildings of vulnerability class A suffer damage of grade 3; a few of grade 4.
Many buildings of vulnerability class B suffer damage of grade 2; a few of grade 3.
A few buildings of vulnerability class C sustain damage of grade 2.
A few buildings of vulnerability class D sustain damage of grade 1.
VIII. Heavily damaging
a) Many people find it difficult to stand, even outdoors.
b) Furniture may be overturned. Objects like TV sets, typewriters etc. fall to the ground.
Tombstones may occasionally be displaced, twisted or overturned. Waves may be seen on very
soft ground.
c) Many buildings of vulnerability class A suffer damage of grade 4; a few of grade 5.
Many buildings of vulnerability class C suffer damage of grade 2; a few of grade 3.
A few buildings of vulnerability class D sustain damage of grade 2.
IX. Destructive
a) General panic. People may be forcibly thrown to the ground.
b) Many monuments and columns fall or are twisted. Waves are seen on soft ground.
c) Many buildings of vulnerability class A sustain damage of grade 5.
Many buildings of vulnerability class D suffer damage of grade 2; a few of grade 3.
A few buildings of vulnerability class E sustain damage of grade 2.
X. Very destructive
a) Most buildings of vulnerability class A sustain damage of grade 5.
Many buildings of vulnerability class B sustain damage of grade 5.
11
2
Many buildings of vulnerability class E suffer damage of grade 2; a few of grade 3.
A few buildings of vulnerability class F sustain damage of grade 2.
XI. Devastating
a) Most buildings of vulnerability class B sustain damage of grade 5.
Most buildings of vulnerability class C suffer damage of grade 4; many of grade 5.
Many buildings of vulnerability class E suffer damage of grade 3; a few of grade 4.
Many buildings of vulnerability class F suffer damage of grade 2; a few of grade 3.
XII. Completely devastating
a) All buildings of vulnerability class A, B and practically all of vulnerability class C are
destroyed. Most buildings of vulnerability class D, E and F are destroyed. The earthquake effects
have reached the maximum conceivable effects.
4.5 DEFINITIONS OF QUANTITY
CRACKS IN INFILL MASONRY
11
3
Section - II
Retrofitting Analysis
and Design
1. Examples 1- Engineered Buildings

2. Examples 2- Masonry Buildings
3. Examples 3- Adobe Buildings
11
4
1. EXAMPLE - 1
ENGINEERED BUILDING
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFITTING DESIGN OF RC
FRAME BUILDING
1.1 BUILDING DESCRIPTION
The building is RC Frame structure in burnt clay bricks in cement mortar. The structure is
5-story + 1-Basement with storey height of 4m and 3.8m. The floor consists of reinforced
concrete slab system.
There are 230mm thick outer walls and light weight partition wall as inner walls.
General Building Description:
Building Plan Size : 40.51m X 33m
No. of Story above ground level : 5
No. of basement below ground level : 1
Building Height : 25.28m
Storey height : 3.8m
Structural System Description:
Type of Structure : R.C Frame
Type of Foundation : Beam slab Footing
Roof Type : Sloped roof with clay tile
Column Sizes : 400mm X 400mm , 500mm X 500mm,
600mm X 600mm, 700mm dia, 500mm dia,

600mm dia.
Beam Sizes : 300mm X 550mm
Building Type : Building Type IV
Performance Level : 1
Seismic Zone : 1 (NBC 105)
11
5
1.2 BUILDING DRAWINGS:
11
6
1. Assumptions:
Unit weight of RCC= 25 kN/m3
Unit weight of brick = 19.6 kN/m3
Live load = 3.0 kN/m2
i.e. 22mm screed + 12mm

Weight of plaster and floor finish = 0.73 kN/m2 plaster
Partition load = 1.2 kN/m2
Grade of concrete = M20 for all the other structural elements
Grade of steel = Fe 415
Lateral load is solely carried by frame elements. Stiffness of the walls is not
considered.
2. Structural Assessment Checklist:
S.N. CHECKS REMARKS

The frame system provides a complete load path which
1. Load Path
transfers all inertial forces in the building to the foundation.
2. Redundancy There are more than two bays of frame in each direction.
The plan of the building is same in all stories except at
3. Geometry
basement. The building has basement for parking.
4. Weak Storey / Soft Storey There is no weak / soft storey.
Vertical elements in the lateral force resisting system are
5. Vertical Discontinuities continuous to the foundation. Except for the basement
columns.
There is no change in effective mass in adjacent floors
6. Mass
except at basement to ground floor.
7. Torsion The eccentricity of the building is not within the limit.
8. Adjacent Buildings There are no adjacent buildings.
9. Short Column No short column effect
10. Deterioration of Concrete No visible deterioration observed. No cracks were observed.
11
7
1.3 STRENGTH RELATED CHECKS:
1.3.1 CALCULATION FOR SHEAR STRESS CHECK

Lumped load
LEVEL Combination DL+0.25LL Seismic Weight
6.00 6342.59 6342.59
5.00 6073.94 6073.94
4.00 6124.08 6124.08
3.00 6132.29 6132.29
2.00 6068.88 6068.88
1.00 15717.80 15717.80
∑ 46459.57 kN
CALCULATION OF BASE SHEAR (Using NBC 105:1994)
Design Horizontal Seismic Coefficient for the Seismic Coefficient Method
The design horizontal seismic force coefficient, Cd shall be taken as :
Cd = C Z I K
Where, C is the basic seismic coefficient for the fundamental

translational period in the direction under consideration.
Z = Seismic Zoning Factor
K = Structural Performance Factor
The total design lateral force or Design Seismic Base Shear (VB) along any principal direction is determined by
the following expression :
VB = Cd*Wt
Where,
11
8
Cd = The Design Horizontal Seismic Coefficient
Wt = Total of the gravity loads of the whole building
Ta = 0.09h /d0.5
Where,
h = Height of Building in meter = 25.58m
d = Base dimension of the building at the plinth level, in m, along the considered direction of the lateral
force
dx = 40.51m
dz = 33m
Tax = 0.09h /dx0.5
= 0.3617
Taz = 0.09h /dz0.5
= 0.4
Therefore ,C = 0.08 for medium soil
Seismic zoning factor for Kathmandu is, Z = 1.0
11
9
Importance factor for office building, I = 1.0
Performance factor for Ductile Moment Resisting Frame, K = 1.0
Cd = C Z I K
= 0.08 X 1 X 1 X 1 = 0.08
Base shear = Vb = Cd*Wt
Distribution of base shear and calculation of shear stress in RC Columns

The horizontal seismic force at each level i shall be taken as :
The design base shear (VB) computed in 1.5 shall be distributed along the height of the building as per the
following expression:
Fi = V X Wi hi / Σ Wihi i
Where,
Wi = proportion of Wt contributed by level i,
hi = Height of floor i measured from base
(Using IITK-GSDMA Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening of Buildings, 6.5.1)
Average Shearing stress in columns is given as
Ʈcol = (nc/(nc-nf)) * (Vj / Ac)< min of 0.4 Mpa and 0.1 sq.rt.(fck)
0.1√fck = 0.45
For Ground Storey columns,
nc= Total no. of Columns resisting lateral forces in the direction of loading
nf= Total no. of frames in the direction of loading
Ac = Summation of the cross- section area of all columns in the storey under consideration
Vj = Maximum Storey shear at storey level 'j'
DCR = Demand Capacity Ratio
12
0
Shear Stress DCR

Storey
Storey nc nf1 nf2 Ac Ʈ colx Ʈ colz Remarks
Shears in x- dir in z-dir
(MPa) (MPa)
6 35 6 6 8.737 1007.52 0.14 0.14 0.35 0.35
Since Demand
5 35 6 6 8.737 1812.96 0.25 0.25 0.63 0.63
Capacity
4 35 6 6 8.823 2464.32 0.34 0.34 0.84 0.84
Ratio is less
3 35 6 6 9.593 2955.61 0.37 0.37 0.93 0.93
than 1, hence
2 35 6 6 10.8 3282.54 0.37 0.37 0.92 0.92
Safe in shear
1 70 8 8 17.12 3716.77 0.25 0.25 0.61 0.61
Ʈcol< min of 0.4 MPa
Hence the check is satisfied
1.3.2 AXIAL STRESS CHECK:

Axial stress in moment frames for x-direction loading
Axial force in columns of moment frames at base due to overturning forces,
The axial stress of columns subjected to overturning forces Fo is given by
Fo = 2/3 (Vb/nf) x (H / L)
Vb = Base shear x Load Factor = 3716.8 x1.5
Ac = column area = 17.12 sq.m
H=total height = 24 m
L=Length of the building = 40.51 m
Fo = 2/3 (Vb/nf) x (H / L) = 275.25 kN
Axial Stress for x-direction loading,

σ = 275.25 X 1000 = 1.72 Mpa
= 0.16
σ all =0.25 fck = 5 Mpa
Therefore σ < σ all OK

DCR = 0.334
Hence the check is satisfied.
Axial stress in moment frames for z-direction loading
Fo = 2/3 (Vb/nf) x (H / L)
Vb = Base shear x Load Factor = 3716.8 x1.5
= 5575.15 kN
Ac = column area = 17.12 sq.m.
H=total height = 24 m
L=Length of the building = 33 m
12
1
Fo = 2/3 (Vb/nf) x (H / L)
= 337.89 kN
Axial Stress for z-direction loading,
σ = 337.89 X 1000 = 2.11 MPa
0.16
σ all =0.25 fck = 5 MPa
therefore σ < σ all OK
DCR = 0.422
1.3.3. CHECK FOR OUT-OF-PLANE STABILITY OF BRICK MASONRY WALLS
Recommended Actual
Wall
Wall Type Height/Thickness ratio Height/Thickness ratio Comments
Thickness
(0.24 < Sx ≤ 0.35) in building
Wall in
(3800-450)/230 =
ground 230mm 18 Pass
14.56
storey
Wall in upper (3800-450)/230 =

230mm 16 Pass
stories 14.56
The out of plain stability of ground floor wall and that for the upper stories are within the permissible limit,
hence the check is satisfied.
1.1 Check for Strong Column Weak Beam:
The flexure strengths of the columns shall satisfy the condition:
∑Mc ≥ 1.1 ∑Mb
Checking Capacity of Center Column at Ground Floor:
The longitudinal beam of size 300 X 550 is reinforced with 3-20dia. + 3-25dia. (i.e 2415.09mm2)
at top and 4-20 dia. (ie 1256.636mm2) at bottom.
Where,
b = 300mm; d= 515mm
The hogging and sagging moment capacities are evaluated as 303.406kNm and 194.225kNm
respectively.
Factored column axial load = 3860.19 kN
Pu / fck*b*D = 0.536 where column size is 600mmX600mm
The column is reinforced with 8-25dia. + 2-20dia.
Asc = 4555.278mm2 ; pt = 1.265%
Therefore,
Mu/fck*b*D2 = 0.05
Mu = 216 kNm
∑Mc = 216+216 = 432
∑Mb = 303.406 + 194.225 = 497.62kNm
1.1∑Mb = 547.382kNm
∑Mc< 1.1 ∑Mb
Hence, check is not satisfied.
12
2
Checking Capacity of Center Column of Peripheral Frame at Ground Floor:

The longitudinal beam of size 300X550 is reinforced with 3-20dia. + 2-25dia. (ie 1923.778mm2) at top
and 3-20 dia. (ie 942.477mm2) at bottom.
Where,
b = 300mm; d= 515mm
The hogging and sagging moment capacities are evaluated as 265.3kNm and 153.1kNm respectively.
Factored column axial load = 2906.68kN
Pu / fck*b*D = 0.404 where column size is 600mmX600mm
The column is reinforced with 8-25dia.
Asc = 3928.56mm2 ; pt = 1.09%
Therefore,
Mu/fck*b*D2 = 0.065
Mu = 280.8kNm
∑Mc = 280.8+280.8 = 561.6kNm
∑Mb = 265.3 + 153.1 = 418.4kNm
1.1∑Mb = 460.24kNm
∑Mc > 1.1 ∑Mb
Hence, check is satisfied.
1.2 Shear Capacity of Column

Considering that the steel in one face will be in tension,
As = 3 * π *252/4
= 1472.62 mm2
Therefore, 100As/bd = 0.456
Ʈc = 0.47 Mpa
Stirrups are 4- legged, 10mm Ø @ 200mm c/c spacing
Then,
Vus = 0.87 * fy * Asv * d/Sv
= 0.87 * 415*314.16 * 537.5/200
= 304kN
Therefore, Vu = Vus + Ʈc bd
= 456kN
Shear Demand in Column is 875kN
The check is not satisfied.
2. Evaluation Summary:
· The building is safe in strength related checks such as shear stress capacity, axial stress, out of plane
stability.
· The computer analysis of the structure shows:
· Foundation: Safe
· Beam : Safe
· Column : Not Safe (The DCR lies in the range of 1.5 indicating more detailed analysis)
· Floor slab: Safe
· Thus, the above evaluations states that the frame has to be strengthened and retrofitted.
12
3
1.4 RETROFITTING OPTIONS:
Option1: RC JACKETING ON COLUMNS
12
4
Option2: STEEL JACKETING
12
5
Option3: SHEAR WALL ADDITION WITH COLUMN JACKETING
12
6
12
7
1.5 COST ESTIMATION OF RETROFITTING OPTIONS:
2.1 Reinforced Concrete Jacketing on columns with approximate cost of NRs.

12,094,773
2.2 Steel Jacketing on columns with approximate cost of NRs. 8,614,768
2.3 Shearwall Addition and Column Jacketing with approximate cost of NRs. 8,176,350
Disturbance to existing Estimated Time for

S.N. Alternatives
tenants work
1 RC Jacketing on column High 6 months
2 Steel Jacketing on column High 5 months
Shear wall addition and

3 Medium 3.5 months
column jacketing
1.6 RECOMMENDATION
From the point of cost estimation and time of completion for the retrofitting, it is likely to
adopt option 3, i.e. shear wall addition with concrete jacketing of columns.
12
8
12
9
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS
Parameter
Disturbance to
Disturbance Damagibility Effect on Requirement of
Options Time existing
to existing Cost after present foundation
Consumption function during
structure retrofitting aesthetic strengthening
construction
RC Jacketing on
** * *** *** *** * ** *
column
Steel Jacketing on
*** ** *** ** ** ** *
column
Shear wall addition

** * ** ** ** * **
and column jacketing
h
dium
0
13
13
1
2. EXAMPLE -2
OCCUPANCY CHANGE
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF RESIDENTIAL RCC BUILDING

CONVERTED INTO HEALTH CLINIC
Vulnerability evaluation and retrofitting of following buildings has been carried out using two
approaches.
A. Strength based approach

B. Non-Linear Static Analysis - Before Retrofitting
C. Non-Linear Static Analysis - After Retrofitting
2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Building Description : RCC Frame Structural ( In

good Condition, but built before Seismic Code Site Visit/ Visual Inspection/Site measurements
introduced in NEPAL )
Location : Khusibhu, Naya Bazar Site Visit/ Visual Inspection/Site measurements
Storey height : 2.7 m Site Visit/ Visual Inspection/Site measurements
No. of Stories : 3 nos Site Visit/ Visual Inspection/Site measurements
Column Size : 230mm *230 mm Site Visit/ Visual Inspection/Site measurements
Beam Size : 230 mm *350 mm Site Visit/ Visual Inspection/Site measurements
Slab thickness : 125 mm Site Visit/ Visual Inspection/Site measurements
13
2
2.1.2 BUILDING DRAWINGS
13
3
13
4
2.1.3 STRUCTURAL DATA
Unit Weight of RCC = 25 KN/m3
Unit Weight of Brick Masonry: 19.6 KN/m3
Unit Weight of Plaster: 20 KN/m3
Unit Weight of Marble: 26.7 KN/m3
Live load:
For Floors = 2.5 KN/m2 (Residential building)
For Roof = 1.5 KN/m2
Grade of Concrete = M20 Site Visit/ Visual Inspection/Site Measurements
Grade of Steel = Fe 415 Site Visit/ Visual Inspection/Site Measurements
(Stiffness of the Brick Masonry is not considered in the calculation)
2.2 LOAD CALCULATIONS
Dead Load:
1) For Different Floors:
Slab Load: 0.125 * 25 = 3.125 KN/m2
Ceiling Plaster Load: 0.02 * 20 = 0.40 KN/m2
Floor Finish Load: 0.025 * 20 = 0.50 KN/m2
Marble Floor Load: 0.025 * 26.7 = 0.667 KN/m2
Total Load = 4.692 KN/m2
~ 4.70 KN/m2
For Roof Floor:
Slab Load: 0.125 * 25 = 3.125 KN/ m2
Ceiling Plaster Load: 0.02 * 20 = 0.40 KN/ m2
Floor Finish Load: 0.025 * 20 = 0.50 KN/ m2
Mosaic Floor Load: 0.025 * 20 = 0.50 KN/ m2
13
5
Total Load: 4.525 KN/m2
~ 4.50 KN/m2
Residential Building :
The following is a detail of quick check calculations based on FEMA 310 for the
seismic evaluation of building under consideration.
Assumptions:
Unit weight of brick work = 19.6 kN/m3
2.2.1 LIVE LOAD CALCULATION
LEVEL FLOORS FLOOR AREA sq.m LL 0.25LL Remarks
4 Third Floor 29.485 44.2275 11.057

3 Second Floor 90.33 225.825 56.456
2 FirstFloor 67.73 169.325 42.331
1 Ground Floor 67.73 169.325 42.331
Ʃ 152.18
LUMP MASS CALCULATION
S.NO. FLOORS Total Dead Load Total Live Total Weight Remarks
(KN) Load (KN) ( KN )
4 Third Floor 260.48 11.056875 271.54

3 Second Floor 756.04 56.45625 812.5
2 FirstFloor 649.82 42.33125 692.15
1 Ground Floor 649.82 42.33125 692.15
Ʃ 2468.34
A. CALCULATION OF BASE SHEAR
13
6
determined by the following expression :
VB = Ah*W
Where, Ah = The Design Horizontal Seismic Coefficient
The approximate fundamental natural period of vibration (Ta) in seconds, of all other buildings, including
moment-resisting frame buildings with brick infill panels, may be estimated by the empirical expression:
Ta = 0.09h /d0.5
h = Height of Building in
Where, meter = 10.80 m
d = Base dimension of the building at the plinth level, in m, along the considered
direction of the lateral force
dx = 8.23 m
dz = 8.23 m
Tax = 0.09h /dx0.5
=0.338 <0.55
13
7
Taz = 0.09h /dz0.5
=0.338 <0.55
Therefore ,Sa/g = 2.5 for medium soil (IS :1893(Part 1) : 2002
Z = 0.36 (For Seismic Zone V ) (Refer IS 1893 (Part 1) :2002-table 2 )
I = 1.0 ( For Residential Building ) (Refer IS 1893 (Part 1) :2002-table 6 )
Sa/g = 2.5 (For Medium Soil ) (Refer IS 1893 (Part 1) :2002-Clause 6.4.5 and Fig.2 )
R = 3.0 (For Ordinary RC Moment Resisting Frame ) (Refer IS 1893 (Part 1) :2002-table 7 )
Ah = ZISa/2Rg
= 0.36 * 1.0 *2.5/ 2 * 3
= 0.15
Base shear = Vb = Ah*W
=0.15* 2468.34
370.251 kN
B. Distribution of Base Shear and Calculation of Shear Stress in RC Columns :
Total weight, Height, Storey Shear Vi

Floor Wi*hi2 Wi*hi2/∑Wihi2 Qi(KN)
Wi (KN) hi (m) (KN)
4 271.54 10.8 31672.06 0.29 106.4 106.4

3 812.5 8.1 53307.88 0.48 179.09 285.49
2 692.15 5.4 20183.13 0.18 67.81 353.3
1 692.15 2.7 5045.78 0.05 16.95 370.25
∑ 2468.34 110208.85 1 370.25
C. SHEAR STRESS AT STOREY LEVEL :
(Using IITK-GSDMA Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening of buildings 6.5.1)
The Total design lateral force or design seismic base shear is given by
13
8
Vb=Ah x W
Tcol = (nc/(nc-nf)) * (Vj / Ac)< min of 0.4 Mpa and 0.1 sq.rt.(fck)
nc= Total No. of Columns resisting lateral forces in the direction of loading
nf= Total No. of frames in the direction of loading
Ac = Summation of the cross- section area of all columns and shear wall in the storey under consideration
Vj = Maximum Storey Shear at storey level 'j'
Shear Stress at Storey Levels
Shear Stress
Storey
Storey nc nf1 nf2 Ac T col T col
Shears (KN)
1(MPa) 2(MPa)
4 4 2 2 0.211 106.4 1.01 1.01
3 9 3 3 0.476 285.49 0.9 0.9
2 9 3 3 0.476 353.3 1.11 1.11
1 9 3 3 0.476 370.25 1.17 1.17
Tcol>>min of 0.4MPa and 0.1sqrt(fck) = 0.45 MPa

Hence, the check is not satisfied.
Residential Building Converted to Clinic :
The following is a detail of quick check calculations based on FEMA 310 for the seismic evaluation
of building under consideration.
Assumptions:
Unit weight of brick work = 19.6 kN/m3
13
9
LIVE LOAD CALCULATION
FLOOR
LEVEL FLOORS LL 0.25LL Remarks
AREA sq.m
4 Third Floor 29.485 44.2275 11.056875
3 Second Floor 90.33 270.99 67.7475
2 FirstFloor 67.73 203.19 50.7975
1 Ground Floor 67.73 203.19 50.7975
∑ 180.39938
LUMP MASS CALCULATION
Total Dead Total Live Total Weight

S.NO. FLOORS Remarks
Load (KN) Load (KN) (KN)
4 Third Floor 260.48 11.056875 271.54

3 Second Floor 756.04 67.7475 823.79
2 FirstFloor 649.82 50.7975 700.62
1 Ground Floor 649.82 50.7975 700.62
∑ 2496.56
A. CALCULATION OF BASE SHEAR
determined by the following expression :
VB = Ah*W
14
0
Ah = The Design Horizontal Seismic Coefficient W = Seismic weight of the building
Ta = 0.09h /d0.5
Where,
h = Height of Building in meter = 10.80 m
d = Base dimension of the building at the plinth level, in m, along the considered direction of the
lateral force
dx = 8.23 m
dz = 8.23 m
Tax = 0.09h /dx0.5
=0.338 <0.55
Taz = 0.09h /dz0.5
=0.338 <0.55
Therefore ,Sa/g = 2.5 for medium soil (IS :1893(Part 1) : 2002
Z = 0.36 (For Seismic Zone V ) (Refer IS 1893 (Part 1) :2002-table 2 )
I = 1.50 ( For Clinic Building ) (Refer IS 1893 (Part 1) :2002-table 6 )
Sa/g = 2.5 (For Medium Soil ) (Refer IS 1893 (Part 1) :2002-Clause 6.4.5
and Fig.2 )
R = 3.0 (For Ordinary RC Moment Resisting Frame ) (Refer IS 1893 (Part 1) :2002-table 7 )
Ah = ZISa/2Rg
= 0.36 * 1.5 *2.5/ 2 * 3
= 0.225
Base shear = Vb = Ah*W
14
1
= 0.225 * 2496.56 = 561.726 KN
B. Distribution of Base Shear and Calculation of Shear Stress in RC Columns :
Height hi Storey Shear Vi

2 2 2
Floor Total weight (m) Wi*hi Wi*hi /∑Wihi Qi(KN) (KN)
Wi (KN)
4.00 271.54 10.8 31672.06 0.28 159.91 159.91
3.00 823.79 8.1 54048.70 0.49 272.88 432.79
2.00 700.62 5.4 20430.01 0.18 103.15 535.94
1.00 700.62 2.7 5107.50 0.05 25.79 561.73
∑ 2496.56 111258.27 1.00 561.73
C. SHEAR STRESS AT STOREY LEVEL :
(Using IITK-GSDMA Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening of buildings 6.5.1)
The Total design lateral force or design seismic base shear is given by
Vb=Ah x W
Tcol = (nc/(nc-nf)) * (Vj / Ac)< min of 0.4 Mpa and 0.1 sq.rt.(fck)
nc= Total No. of Columns resisting lateral forces in the direction of loading
nf= Total No. of frames in the direction of loading
Ac = Summation of the cross- section area of all columns and shear wall in the storey under
consideration
Vj = Maximum Storey Shear at storey level 'j'
14
2
Shear Stress
Storey Shears T col T col
Storey nc nf1 nf2 Ac
(KN) 1 2
(MPa) (MPa)
4 4 2 2 0.211 159.91 1.52 1.52
3 9 3 3 0.476 432.79 1.36 1.36
2 9 3 3 0.476 535.94 1.69 1.69
1 9 3 3 0.476 561.73 1.77 1.77
Tcol>>min of 0.4 MPa and 0.1sqrt(fck) = 0.45 MPa
Hence, the check is not satisfied.
Checking Shear Capacity of Center Column :

Shear Capacity of column required = 1.4 ( M1+ m1')/ hst
The longitudinal Beam size is equal to 230 * 350.
Reinforcement of Beam is Equal to 3 TOR 16 top and bottom.
Where,
b = 230
D = 350
d = 350 -25-16/2 = 317
The Moment Capacities are evaluated from STAADPro 2006, which is equal to 68.6 KN-m and
53.6 KN-m.
Shear force in Column corresponding to these moments :
Vu = 1.4 ( M1+ m1')/ hst
= 1.4*(68.6+53.6 )/2.7
= 63.36 KN
Size of Column = 230 mm * 230 mm
14
3
Area of Steel (Ast) = 4 tor 12 diameter
Fck = 20 N/mm2
Fy = 415 N/mm2
From SP 16 Table 61
for Pt = 0.85% ,τ = 0.585 N/mm2
Shear Capacity = 0.585*230*230/1000
= 30.94 kN
Shear to be carried Stirrups Vus = 63.36 – 30.94 = 32.42 KN
From SP 16 Table 62 :
Stirrups in the Column : Tor 8 Diameter @150 mm c/c
Vus/ d = 2.42 kN/ cm
Vus= 2.42 * 19.2 kN/ cm
= 46.5 kN >>32.42 KN
Hence, the Check for shear tie is satisfied for central column.
Axial Stress Check:
The Axial Stress due to Gravity Loads as per FEMA 310
Permissible axial stress = 0.1fc' = 2 N/mm2
The axial stress due to gravity loads in the center column of Ground Floor = 711.289 kN
The axial stress due to gravity loads in column
= Load on column(N) / Cross section Area of Column = 711.289*1000/230/230
= 13.446 N/mm2 > 2 N/mm2
14
4
Hence the check not satisfied
Axial stress in moment frames for x-direction loading
Fo = 2/3 (Vb/nf) x (H / L)
Vb = Base shear x Load Factor
561.726 x1.5 = 842.59 kN
H=total height= 10.8 m
L=Length of the building= 8.00 m
Fo = 2/3 (Vb/nf) x (H / L)
= 252.78 kN
σ= 252.78 = 4.78 MPa
0.05
σ all =0.25 fck = 5.00 MPa
DCR = 0.334
14
5
Axial stress in moment frames for z-direction loading
Fo = 2/3 (Vb/nf) x (H / L)
Vb = Base shear x Load Factor
561.726 x1.5 = 842.59 kN
H=total height= 10.8 m
L=Length of the building= 8.00 m
Fo = 2/3 (Vb/nf) x (H / L)
= 252.78 kN
σ= 252.78 = 4.78 MPa
0.05
σ all =0.25 fck = 5.00 MPa
DCR = 0.334
Check for Out-of-Plane Stability of Brick Masonry Walls
Recommended
Wall Actual Height/Thickness
Wall Type Height/Thickness Comments
Thickness ratio in building
ratio (0.24 < Sx ≤ 0.35)
230mm 18 (2700-350)/230 = 10.217 Pass
14
6
Wall in
ground storey
Wall in upper
230mm 16 (2700-350)/230 = 10.217 Pass
stories
3. EXAMPLE - 2 (A)
STRENGTH BASED APPROACH
ANALYSIS IN STAAD
14
7
WIRE FRAME
COLUMN
BEAM
14
8
3D Model in Staad
14
9
RETROFITTING DRAWINGS:
15
0
15
1
15
2
15
3
4. EXAMPLE – 2(B)
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS USING NON-LINEAR STATIC

ANALYSIS (STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS) OF EXISTING
BUILDING “EXAMPLE -2” BEFORE RETROFITTING
Performance Analysis of the structure with the given drawings was carried out for structural
performance evaluation. The performance evaluation of non-structural components and the
combined performance is not evaluated. Static Pushover Analysis is used to evaluate the
performance of the structure.
4.1 OUTPUT
The analysis is carried out for Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) and Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE) as defined in IS 1893 (2002). The main results for both DBE and MCE are given
below.
4.2 PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING STRUCTURE

The existing structure can’t survive the Design Basis Earthquake as well as Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE) since its capacity is low than the Demand.
Figure: Capacity Spectrum of Existing Structure at DBE
15
4
Figure: Capacity Spectrum of Existing Structure
4.3 PLASTIC HINGES MECHANISM

Plastic hinge formation for the building mechanisms has been obtained at different displacements
levels. The hinging patterns are as shown in figures:
Figure: Plastic hinge (push X) of Grid 1-1

Building I
15
5
4.4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
The analysis of the building was carried out using the static analysis and push over analysis in SAP
2000 and the buildings are found to be unsafe.
 Demand base shear is 516.726KN but base shear obtain is less than required in both Basis
Earthquake (DBE) and Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE)
Hence the building cannot be considered safe for the hospital purpose. It needs retrofitting
measures to increase capacity for the earthquake safety.
15
6
5. EXAMPLE – 2(C)
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS USING NON-LINEAR STATIC

ANALYSIS (STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS) OF EXISTING
BUILDING “EXAMPLE -2” AFTER RETROFITTING
5.1 OUTPUT
The analysis is carried out for Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) and Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE) as defined in IS 1893 (2002). The main results for both DBE and MCE are given
below.
5.2 DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE (DBE)
For Design Basis Earthquake (DBE), the performance point of retrofitted structure appears at Sa
(spectral acceleration) equal to 0.382 and maximum roof deflection (D) is 0.525 inches as shown
in the image below.
Figure: Capacity Spectrum of Retrofitted Structure at DBE
5.2.1 Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE)

For Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE), the performance point is obtained at Base shear (V)
and Roof Displacement (D) at 772.160 and 42.01mm, respectively. The spectral acceleration
performance point is 0.744 which is higher than the spectral acceleration value of 0.36 given in IS
1893 codal provisions.
15
7
Figure: Capacity Spectrum of Retrofit Structure at MCE
5.1 PLASTIC HINGES MECHANISM
Plastic hinge formation for the building mechanisms has been obtained at different displacements
levels. The hinging patterns are as shown in figures
Grid 2-2 Grid 3-3

Grid 1-1
CONCLUSION
Thus the analysis of the building after RC jacketing of columns was carried out by modeling the
building in SAP 2000 and the results were found as mentioned above from the push over analysis.
The building is found to be safer in Push over analysis.
Hence the retrofitted building can be considered safe for the hospital purpose.
From the performance analysis of the retrofitted building according to the drawings provided and
field verification, the retrofitted building will be in damage control level. The performance objective
for DBE is expected at Life Safety level and for MCE it's expected at Structural stability. As the
performance of the building is realized at damaged control level (better performance than the
expected performance), the building is safe to use as per the requirements of IS 1893-2002.
15
8
6. EXAMPLE -3
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

(Masonry)
A local building in Kathmandu was chosen for the Analysis. The plan and elevation of the building
is shown in figure 7 – 1.
Figure: Structural Elevation and Plan of Local Building.
The vertical structure is a single layer non retrofitted masonry made of brick masonry, while the
floor is of concrete slabs. In order to reduce the computational burden of the dynamic analyses
needed for the vulnerability assessment, only the facade wall was analysed using the proposed
SAP2000 v.14.0.0 model. The design values assumed for the mechanical properties are based on
the mean values measured in brick masonry from different researches conducted in Pulchowk
Campus, for brick masonry, fd=1.82N/mm2, E=509N/mm2, and G=203.6N/mm2. Only the in-plane
seismic performance of the wall was investigated, assuming that the wall was effectively connected
to the floors.
Laurent Pasticier, Claudio Amadio and Massimo Fragiacomao (July 2007) carried out Non Linear
Push over Analysis of masonry structure using SAP 2000 v.10. The study has established that the
equivalent frame method for the masonry could be adopted for Non - Linear Push over Analysis,
by providing different hinges at the different section in the members.
15
9
The masonry pier was modeled as elastoplastic. Hinges were determined according to the failure
mechanisms of masonry. The standard force-displacement curve that can be implemented in the
SAP 2000 plastic hinges in depicted in Figure 8-2(a) [24]. The masonry piers were modeled as
Figure 8-1. (a) Standard shape of the force vs displacement curve in SAP2000® v.10 for the plastic hinge element
[24]; (b) and (c): behaviour assumed, respectively, for the entire pier and the correspondent plastic hinge; (d)
and (e): behaviour assumed, respectively, for the entire spandrel beam and the correspondent plastic hinge.
elastoplastiv with final brittle failure (Figure 8-2 (b)) by introducing two 'rocking hinges' at the end
of the deformable parts and one ‘shear hinge’ at mid-height . A rigid- perfectly plastic behaviour
with final brittle failure was assumed for all these plastic hinges (Figure 8 - 2(c)).
6.1 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

Without retrofitting
As the model is assumed to be

without lintel, both the shear
hinges (at the middle) and
flexural hinges (at the ends) are
assigned in the spandrels. Base
Shear calculated here for the
building is 88.29 KN, but the
structure seems to be collapsed
at 25.553 KN base shears. No
performance point is found for
DBE (Ca = 0.18, Cv = 0.3).
Retrofitting with lintel
16
0
Only shear hinge is assigned in spandrels at the mid span while piers are modeled with two flexural
hinges at the ends and one shear hinge at the mid span. Slight in base shear capacity was found but
performance point was not found.
Retrofitting with lintel + Rigid Diaphragm
Rigid diaphragm was assigned at the floor level but no increase in base shear capacity in found in
inplane analysis. No performance point was found.
Retrofitting with lintel +

rigid diaphragm + Columns
16
1
Assigning five RCC

columns of size 230mm x
230mm the base shear
capacity of the structure
was as increased but
masonry wall fails far
before the RCC columns
fails. But structure as a
whole has large base shear
capacity. Performance
point of the structure with
Ca = 0.18 and Cv = 0.3 is
found to be (V, D) = (230.53 KN, 0.027m)
Rebar used; 16mm bar as

vertical bars @ 150 mm
c/c, 8mm bar as
horizontal bars @ 150
mm c/c.
Base shear = 88.289 KN,

( Z = 0.36, I = 1, Sa/g
=2.5, R =3)
Performance point of the

structure with DBE (Ca =
0.18, Cv = 0.3) is (107
KN, 0.016m)
Although the base shear capacity of the structure is lesser than while assigning RC columns, this
option seems to be more reliable as in this case the masonry structure is covered with wire mesh
which enable the masonry members to remain stable without the formation of the hinges
approximately upto the performance point.
Table Comparision table for different retrofitting options
16
2
400 No Retrofitting
300
Retrofitting with lintel
200
Lintel + Rigid diaphragm
100
0 Lintel+Rigid diaphragm +
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 Columns
Conclusion from in plane analysis

Retrofitting techniques Model Result Remark
adopted
NO retrofitting Existing (without Fails before DBE Building fails in DBE

retrofit)
Retrofitting with lintel Lintel assigned on No Building fails in DBE

the openings improvement in
the base shear
capacity
Retrofitting with lintel + Existing (with rigid No Building fails in DBE

rigid diaphragm diaphragm) improvement in
the base shear
capacity
Retrofitting with lintel + Columns are Increase in base Performance point of the building
rigid diaphragm + inserted in the walls shear capacity increases and as a whole
Columns structure remain stable but
masonry walls fails too earlier
although the whole structure is
stable, so this technique is not so
good
Retrofitting with lintel + Jacketing is done by Increase in base As each wall unit has been
rigid diaphragm + Wire wire meshing shear capacity strengthened, wall does not fail,
meshing so this technique seems to be
most reliable of all above
16
3
7. EXAMPLE -4
ANLYSIS AND DESIGN OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING - STRENGTH BASED

METHOD (Masonry)
For the case study a building was chosen which has been already retrofitted. The strength based
calculation steps and procedure are shown below:
BUILDING DESCRIPTION
No. of stories =2
Size L= 6200 mm 6.2 m
B= 4000 mm 4 m
H= 6000 mm 6 m
Wall material= Brick in cement sand mortar (1:6)
Thickness of wall= 230 mm 0.23 m
Roof material= R.C.C
0.12
Thickness of roof= 125 mm 5 m
Earthquake Zone= V
Building Type= School
Window: B= 1000 mm 1 m
H= 1200 mm 1.2 m
No. of windows= 5 Per floor
Door:
D1 B= 1200 mm 1.2 m
16
4
H= 2100 mm 2.1 m
D2 B= 1000 mm 1 m
H= 2100 mm 2.1 m
Dead load and live loads:
Dead Load
Unit wt. or R.C.C= 25 KN/m3
Unit wt. of brick masonry= 19 KN/m3
Floor Finishing= 1 KN/m2
Live Load
Live Load for floor= 3 KN/m2
Live load for roof= 0 KN/m2
Earthquake Loads
Summary of lumped load calculation:
As per IS 1893 (Part 1):2002, cl 7.3,
table 8:
For imposed uniformly distributed floor loads up to 3KN/m2, % of imposed load =25%
Seismic Weight,
Live Load, LL Storey Level,
Storey Dead Load, DL Wi=DL+25%LL Story Height
(KN) hi(m)
(KN) (KN)
2 192.3436 0 192.3 3 6
1 298.5346 74.4 317.1 3 3
∑ 490.8782 509.5
Calculation Of base shear:

IS 1893:2002, Cl. 7.5.3 Design Seismic Base shear
Seismic zone Cl. 6.4.2, Table 2 V
Seismic Zone factor Z Cl. 6.4.2, Table 2 0.36
School
Structure type Cl. 6.4.2, Table6
Building
Importance factor I Cl. 6.4.2, Table6 1.5
Lateral load Retrofitted

Cl. 6.4.2, Table7
resisting system masonry
16
5
Response
R Cl. 6.4.2, Table7 2.5
reduction factor
Height of the
h Refer drawing 6 m
building
Dimension of the
Dx Refer drawing 6.2 m
building Along X
Dimension of the
Dy Refer drawing 4 m
building Along Y
Time period of the Cl.7.6.2, Ty=

Tx 0.217 Sec
building along X, 0.09h/√Dx
Time period of the Cl. 7.6.2, Ty=

Ty 0.2700 Sec
building along Y 0.09h/√Dy
Soil type Medium Soil
Average Response
acceleration (Sa/g)x Cl. 6.4.5, fig. 2 2.5
coefficients along X
Average Response
acceleration (Sa/g)y Cl. 6.4.5, fig. 2 2.5
coefficients along Y
Design Horizontal Cl. 6.4.2,

Ah 0.27
Seismic Coefficient Ah=(ZISa)/(2Rg)
Seismic Wt of the
W Cl. 7.4.1 509.5 KN
Building
Cl. 7.5.3, VB =Ah
Base Shear VB 137.6 KN
W
Distribution of Lateral Forces at different storey:

As per IS 1893 (Part1):2002, cl. 7.7.1 and Proposed draft provisions and commentary
on Indian Seismic Code IS 1893(Part 1), Cl. 7.7.1
Design lateral force at floor i (Qi) =VB (Wihik/∑Wihik)
16
6
T= 0.216869219 secs
0.216869219
Hence, K= 1
Design
Storey
Seismic wt. Storey level Wihik lateral
Storey shear
Force
Wi (kN) hi(m) kNm Qi(kN) Vj(kN)
2 192.3436 6 1154 75.4 75.4
1 317.1346 3 951 62.159 137.6
2105 137.56
Lateral Coefficients:
Storey Seismic weight, Design Lateral Lateral Remar

Wi (kN) Force, Qi(KN) Coefficient, ks
Ci=Qi/Wi
2 192.3436 75.39981004 0.39 Ci>Ah

1 317.1346 62.15930396 0.2 Ci<Ah
Out of plane analysis and design of bandage(Lintel Band)

Effective length of wall:
Length of wall, L = 5.97 m
Load Carried by bandage
Wt. of tributary volume=(γ*t*h*1)
q= C*(wt. of tributary wall of unit length)= 1.713 KN/m
M= q*l^2/10= 6.106 KNm
16
7
Design of bandage
Assumed size of band:
d= 250 mm
t= 50 mm
Lever arm= z= 225 mm
fs of steel= 0.56*1.25*fy= 290.5 N/mm2
Ast= M/(fs*z)= 9E-05 m2

93.41 mm2
Dia of rods used= 8
No. of rods reqd= 1.8575877

= 2
Ast provided= 100.5714286
% of reinforced in single band= (Ast/(d*t))*100= 0.805 %
Check for shear

Shear force in
band= v= q*L/2+(M1+M2)/l= 7.159 KN
Considering all shear carried by band,

Induced shear stress= V/(2td)= 0.286356016 N/mm2
From Table 19 of IS 456:2000

Permissible shear stress in concrete (M20)= 0.36 Mpa
Remarks: Choosen section is safe in shear, Hence Ok
Check for anchorage
Area of steel one band, Ast= 100.5714286 mm2

Interface bonding
force=T=C=Ast*0.56*fy= 23372.8 N
Wall length, l= 5970 mm
Band depth, d= 250 mm
16
8
Induced shear stress in band and wall interface=T/(wall N/mm

length*Band depth)= 0.016 2
Assume minimum bond stress between concrete band and brick N/mm
masonry= 0.1 2
So, the induced shear stress is lessthan the minimum bond stress
However, bond failure is a brittle kind of failure which is not desireable in

earthquake resistant construction.
So, Provided dia of anchor= 4.75 mm From band

to
wall
Shearing area of the anchor=Area of provided bar=A= 17.73 mm2
Allowable shearing stress, fs=0.4fy= 166 N/mm2

Shear resistance per anchor, F=A*fs= 2942.794643 N
No. of anchor rods reqd, N=T/F= 7.942382271 ≈ 8
Spacing between anchors,S=Length of
band/(N-1)= 852.9 mm
852.85
So, use 4.75 mm dia at a spacing of 7 c/c
Check for vertical bending below lintel band:
Lateral Load:
Considering b= 1 m width of wall.
Lateral Load, w= C*(Wt. of wall of "b"
height)= 1.71306542 KN/m
Height of wall below lintel band= 1.2 m
M=wl^2/12= 0.20556785 KNm
Z=bt^2/6= 8816666.667
Bending stress,
fb=M/Z= 0.023 N/mm2
Vertical load on wall at mid height of wall below lintel

band:
16
9
Trapezoidal load on long wall=(L*B/2-

B^2/4)= 8.40 m2
Triangular load on short
wall=(0.5*B^2/4)= 4.00 m2
Vertical load, P= Wt. of wall+Slab+Finishing= 75.291 KN

Vertical Stress,
fa=P/A= 0.052798738 N/mm2
Check of combined stress:
Combined Stress= fa+fb= 0.076 N/mm2 Compressive

fa-fb= -0.029 N/mm2 Tensile
Permissible tensile bending stress= -0.07 Mpa
Remark: No, tension reinforcement required
Design of stitches:
Lateral Load carried by stitch, w= C*(Wt. of triangular
portion of wall)= 3.854 KN
Count lintel and sill also as stitch band; therefore total
number of stitch considered= 3
Ast=W/(no. of stitches*0.56*fy)= 5.528 mm2
Since, for detailing requirement, we shall use 2 numbers of
8mm dia bars
(One on outside face and another in the inside face of the
wall).
In-Plane analysis and design of splint ( Vertical Band):
Width of P1= 1.5 m

Width fo P2= 1.5 m
Width of P3= 1.8 m
Width fo P4= 1 m
Width of opening in grid 2, between P3
and P4 = 1.2 m
Width of opening in grid 1, between P1 and P2 = 1 m
17
0
Pier analysis:
Let us assume P1 and P2 along Grid 1 and P3 and P4 along

grid 2
Analysing piers P3 and P4 of first floor:
Lateral load carried by piers:
We have, VB= 137.559114 KN (From calculation of base shear)
Lateral load on each wall (grid 1 and grid 2) Vi=VB/No. of walls= 68.78 KN
Masonry,E= 2400000 KN/m2
Height Depth Width I = bd3/12

Pier
h (m) d (m) b (m) (m4)

P4 2.1 1.00 0.23 0.01917
P3 2.1 1.8 0.23 0.11178
∑K=
Proportion of
Lateral load
Stiffness (KN/m) lateral load carried
carried by pier
by pier
K= 12
p= K/∑K Fi=Vi*p
EI/[{1+2.4(d/h)2}h3]
38598.699 0.235 16.15
125798.692 0.765 52.63
164397.391 68.78
Bending stress in pier(fb):
Moment Z = bd2/6 fb = M/Z

Pier
M = F*h/2 (KNm) m3 MPa
P4 16.96 0.038333333 0.44
P3 55.26 0.1242 0.44
17
1
Overturning stress (fo):

Lateral load Q1= 62.15930396 KN
Q2= 75.39981004 KN
Overturning moment=
Mo=Q2/2*(h1+h2)+Q1/2*h1= 319.44 KNm
Centroid of pier P3 & P4= (A3X3+A4X4)/(A3+A3)= 1.914 m
h3= 1.186 m where h3 is the
h4= -0.914 distance between
M.O.I about centroid, IC=I3+A3h32+I4+A4h42= 9.05258E+11 mm^4 the centroid of P3
and centroid of the
grid 2
Oveturning stress at different piers

y f0 = M0*y/Ic
Points
mm MPa
A 1914.29 0.68
B 914.2857143 0.32
C 285.7142857 0.10
D 2085.714286 0.74
Note: y= distance of the points from centroid
Vertical stress (fa):

Roof Slab= Triangular load*(Thickness of slab*unit wt of rcc+Floor finish)= 16.5 KN
Ground Floor slab,(Triangualr area*((thickness of slab*unit wt. of rcc+Floor
finish)+LL))= 28.5 KN
Wall = Length of the wall*H*thickness*γ-h*height of wall below
lintel*thickness*γ= 93.8676 KN
Total Vertical Load= 138.868 KN
Area= 0.644 m2
Vertical Stress,fa=Vertical
load/Area= 215.633 KN/m2
0.21563 N/mm2
17
2
Combination of stress at bottom of pier:
Overturning
Bending stress Vertical stress Net stress
stress
Points
fb (MPa) f0 (MPa) fa (MPa) Fn (MPa)
A 0.44 0.68 -0.216 0.90

B -0.44 0.32 -0.216 -0.34
C 0.44 -0.10 -0.216 0.13
D -0.44 -0.74 -0.216 -1.40
Design of pier P4
Distance of NA from point A, x= 0.729024286 m
= 729.0242864 mm
Total tensile force, T=fn*A= 75637.9962 N
Ast
reqd=T/(0.56*fy)
= 325.4646997 mm2
Dia. Of rod
provided= 10 mm
NO. of rods reqd= 4.142277996 ≈ 5
Check for Shear

Shear force, V=F4= 16.15 KN
Shear stress=V/A= 0.070211668 N/mm2
Where, fd=compressive shear

stress=fa= 0.215632919
Permissible
From IS 1905, 5.4.3, shear stress= 0.1+fd/6 0.14 N/mm2
Remarks: Safe
17
3
Section – III
Case Studies
Examples 1- Masonry Building

Examples 2- Masonry Buildings
Examples 3- Adobe Buildings
17
4
1. EXAMPLE 1- MASONRY BUILDING
ANALYSIS AND RETROFITTING DESIGN OF SDN PADASUKA II

SCHOOL BUILDING
A UNCRD project, with technical assistance from CDM-ITB, SDN padasuka II is located
at Kecamatan Soreang, Bandung County. The school has approximately 400 students. The
school building consists of 2 buildings with four rooms each, and the total area of the school
building is approximately 500 m2. The structural system before retrofitted is reinforced
concrete frames and masonry walls. The buildings were built in the early of 1990s, and still
in the expected life-time.
Figure: Layouts and Existing Conditions of SDN Padasuka II Prior to Retrofitting
    
     
 
 
 
    

Figure: Drawings of the existing school building
17
5
1.2 BACKGROUND
a. Condition of Existing Structure
Many problems were found when the visual survey and structural investigation were
conducted. The problems found could be listed as follows:
1. Inadequate foundation system (shallow foundation, no tie beam). The foundation

system was exposed on some places and no support was provided on areas with eroded
soil surface.
2. Inadequate roof framing system, poor wall-roof connection, and poor roof truss element
and connection. The roof was in dire need of repair as the construction shown excessive
deformation on the top of the building.
3. Damages found on walls, with cracks and gaps found on some places, due to lack of
structural elements (beams and columns).
4. Poor materials and detailing on the structures.
5. Poor sanitation facilities.
Figure: Existing Condition of SDN Padasuka II
1.2 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Structural Analysis
Using the results from structural investigation, the buildings were analyzed to evaluate the
structural performance under all applicable loads, including earthquakes. The structure was
modeled as such that the structural elements (beams and columns) formed the structural
frame, while masonry walls were modeled as plate elements. Both structural frame and
plate elements provided lateral resisting system for the structure. The foundation provided
support for the structural frames. The roof trusses were also modeled using truss elements.
Material properties used for the analysis were based on results of structural investigation.
17
6
The structural deficiencies/weaknesses were also included in developing the structural

model.
The design criteria followed the performance based design, where the structure was
expected to have minor/limited damage under design earthquake (elastic behavior). The
seismic design level was obtained from the current building codes, with a pga of 0.24g. The
structural analysis was conducted using response spectra approach.
Results from structural analysis show that the structure did not have adequate capacity in
resisting lateral loads. Checking of connection capacity also revealed unsatisfactory results.
Moreover, the trusses required improvement to be able to support all applicable loads.
Combined with data obtained from visual and structural investigations, results from
structural analysis were then used to design appropriate retrofitting approach.
17
7
1.3 RETROFITTING DESIGN
1.3.1 RETROFITTING APPROACH
The buildings were retrofitted using iron wire mesh for strengthening wall elements, inserting

   
 
  
   

 
   






 


 









 
 
 
  
   
 
  

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   

 


  
 







 
 



 



 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 



  













 












 






 


 
 
   
   



  
 
  


  

 



 





 





 
  
  






 






 
 
 
 

 
 
 


 
 



 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 








 












 

 












































 









 











 





 
 
  
 



 
 

 
  


















 


















 
 
  


 
 
 
 


 
 
 
  


 

 
  
 



 
 








 

  
 
 


  
  


 
 


 


 
  
 
 
 
  
 

    
  
 
 

  
 
 

  
 

 


   
 
 
 


 
 
 

 
 
 

 

 









 




 



 


  
  
 
 
 

 


 
 
  
 

 
 
 
 


 


 
 


 
  
 



 
  


 
 


(a) Retrofitting
strategy

 for columns of SDN Padasuka II





columns on building corners. The wire mesh was installed in the locations of ordinary beams
and columns, as well as diagonally on the perimeter walls. The wire mesh was installed on the
both side of the wall and anchored using iron wire. Tie beams were added underneath the walls
for strengthening the foundation system. The roof system was retrofitted using proper material
and detailing. Repair was conducted for nonstructural elements such as doors/windows and
ceilings. Finishing/cosmetic repair and improvement of sanitary facilities were also conducted
for the schools buildings.
Figure: of Retrofitting of SDN Padasuka II (Courtesy of PT Teddy Boen Konsultan)
(b) Retrofitting strategy for beams at SDN Padasuka II
17
8





 







 











  


 
     
 




 





























 



 












 
 





 
 



 







 





 






 
 






 

(c) Retrofitting strategy for walls of SDN Padasuka II




   




  

 
 


 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 

  















 
 
 

  

 
 
 
  









 



 
 




 


 


 





(d) Retrofitting strategy for tie beams of SDN Padasuka II
1.3.2 RETROFITTING PROCESS
17
9
Following figures show the retrofitting stages conducted on the buildings:
Figure 1: Retrofitting works for the tie beam (inserting tie beam)
18
0
(a) Application of iron wire-mesh in column position

Figure Retrofitting works for the wall
Figure Sanitary works (drainage system (left) and toilet (right)

(b) Application of iron wiremesh in beam position
18
1
Figure Retrofitting works for the trusses and roof (providing proper materials and detailing)
18
2
Figure Finishing works (painting, architectural gravel installation, etc)
1.4 IMPLEMENTATION
1.4.1 POST-EARTHQUAKE
CONDITION
On September 2nd 2009, approximately 7

months after the retrofitting works completed,
Figure: Retrofitting of SD Padasuka 2
a 7.3 Richter scale earthquake
occurred with the epicenter located south of Tasikmalaya. The earthquake caused damages on
many buildings, including the buildings at Bandung County. Survey was then conducted to
evaluate the post-earthquake condition of SDN Padasuka II.
Based on the survey conducted, there was no significant damage on SDN Padasuka II, with
only a few non-structural cracks occurred. From the post-earthquake condition, it can be
concluded that the retrofitting approaches adopted on SDN Padasuka II has successfully
prevented the buildings from major damage. As a comparison, there were some schools and
18
3
houses located near SDN Padasuka II that were strongly affected by the earthquake shaking.
Following figures show the post-earthquake condition of SDN Padasuka II.
Figure Post-earthquake condition
18
4
2. EXAMPLE 2: RCC BUILDING
ANALYSIS AND RETROFITTING DESIGN OF SDN 13

SYAMTALIRA ARUN
2.1.1 INTRODUCTION
This is a project under Save the Children project, with design and technical assistance from
Syiah Kuala University. SDN 13 Syamtalira Arun is located at North Aceh. The school
building consists of 2 rooms. The school has approximately 400 students. In general, the
structural system before retrofitted was reinforced concrete frames with infill masonry walls.
existing
sloof beam 13/15
existing
sloof beam 18/20
existing non structural column 10/13
reinforcement column 25/28

existing column 15/18
1 2
Upper Sloof Beam Retrofitting
1 : 100
Figure: SDN 13 Syamtalira Arun Layouts
2.1.2 BACKGROUND
a. Status and Condition of Structure
From the initial survey, there were some major problems found in SDN 13 Syamtalira
Arun, i.e:
1. Cracks on walls
2. Cracks on structural member
3. Poor workmanship
18
5
4. Poor quality construction
Figure Existing Condition of SDN 13 Syamtalira Arun
2.1.3 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT (cracks observed, sizes of elements/ walls and

others)
b. Assessment
1) Visual Assessment
In the visual assessment, the following measures were conducted:
 Rapid visual inspection and assessment
 Collection of design and drawing
 Topographical information of site
 Site measurement of main structural member
 Inspection of cracks and location
 Judgment of the construction quality
 Evaluation of workmanship
 Inspection of material used and its quality
18
6
2) Technical Assessment
Based on the results from the visual assessment, the technical assessment was conducted.
In the technical assessment, some of the physical verification and partial/non-destructive
tests were carried out, and the technical assessment measures included:
 Review and evaluation of design, specification & drawing
 Comparison of size and quality between design drawing and state of the structure in
site
 Check with code provision, mainly size of main structural member and reinforcement
bar
Figure: Technical Assessment
18
7
3) Results
Based on the assessment, the following problems were found:
 Defect on the design

 Not satisfied code requirement
 Not satisfied new Code requirement (new provision after tsunami)
 Insufficient size of Structural member
 Improper site for foundation in some case
 Poor quality of material - Not satisfied Specification
 Poor workmanship
2.3 RETROFITTING DESIGN

c. Design Recommendation
Retrofitting strategy was decided based on the results of technical assessment. Due to the
approach of open frame system (walls were not considered as lateral resisting elements),
the retrofitting design required that structural element sizes (beams and columns) to be
increased to provide larger load resistance capacity. Hence, the following design
approaches were proposed:
1) Retrofitting on structural member
- Foundation
Figure: Retrofitting of Foundation
18
8
- Beams
18
9
Figure: Retrofitting of Beam
19
0
- Column
19
1
Figure: Retrofitting of Column
19
2
2) Connection between Wall & Column
Figure: Retrofitting between Wall and Column
3) Retaining structures to protect Foundation
4) Corrective measure on cracks
Figure: Cracks Injection
19
3
d. Retrofitting Process
Figure: Retrofitting of Foundation
19
4
Figure: Column Retrofitting
19
5
Figure: Beam Retrofitting
2.4 IMPLEMENTATION
Figure: Retrofitted Structure
19
6
2.5 COST CALCULATION
Initial Construction Cost : US$ 120,000
Replacement Cost : US$ 175,000
Retrofit Cost : US$ 40,000
200000
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
Initial Cost Replacement Cost Retrofit Cost
19
7
2. EXAMPLE - 3 (ADOBE)
ANALYSIS AND RETROFITTING DESIGN OF SULTAN DAKI

HIGH SCHOOL, URI BLOCK, DIST. BARAMULA, KASHMIR - A
RURAL EXAMPLE
One of the six buildings in the school had some earthquake damage up to G3. It is a typical
school building of the area with CGI sheet roof supported on stone masonry walls. The large-
scale casualties among school children in Pakistani Kashmir clearly points to the need for
vulnerability reduction in these structures. In addition, the building system is no different from
the typical houses of the area, so the lessons learnt in this case are also relevant to houses. The
building has three rooms in a line with a verandah in front and a roof supported on wood posts.
The roof is of CGI sheets with timber under-structure. The entire building has an attic floor
which keeps the winter cold out. Similar to other buildings in the area the openings are large
with small piers in between on front wall.
Figure: Drawing for the restoration and retrofitting
19
8
19
9
20
0
Pictures of Restoration & Retrofitting of the School Building
20
1
Figure: Existing 3 room schools building before retrofitting
Figure: Typical cracking in corners and at corners of opening such as windows
Figure Bond elements yet to be Figure Grouting no-shrink grout in Figure Corner crack splicing with
completed in RR wall crack with hand pump WWM
Installing Seismic Belt at Eave Level and Around the Opening
20
2
Figure Preparing WWM with 6 mm rebars Figure Installing WW mesh from aroll
Figure Tying encasement reinforcement toshear Figure Installing belt reinforcement

connector dowel
After Deciding the Alignment of the Seismic Belt Details were Evolved to Ensure its
Continuity at Every Point in its Alignment
Figure Inserting dowel for belt to belt connection at Figure Belt continuity at corner behind wood post
corner obstruction
Figure Installing ‘L’ shaped dowel at corner to Figure plying cement-sand plaster
ensure continuity
20
3
Figure Installing vertical reinforcement in the corner Figure Vertical reinforcement concreting formwork
Figure: Anchoring vertical bar over wall-plate at attic deck
Figure Installing bolts and brackets for roof- Figure Installing bolts and brackets for roof-
wall connection wall connection
Figure Retrofitted building with belts, roof anchoring and diagonal timber bracings
20
4
Mr. Hari Darshan Shrestha, Associate Professor Institute of Engineering,

Tribhuwan University and President of Center of Resilient Development (CoRD)
holds Ph. D. degree in Civil Engineering from Ehime University Japan and M.Sc
degree in structural engineering from Leningrad Institute of Civil Engineering,
Leningrad, former USSR on 1991. He has wide range of experiences in
earthquake resilient engineering, Disaster risk reduction, green technology,
construction management, project planning and emergency response, recovery
& reconstruction in Nepal, Pakistan, Haiti, Indonesia, Timor and Bolivia.
To his credit there are numerous technical/research paper, book, guideline and manuals. He has given
his voices to unheard issues pertinent to create resilient communities in various TV channels and News
paper.
Paper Publication
 Shrestha, H. D, Bhandari, N, Subedi, J, Yatabe, R, 2013, The Impact of Retrofitting Work on

Awareness Raising and Knowledge Transfer in Aceh Province, Indonesia, International Journal
of Disaster Risk Science (IJDRS),
 Shrestha, H. D, 2013, Disaster and Development, Keynote speech, Seminar Paper, 13th
National Convention, NEA
 Shrestha, H. D, Bhandari, N, Subedi, J, Yatabe, R, 2011. Vulnerability Assessment and
Retrofitting of Existing School Buildings: A case Study of Aceh; International Journal of Disaster
Resilience in the Built Environment,
 Shrestha, H. D, Bhandari, N, Subedi, J, Yatabe, R, 2011. Dissemination of Earthquake Safer
and Climate Responsive Building Construction in Communities through Constructional of
School, International Journal of Natural Resource and Development,
Book/ Guideline/Manual
 Vulnerability Assessment and Retrofitting of Existing Building in Aceh and Transfer of

Knowledge to the community - Recovery from Indian Ocean Tsunami: A Ten Year Journey,
Disaster Risk Reduction, Spriger Japan
 Green Building Construction, 2014
 Contract Administration & Procurement of Works, 2014
 Performance of different type of Shelter in Reconstruction of Aceh Tsunami Rehabilitation
and Reconstruction Program - Reconstruction and low cost development, University of
British Columbia, 2011
 Post Disaster Reconstruction: Lessons of Recovery from 2004 Tsunami Disaster in Aceh-
Disaster and Development, Ehime University 2010
 Climate Responsive Green School Building for the urban poor CNRD
(IOE/DAAD/EXCEED),2010
 Manual on Retrofitting of Existing Vulnerable School Buildings- Assessment to Retrofitting g ,
Part I, 2009
 Manual on Retrofitting of Existing Vulnerable School Buildings- Assessment to Retrofitting g,
Part II, 2009
 Handbook on typical School Design- General, Save the Children ,2009
 Handbook on Typical School Design- Case Study, Save the Children ,2009
 Training manual on Building Earthquake Resistant Buildings, Safer Non Engineered
Construction for All, Save the Children in association with UNCERD, 2009
20
5

A Book On Seismic Retrofitting Design Tehniques

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

A Book On Seismic Retrofitting Design Tehniques

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Retrofitting Design and Techniques

Dr. Hari Darshan Shrestha

Professor, Pulchowk Campus

TO MY MOTHER LATE NANU LAXMI SHRESTHA

3.6 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 77

ENGINEERED BUILDING....................................................................................................................... 115

4.3 PLASTIC HINGES MECHANISM .................................................................................................. 155

b. Assessment ................................................................................................................................. 186

Retrofitting is commonly used terminology for strengthening and/or rehabilitation of structures

2.1 REALIZATION OF RETROFIT REQUIREMENT

2.2 SELECTION OF ENGINEER/ARCHITECT

2.3 NOTIFICATION TO MUNICIPALITY OR CONCERNED AUTHORITY

Review Existing Condition of

Selection of Engineer/Architect Carry out Vulnerability

Notification to Municipality or Carry out Preliminary Design

Is change Monitor Construction

Figure 2: Step-by-Step approach to evaluation, design and construction planning process

2.4 ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES OR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

2.5 REVIEW EXISTING CONDITION OF BUILDING

2.6 CARRY OUT VULNERABILITY EVALUATION

2.7 CARRY OUT PRELIMINARY DESIGN WITH COST ESTIMATE

2.8 DETAIL DESIGN

2.9 PREPARE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

2.10 SUBMISSION TO THE AUTHORITY

2.11 MONITORING AND QUALITY CONTROL

2.12 QUALITY ASSURANCE

Quality control in field is very important to achieve the required performance

Continuous monitoring and supervision is required. Quality check of finished

Liquefaction of a site results in settlement as well as lateral spreading of soils. Liquefaction

3.2 EARTHQUAKE INDUCED LANDSLIDE

Figure 3.2.1: Location of a building in slopped terrain

Figure 3.2.2: Earthquake Induced Landslides

MULTI-HAZARD CONSIDERATION IN REHABILITATION OF EXISTING

Four factors causing positive effect during all hazards.

Five factors causing negative effect to all hazards

(Adapted with some modifications from Hospital Preparedness for Emergencies)

4 LOCAL SITE ASSESSMENT

4.1 SOIL INVESTIGATION

4.1.2 EXTENT OF SITE EXPLORATION

4.1.3 DEPTH OF EXPLORATION

4.1.4 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE

5 REPAIR OF FOUNDATION WORK

A schematic diagram of stage-wise retrofitting of foundation for load-bearing masonry structure is

These two sides of These two sides of

5.1 CASE STUDY OF REPAIR OF FOUNDATION WORK OF A BUILDING

In order to increase size of the

The concrete is laid in the opened

Completed foundation work for a

The sides of a column are being

The opening should be enough to

Reinforcement placed in a corner

The reinforcement fabrication of

Similar is the case for formwork. A

Beams need to properly connected

Opening of beam soffit needs special

Like in column, complete loop rings

Gable walls are not recommended

The walls should be properly ties

(The content is adapted from Hospital Preparedness for Emergencies Workbook)

Damage to Non-structural Components

Damage to a particular non-structural

• Property loss and

RISK EVALUATION OF NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS