A Report on

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Residential Building of

Mrs. Aruna Thapa at Baluwatartar, Nepal

Submitted to: Embassy of the United States of America

Kathmandu
Nepal

Submitted by: National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal (NSET)

1133 Devkota Sadak, Mahadevsthan, Baneshwor,
GPO Box: 13775, Kathmandu, Nepal
Telephone: (977-1) 4474 192, 4490 359
Fax: (977-1) 4490 943
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.nset.org.np
NSET

Dec 2008
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 1.1 OBJECTIVE .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 OVERALL METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 2
1.4 LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Assessment of the Building ............................................................................................. 3

2.1 DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY ON THE BUILDING SITE .......................... 3

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING........................................................................................................ 6
2.2.1 General description ....................................................................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Discussion with Structural Design Engineer................................................................................ 7
2.2.3 Observation of structural aspects.................................................................................................. 7
2.2.4 Verification of reinforcement details using Hilti PS 200 Ferroscan detector ............................. 7
2.3 BUILDING TYPOLOGY IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................................ 8
2.4 FRAGILITY OF THE IDENTIFIED BUILDING TYPOLOGY ..................................................................... 9
2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF VULNERABILITY FACTORS ............................................................................... 9
2.6 INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT VULNERABILITY FACTORS TO THE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF THE
BUILDING .......................................................................................................................................... 9
2.7 REINTERPRETATION OF THE BUILDING FRAGILITY BASED ON OBSERVED VULNERABILITY
FACTORS ......................................................................................................................................... 11
2.8 PROBABLE PERFORMANCE OF THE BUILDING AT DIFFERENT INTENSITIES ................................... 11
2.9 IDENTIFICATION OF RELATIVELY SAFE AND UNSAFE PLACES ....................................................... 11
3. Summary & Recommendations .................................................................................... 14

3.1 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 14

3.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 14
Annex 1: Modified Mercally Intensity Scale (MMI Scale) ............................................................. 15

Annex 2: Damage Grades of Reinforced Concrete Buildings ........................................................ 17

Annex 3: Checklist for Different Vulnerability Factors of the Building ....................................... 18

Annex 4: Quick Calculations for Critical Checks ........................................................................... 22

Annex 5: Building Drawings ........................................................................................................... 27

Annex 6: Photographs ...................................................................................................................... 42

 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

1. Introduction
This report is prepared by NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR EARTHQUAKE TECHNOLOGY-
NEPAL (NSET) as part of the earthquake vulnerability assessment of residential building of Mrs.
Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar, Kathmandu. The report describes the method and findings of the 1st
phase of vulnerability assessment of building, which was prepared in December 2008 at the
request of Embassy of the United States of America at Kathmandu, Nepal. Recommendations are
also prepared for improving seismic performance of the assessed building.
This report is based on the best engineering judgment arrived at from the site visit, available
drawings, non-destructive test carried out at site using Hilti PS 200 Ferroscan detector and
Schmidt hammer at few possible locations and prevailing practices of building construction in
Kathmandu Valley. All possible efforts have been made to provide accurate and authoritative
seismic vulnerability assessment of the building in the given circumstances of information
provided by the client and limited number of field-tests (non-destructive). Therefore, neither
NSET nor any of its employees make any warranty, expressed or implied, nor assumes any
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the statement made in this report in
case the starting information does not stand correct.
The seismic evaluation process generally consists of two phases. The first phase is qualitative
method to identify the seismic deficiency of the building. The evaluation involves a set of
checklist, quick calculation for critical checks and identifies areas of potential weakness in the
building. If seismic deficiency of the building is not up to the acceptable level/criteria either
second phase or demolition is recommend. The second phase involves the details seismic
evaluation followed by design for seismic strengthening measures as modifications to correct/
reduce seismic deficiency identifying during the evaluation procedure in first phase, this is known
as seismic retrofitting of the building. This report only presents the first phase seismic
vulnerability assessment. Second phase of work will be carried out separately upon request from
the client.
This report is divided into three chapters. Chapter one begins with introductions, objective, scope,
methodology and limitations; Chapter two outlines the general understanding of the existing
seismic hazard, data collection, assessment methodology, survey findings and relatively safe and
unsafe places; Chapter three presents the summary and recommendations.
In addition, this main report also includes six annexes that provide supporting information on
issues discussed in the main report. These include details of modified mercalli intensity scale,
damage grade of the building, checklist, quick check calculations, building drawings and
photographs.

1.1 1.1 Objective

The main objective of the task is to evaluate the seismic safety of the existing building with
recommendations for increasing the seismic safety of the building.

1.2 Scope of Work

The scope of the work for assessment is as follows:
i. Conduct a survey to determine the structural characteristics of the building
ii. Assess the structural earthquake vulnerability of the building by qualitative method
iii. Identify relatively safe and unsafe places inside the building
iv. Prepare the report detailing procedures and presenting findings and recommendation

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

1
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

1.3 Overall Methodology

The overall methodology adopted for this study is as follows:
i. Determination of probable earthquake intensity on the building site
ii. Evaluation of soil condition including liquefaction potential
iii. Reconnaissance of the building structure
iv. Identification of the building typology based on construction materials and structural systems
v. Detailed visual survey of the building which includes:
• Identification of strengths and deficiencies
• Identification of structural vulnerability factors: Plan and vertical irregularities, vertical
load path, configuration problems, lateral force resisting system, material deterioration etc
vi. Identification of the building design criteria and structural system, and calculation of design
shear forces and checking of stress in ground floor bearing walls or columns as required
vii. Evaluation of general earthquake performance of the building. The building performance is
evaluated based on the available fragility functions developed by Nepal Building Code
Development Project for Nepalese Buildings
viii. General recommendation on seismic safety of the building
ix. Identification of relatively safe and unsafe places for compliance situation with respect to the
Nepal National Building Code
x. Summarization of findings and recommendation
The detailed description of each methodology for seismic vulnerability assessment is given in the
respective chapter.

1.4 Limitations
No specific details could be collected from the people involved in the design and construction of
the building. Hence, review of available drawings, visual inspection and nondestructive tests were
carried out to determine the building details and educated guess was done to determine the
expected performance of the building.
Effects of secondary or collateral hazards such as liquefaction, soil spreading, fire is not
considered during the study.

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

2
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

2. Assessment of the Building

Qualitative and some quantitative procedures were adopted for assessment of the building based
on review of available drawings and design details observed. Different seismic vulnerability
factors were checked and expected performance of the building was estimated for different
earthquake intensities. Different steps of the assessment process and their outcomes are described
as follows.

2.1 Determination of probable earthquake intensity on the building site

The probable level of earthquake shaking that the building may face was determined by
identifying the location of the building in the seismic hazard map. For this, the available
earthquake intensity distribution map of Kathmandu valley developed by
UNDP/UNCHS(Habitat) 1994, "Seismic Hazard Mapping and Risk Assessment for Nepal" based
on the intensity distribution of 1934 earthquake of Nepal and adopted by NSET during the
Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Project (KVERMP) was used.
Location of the assessed building on Google Earth is shown in figure 1

Figure 1 Location of Assessed Building from Google Earth.

Location of the assessed building was identified on the map and the probable earthquake shaking
was determined. It was found that the building lies on the intensity MMI IX earthquake shaking
area. The location of the building in shaking hazard map is given in figure 2.
The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) is a unit to measure the intensity of earthquake in a
particular area. The MMI is a qualitative measure of the actual shaking at a location during
earthquake, and is assigned as Roman Capital Numerals. It ranges from I (least perceptive) to XII
(most severe). The intensity scales are based on three features of shaking- perception by people
and animals, performance of buildings, and changes to natural surroundings. The detailed
description of Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI) is given on Annex 1.
Similarly, the liquefaction potential on the building site is also determined by observing the
location of the building on liquefaction susceptibility map as shown in figure 3, based on study by
Nippon Koei Co. Ltd. and OYO Corporation in 2002 AD for the entire Kathmandu Valley.
The building lies on medium liquefaction potential area.

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

3
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

Figure 2: Intensity distribution of 1934 Earthquake

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

4
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

Figure 3: Liquefaction Susceptibility in Kathmandu Valley

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

5
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

2.2 Description of the building

Following are the descriptions of the building based on architectural drawing and site observations.
2.2.1 General description
Owner Mrs. Aruna Thapa
Location Baluwatar, Kathmandu, Nepal
G.P.S 27°43’39.1”N, 85°19’43”E
Terrain Type Plain
Date of Site Visit 2nd-December-2008
Started May 2007
Date of Construction
Finished Just Completed
No of Stories Three

Plan Configuration Irregular

Vertical View of the Building

Irregular
Configuration
Position of the
Free Standing
Building Block
Building Dimension Refer to building plan
Storey Height 2.87m (9’-5”) for all floor
Total Plinth Area 175.7 m2 (1892Sq ft)
Building Typology Reinforcement Concrete Frame Building
Type of Foundation Isolated and combined
Among 15 columns at ground floor two
are of 12" diameter circular column, five
Size of Columns
are 12" x 12" rectangular and remaining
eight are of size 9” x 12” rectangular
Maximum Length of
6.5m (21’6”)
Beam

Wall Resting on
Not present
Cantilever

Hanging Column Present Location of the Building from Google Earth

Infill Wall Brick in cement mortar
Floor/ Roof
Reinforcement Cement Concrete
Structure
Design and Design by Engineer and supervision by
Supervision contractor and house owner.
Building Condition Well maintained.

There is no possibility of landslide and

Local Hazard rock fall in the site. The building doesn’t
not standing on the filled site.

Building plan

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

6
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

2.2.2 Discussion with Structural Design Engineer

As per discussion with the house owner, Architect Sachi Prajapati and document provided by the
design engineer, the following conclusions are drawn.
• Detail structural modeling of the building was done.
• The Foundation tie beams are provided.
• Concrete mix of 1:1.5:3 (Cement: Sand: Aggregate) is used in reinforced concrete structural
elements.
• Reinforcing bars of Fe 415 are used in reinforced concrete structural elements.
• No ties are used to integrate masonry walls and frame system.
2.2.3 Observation of structural aspects
The structural parts of building are those that resist gravity, earthquake, wind and other types of
loads. Some of the important observations are listed below.
i Among 15 columns at ground floor two are of 12"(300mm) diameter circular column, five are 12" x
12"(300mm x 300mm) rectangular and remaining eight are of size 9” x 12”(230mm x 300mm)
rectangular.
ii Beams are of size 9” x 14” (230mm x 355mm)
iii Two circular columns at ground floor are changed to rectangular at first floor.
iv The thickness of slab is 5” (125mm) without floor finishing.
v The building contains on cantilever slab projected 3'-0" (about 90cm).
vi The building seems to be constructed as per architectural drawing in ground and first floor but there are
some additional rooms at second floor.

2.2.4 Verification of reinforcement details using Hilti PS 200 Ferroscan detector

The Hilti PS 200 Ferroscan detector is used for verification of reinforcement at possible locations.
Some of the important observations are listed below.
Observation 1: Spacing of ties in columns is about 150mm to 175mm c/c throughout.
Observation 2: Spacing of stirrups in beams is about 100mm c/c near the support and 150 mm c/c
at the mid span.
Observation 3: The numbers of longitudinal bars provided in all columns is 8.
All required structural details could not be taken due to limitation of bar scanner.

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

7
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

2.3 Building Typology Identification

Identification of building typology was determined on the classification of building types in

Kathmandu valley as given in the following table. From the visual observation and study of the
available drawings, the building was identified as Reinforced Concrete Intermediate Moment
Resisting Frame Buildings. (Type 4)

Building Types in
No. Description
Kathmandu Valley

Adobe Buildings: These are buildings constructed in sun-dried

bricks (earthen) with mud mortar for the construction of structural
Adobe, stone in walls. The walls are usually more than 350 mm.
mud, brick-in-mud Stone in Mud: These are stone-masonry buildings constructed using
1
(Low Strength dressed or undressed stones with mud mortar. These types of
Masonry). 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
Brick in Cement,
2 lime mortar and stone-masonry buildings using dressed or undressed
Stone in Cement
stones with cement mortar.

These are the buildings with reinforced concrete frames and

Reinforced unreinforced brick masonry infill in cement mortar. The thickness of
Concrete Ordinary- infill walls is 230mm (9”) or even 115mm (41/2”) and column size
3
Moment-Resisting- is predominantly 9”x 9”. The prevalent practice of most urban areas
Frame Buildings 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

Reinforced concrete beams and columns. Floor and roof framing consists of
Concrete cast-in-place concrete slabs. Lateral forces are resisted by concrete
Intermediate- moment frames that develop their stiffness through monolithic
4
Moment-Resisting- beam-column connections. These are engineered buildings designed
Frame Buildings 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
Reinforced concrete moment frames that develop their stiffness through monolithic
special-moment- beam-column connections. These buildings have joint reinforcing,
5
resistant-frames closely spaced ties, and special detailing to provide ductile
(SMRF) 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,
6 Others Brick in Mud and Brick in cement etc. are other building type in
Kathmandu valley.

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

8
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

2.4 Fragility of the Identified Building Typology

The fragility or the seismic vulnerability of a building is the possible consequences during
building due to the probable earthquake shaking. The fragility is expressed as the degree of
severity of damage (Damage Grade) in a building during different earthquake intensities.
Normally, the buildings with similar structural systems and properties behave in similar pattern
during the earthquakes. Hence, generalized fragility functions (or curves) are available for
different types of building. In Nepalese case, such fragility functions are available from “The
Development of Alternative Building Materials and Technologies for Nepal and Appendix-C:
Vulnerability Assessment, UNDP/UNCHS 1994” Based on this fragility function and the
definitions used “European Macro-seismic Scale (EMS 98)” http://www.gfz-
potsdam.de/pb5/pb53/projekt/ems/core/ emsacor.htm. NSET has extracted the damage grades of
different building typologies in different intensities of earthquakes. Such damage grades for the
identified Reinforced Concrete Intermediate Moment Resisting Frame building are given below in
table 1.
.
Table 1: Fragility of the Identified Building Typology

Shaking Intensity (MMI) VII VIII IX

Damage Weak DG2 DG3 DG4

Grades for
Different Average DG1 DG2 DG3
Classes of
Buildings Good - DG1 DG2

The table shows that the weaker buildings of this category get damage degree of four (DG4) at
intensity IX where as good buildings of this category will suffer damage degree of two (DG2) at
the same intensity. For the detail description of different damage grade of building refer Annex 2.

2.5 Identification of Vulnerability Factors

The general vulnerability of the building as identified by the use of generalized fragility function
needs to be modified based on the influence of different vulnerability factor existing in the
building. The different vulnerability factors associated with particular type of building are
checked with a set of appropriate checklist from FEMA 310, "Handbook for the Seismic
Evaluation of Buildings" and Indian Standard Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and
Strengthening of Existing Buildings. The basic vulnerability factors are building system, plan
irregularities, vertical irregularities, lateral force resisting system, connections diaphragms etc.
These are evaluated based on visual inspection, review of drawings and non destructive test. The
checklist used for checking different vulnerability factors of the assessed building is given in
Annex 3. Some critical vulnerability factors of the building required quantitative checking. Some
of the important calculation sheets are attached in Annex 4.

2.6 Influence of Different Vulnerability Factors to the Seismic Performance of

the Building
Based on the existence of different vulnerability factors as appearing in the checklist (Annex 3)
and quick calculation for critical checks (Annex 4), following table (Table 2: Influence of
Different Vulnerability Factors to the Building) is completed to evaluate the final influence of
different vulnerability factors on the fragility of the building.
.
National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal
9
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

Table 2: Influence of Different Vulnerability Factors to the Building

Increasing Vulnerability of the Building by

Vulnerability Factors different vulnerability factors
High Medium Low N/A Not known
Load Path √
Adjacent Buildings √
Mezzanines/Loft/Sub-floors √
Building Deterioration of concrete √
System Masonry units √
Masonry joints √
Cracks in infill walls √
Cracks in boundary columns √
Plan Torsion √
irregularities Diaphragm continuity √
Weak storey √
Soft storey √
Vertical
Mass irregularity √
irregularities
Vertical geometric irregularity √
Vertical discontinuities √
Redundancy √
Shear stress √
Axial Strength √
Shear Failures √
Short columns √
Lateral load Strong column – Weak beam √
resisting Column bar splices √
system Column tie spacing √
Beam bars √
Beam bar splices √
Stirrup spacing √
Joint reinforcing √
Stirrup and tie hook √
Joint eccentricity √
Wall connection √
Plan irregularities √
Diaphragm Diaphragm reinforcement at
√
opening
Connections Column connection √
Area History √
Geologic Site Liquefaction √
Slope Failure √
Others Non Structural Components √

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

10
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

2.7 Reinterpretation of the Building Fragility Based on Observed

Vulnerability Factors
The above completed table clearly shows that the influence of different vulnerability factors is
average which makes the building to fall under "Average" category of the building typology.
Hence, the assessed building is average type of reinforced concrete intermediate moment
resisting frame building. The performance of building to different earthquake intensity is given in
Table 3.

Table 3: Reinterpreted Fragility of the Building

MMI VII VIII IX

Building Performance DG1 DG2 DG3

2.8 Probable Performance of the Building at Different Intensities

The performance of the buildings in terms of structural vulnerability is given in Table 4 as per the
qualitative assessment done above.
Table 4: Probable Performance of the Building

Performance of the Building

Item
MMI = VII MMI =VIII MMI = IX

Structural
No Slight Moderate
Damage

Non-
Structural Slight Moderate Heavy
Damage

The probable structural damage of the building on MMI IX is moderate with possibility of cracks
in columns and beam column joints of frame, large cracks in partition and infill walls, and failure
of individual infill panels.
The probable non-structure elements damage of the building on MMI IX is heavy with collapse of
wall and slab supporting overhead water tank, hanging columns.

2.9 Identification of Relatively Safe and Unsafe Places

Failure modes are necessary in order to classify building portions into safe and unsafe locations in
terms of earthquake safety requiring quantitative structural assessment. However, on the basis of
qualitative assessment a preliminary indication of location risk in terms of earthquake safety have
been done here.
The relatively safe and unsafe places of the assessed building are shown in figure 4.1 and 4.2.
These places may be used for preparing earthquake preparedness plans up to moderate structural
damage of the building. Therefore, these safe and unsafe places may be correct up to moderate
structural damage of the building

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

11
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

Fig: 4.1 Relatively Safe and Unsafe Places

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

12
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

Fig: 4.2 Relatively Safe and Unsafe Places

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

13
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

3. Summary & Recommendations

3.1 Summary
On the basis of the available information about the building, the architectural and structural
information obtained from field visit, and implementation of limited number of non-destructive
field tests, it is identified that the assessed building is likely to suffer moderate structural damage
to frame elements and heavy non structural damage at large earthquakes of intensity IX MMI.
According to Nepal National Building Code; “Structures should be able to resist moderate
earthquakes without significant damage”; and “Structures should be able to resist major
earthquakes without collapse”. It is expected that the frame system of the assessed building is in
compliance with the Nepal National Building Code.
Followings are the summary of study of building.
Table 5: Summary of Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Mrs. Aruna Thapa House

Probable earthquake intensity in

MMI IX
the building site

Liquefaction potential on the

Moderate
building site

Average type of reinforced concrete intermediate moment

Building typology
resisting frame building.

High Vulnerability Factors to the

Strong columns- weak beam and Non-structural elements,
Building

Medium Vulnerability Factors to Shear stress, Column tie spacing, wall connection, Axial
the Building stress, etc

Probable structural performance of MMI VII MMI VIII MMI IX

the building No Slight Moderate

Probable non-structural MMI VII MMI VIII MMI IX

performance of the building Slight Moderate Heavy

3.2 Recommendations
The following actions are identified as possible intervention options for reducing the earthquake
risk in the assessed building.
• All Non-structural elements (partitions, furniture, equipment etc.) should be fixed properly for
restricting their movement to prevent from overturning, sliding and impacting during an
earthquake.
• Plastic lamination of the windowpanes and bracing of the masonry wall is recommended to
reduce risk.
• The wall and slab supporting overhead tank should be properly braced.

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

14
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

Annex 1: Modified Mercally Intensity Scale (MMI Scale)

Intensity Description of Effect

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 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.

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.

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

15
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

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 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.

XI Devastative Intensity
• Severe damage even to well built buildings, bridges, water dams and railway lines;
highways become useless; underground pipes destroyed.

XII Extremely Destructive Intensity (Landscape changes)

• Practically all structures above and below ground are greatly damaged or
destroyed.

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

16
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

Annex 2: Damage Grades of Reinforced Concrete Buildings

Classification from European Macro-seismic Scale (EMS 98)

Classification of damage to buildings of reinforced concrete

Structural damage : No
Non-structural damage: Slight

• Fine cracks in plaster over frame members or in

walls at the base.
• Fine cracks in partitions and infills.
Grade 1: Negligible to slight damage

Structural damage : Slight

Non-structural damage: Moderate
• Cracks in columns and beams of frames and in
structural walls.
• Cracks in partition and infill walls; fall of brittle
cladding and plaster.
Grade 2: Moderate damage • Falling of mortar from the joints of wall panels.

Structural damage: Moderate

Non-structural damage: Heavy
• 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
bars.
• Large cracks in partition and infill walls, failure of
Grade 3: Substantial to heavy damage individual infill panels.

Structural damage: Heavy

Non-structural damage: Very heavy
• 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
Grade 4: Very heavy damage floor.

Structural damage: very heavy

• Collapse of ground floor or parts (e.g. wings) of

buildings.
Grade 5: Destruction

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

17
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

Annex 3: Checklist for Different Vulnerability Factors of the Building

(Note: C = Compliance to the statement; NC = Not Compliance to the statement; N/A = Not
Applicable and/or Not Available); NK = Not known. The evaluation of different statements is
made and is noted by Underlined Italic Bold letter.
Building System
C NC N/A NK LOAD PATH: The building shall contain one complete load path for seismic
forces effects from any horizontal direction that serves to transfer the inertial
forces from the masses to the foundation.
C NC N/A NK ADJACENT BUILDINGS: The clear horizontal distance between the building
under consideration and any adjacent building shall be greater than 4 % of the
height of the shorter building, expect for buildings that are of the same height
with floors located at the same levels.
The building is standing freely
C NC N/A NK MEZZANINES/LOFT/SUBFLOORS: Interior mezzanine/loft/sub-floor levels
shall be braced independently from the main structure, or shall be anchored to the
lateral-force-resisting elements of the main structure.
C NC N/A NK DETERIORATION OF CONCRETE: There should be no visible deterioration of
the concrete or reinforcing steel in any of the vertical or lateral force resisting
elements.
C NC N/A NK MASONRY UNITS: There shall be no visible deterioration of masonry units.
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.
C NC N/A NK CRACKS IN INFILL WALLS: There shall be no existing diagonal cracks in
infill walls that extend throughout a panel, are greater than 3mm, or have out of
plane offsets in the bed joint greater than 3 mm
C NC N/A NK CRACKS IN BOUNDARY COLUMNS: There shall be no existing diagonal
cracks wider than 3 mm in concrete columns that encase masonry infills.
Plan Irregularities
C NC N/A NK TORSION: The estimated distance between the storey center of mass and the
storey centre of stiffness shall be less than 30% of the building dimension at right
angles to the direction of loading considered
Refer Annex 4.C: Quick Calculations for Critical Checks
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
Vertical Irregularities
C NC N/A NK WEAK STORY: The strength of the vertical lateral force resisting system in any
storey shall not be less than 70% of the strength in an adjacent story.
C NC N/A NK SOFT STORY: The stiffness of vertical lateral load resisting system in any storey
shall not be less than 60% of the stiffness in an adjacent story or less than 70% of
the average stiffness of the three storey above.
C NC N/A NK MASS: There shall be no change in effective mass more than 100% from one
storey to the next. Light roofs, penthouse, and mezzanine floors need not be
considered.
Refer Annex 4.A.1: Quick Calculations for Critical Checks

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

18
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

C NC N/A NK GEOMETRY: No change in the horizontal dimension of lateral force resisting

system of more than 50% in a storey relative to adjacent stories, excluding
penthouses and mezzanine floors, should be made.
C NC N/A NK VERTICAL DISCONTINUITIES: All vertical elements in the lateral force
resisting system shall be continuous from the root to the foundation.
Lateral load resisting system
C NC N/A NK REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of moment frames in each principle
direction shall be greater than or equal to 2. The number of bays of moment
frames in each line shall be greater than or equal to 2.
C NC N/A NK SHEAR STRESS IN RC FRAME COLUMNS: The average shear stress in
concrete columns tcol , computed in accordance with 6.5.1 of IITK- GSDMA
guidelines for seismic evaluation and strengthening of buildings shall be lesser of
0.4MPa and 0.10 √fck
Refer Annex 4A.3: Quick Calculations for Critical Checks
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.
Refer Annex 4B1: Quick Calculations for Critical Checks
C NC N/A NK AXIAL STRESS IN MOMENT FRAMES: The maximum compressive axial
stress in the columns of moments frames at base due to overturning forces alone
(Fo) as calculated using 6.5.4 equation of IITK- GSDMA guidelines for seismic
evaluation and strengthening of buildings shall be less than 0.25fck
Refer Annex 4.B.2: Quick Calculations for Critical Checks
C NC N/A NK SHORT COLUMNS: The reduced height of a columns due to surrounding
parapet, infill wall, etc. shall not be less than five times the dimension of the
column in the direction of parapet, infill wall, etc. or 50% of the nominal height
of the typical columns in that storey.
C NC N/A NK STRONG COLUMN/WEAK BEAM: The sum of the moments of resistance of
the columns shall be at least 1.1 times the sum of the moment of resistance of the
beams at each frame joint.
Refer Annex 4.D: Quick Calculations for Critical Checks
C NC N/A NK NO SHEAR FAILURE: Shear capacity of frame members shall be adequate to
develop the moment capacity at the ends, and shall be in accordance with
provision of IS: 13920 for shear design of beams and columns.
Refer Annex 4.A.4: Quick Calculations for Critical Checks
C NC N/A NK COLUMNS BAR SPLICES: Lap splices shall be located only in the central half
of the member length. It should be proportions as a tension splice. Hoops shall be
located over the entire splice length at spacing not exceeding 150 mm centre to
centre. Not more than 50% of the bars shall preferably be spliced at one section.
If more than 50 % of the bars are spliced at one section, the lap length shall be
1.3Ld where Ld is the development length of bar in tension as per IS 456:2000
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 located at the joints for either positive or negative
moment shall be continuous throughout the length of the members.
C NC N/A NK BEAM BAR SPLICES: Longitudinal bars shall be spliced only if hoops are
located over the entire splice length, at a spacing not exceeding 150mm. The lap
National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal
19
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

length shall not be less than the bar development length in tension. Lap splices
shall not be located (a) within a joint, (b) within a distance of 2d from joint face,
and (c) within a quarter length of the member where flexural yielding may occur
under the effect of earthquake forces. Not more than 50% of the bars shall be
spliced at one section.
C NC N/A NK BEAM STIRRUP SPACING: The spacing of stirrups over a length of 2d at either
end of a beam shall not exceed (a) d/4, or (b) 8 times the diameter of the smallest
longitudinal bar; however, it need not be less than 100 mm. The first hoop shall
be at a distance not exceeding 50 mm from the joint face. In case of beams
vertical hoops at the same spacing as above shall also be located over a length
equal to 2d on either side of a section where flexural yielding side of a section
where flexural yielding may occur under the effect of earthquake forces.
Elsewhere, the beam shall have vertical hoops at a spacing not exceeding d/2.
C NC N/A NK COLUMN-TIE SPACING: Frame columns shall have ties spaced at or less than
d/4 throughout their length and at or less than 8 db at all potential plastic hinge
locations.
C NC N/A NK JOINT REINFORCING: Beam- column joints shall have ties spaced at or less
than 150 mm.
C NC N/A NK STIRRUP AND TIE HOOKS: The beam stirrups and column ties shall
preferably be anchored into the member cores with hooks of 1350
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 WALL CONNECTIONS: All infill walls shall have a positive connection to the
frame to resist out-of-plane forces.
Walls are mechanically not connected to the concrete frame.
Diaphragms
C NC N/A NK PLAN IRRERULARITIES: There shall be tensile capacity to develop the strength
of the diaphragm at re-entrant corners or other locations of plan irregularities.
C NC N/A NK DIAPHRAGM REINFORCEMENT AT OPENINGS: There shall be reinforcing
around all diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the building width in either
major plan dimension.

Connections
C NC N/A NK COLUMN CONNECTION: All column reinforcement shall be dowelled into the
foundation.
The foundation system of the building is isolated and combined type.
Geologic Site
C NC N/A NK AREA HISTORY: Evidence of history of landslides, mud slides, soil settlement,
sinkholes, construction on fill, or buried on or at sites in the area are not
anticipated.
C NC N/A NK LIQUEFACTION: Liquefaction susceptible, saturated, loose granular soils that
could jeopardize the building’s seismic performance shall not exist in the
foundation soils.
C NC N/A NK SLOPE FAILURE: The building site shall be sufficiently remote from potential
earthquake induced slope failures or rockfalls to be unaffected by such failures or
National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal
20
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

shall be capable of accommodating any predicted movements without failure.

Non-Structural Components
Partitions
C NC N/A NK UN-REINFORCED MASONRY: Un-reinforced masonry partitions shall be
braced at a spacing equal to or less than 3 m.
Cladding and glazing
C NC N/A NK CLADDING ANCHORS: Cladding components weighing more than 0.5 kN/m2
shall be mechanically anchored to the exterior wall framing at a spacing equal to
or less than 1 m.
C NC N/A NK GLAZING: Glazing in curtain walls and individual panes over 1.5 m2 in area
located up to a height of 3 m above an exterior walking surface, shall have safety
glazing. Such glazing located over 3 m above an exterior walking surface shall be
laminate annealed or laminated heat-strengthened safety glass or other glazing
system that will remain in the frame when glass is cracked.
Piping
C NC N/A NK FLEXIBLE COUPLING: Fluid, gas and fire suppression piping shall have
flexible couplings.
Hazardous material storage
C NC N/A NK TOXIC SUBSTANCES: Toxic and hazardous substances stored in breakable
containers shall be restrained from falling by latched doors, shelf lips, wires or
other methods.

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

21
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

Annex 4: Quick Calculations for Critical Checks

The following is a sample of quick check calculations based on FEMA 310, IS 1893: 2002 &
Using IITK-GSDMA Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening of Buildings for the
seismic evaluation of building under consideration.
Assumptions:
• Unit weight of RCC = 25kN/m3
• Unit weight of brick = 19kN/m3
• Live load = 2.0 kN/m2
• Live load for Accessible roof = 1.5kN/m
• Weight of plaster and floor finish = 1.0 kN/m2
• Grade of concrete = M20 for all other structural elements
• Grade of steel = Fe 415
• Lateral load is solely carried by frame elements. Stiffness of the walls is not considered.

A. Calculation for Shear Stress check

A.1 Summary of lumped load calculation

Dead Load Live load Seismic weight

Level (Dead Load + 25% Live Load)
(kN) (kN) (kN)
3 1223 19 1228
2 1683 263 1748
1 1563 246 1624
∑ 4468 528 4600

A.2 Calculation of base shear (Using IS 1893: 2002)

The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear is given by
Vb = Ah W
Where,
Ah = Design horizontal seismic coefficient = (ZI/2R)*(Sa /g)
H = Total height of building in meters = 8.55m
T = Fundamental natural period of vibration
= 0.075 h0.75 (For RC frame building)
= 0.3770sec
Sa/g = 2.5 (for soft soil, 0.1 ≤ T ≤ 0.67)
Z = Seismic zone factor
= 0.36 (Seismic zone V)
I = Importance factor
= 1.0 (For residential Building)
R = Response reduction factor
= 4 (Reinforced Concrete Intermediate-Moment-Resisting-Frame Buildings)

Hence,
Ah = 0.113
Vb = 518kN

A.3 Distribution of base shear and calculation of shear stress in RC Columns

The design base shear (Vb) is distributed along the height of the building as per the following
expression:
Qi = Vb (Wi hi/ ∑ Wi hi)

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

22
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

Where Qi = Design lateral force at floor i

Wi = Seismic weight of floor i
hi = Height of floor i measured from base

Total weight Height Qi Storey Shear

Floor Wi hi
Wi (kN ) hi(m) ( kN ) Vj (kN )
3 1228 8.61 10574 217 217
2 1748 5.74 10036 206 422
1 1624 2.87 4661 95 518
Σ 4600 25270 518

(Using IITK-GSDMA Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening of Buildings, 6.5.1)
Average shearing stress in columns is given as
tcol = (nc/(nc-nf))*(Vj/Ac) < min of 0.4Mpa and 0.1√ 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 in the storey under consideration
Vj = Maximum storey shear at storey level 'j'

nf1 nf2 Ac Shear stress

Storey shears
Storey nc (in longitudinal (in transverse (m2) Vj (kN) tcol 1 tcol 2
direction) direction)
(Mpa) (Mpa)
3 10 3 4 0.75 217 0.41 0.48
2 13 3 4 0.98 422 0.56 0.62
1 15 4 4 1.17 518 0.60 0.60

But tcol> min of 0.4Mpa and 0.1 √fck

Hence, the check is not satisfied.

A.4 Distribution of base shear and calculation of shear stress in RC Columns including
torsional shear.
The shear stress in the column should be less than shear strength of column.

Earthquake in X-direction
Column Direct Shear Torsional Shear Total Shear (kN) Shear Stress
(kN) (kN) (N/mm2)
A2 46.16 16.55 62.72 0.675
A4 34.62 12.51 47.13 0.676
A5 34.62 12.51 47.13 0.676
B2 19.74 2.38 22.12 0.317
B3 34.62 4.12 38.75 0.556
B4 27.20 3.28 30.48 0.328
B5 19.74 2.38 22.12 0.317
C1 46.16 5.44 51.60 0.555
C3 46.16 5.44 51.60 0.555

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

23
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

C4 27.20 3.21 30.41 0.327

C5 19.74 2.33 22.07 0.317
D1 46.16 16.08 62.25 0.670
D3 46.16 16.08 62.25 0.670
D4 34.62 12.06 46.68 0.670
D5 34.62 12.06 46.68 0.670

Earthquake in Y -direction

Column Direct Shear (kN) Torsional Shear (kN) Total Shear (kN) Shear Stress
(N/mm2)

D1 46.16 33.19 79.35 0.85

C1 46.16 33.19 79.35 0.85

A2 46.16 14.75 60.91 0.66

B2 34.62 11.06 45.69 0.66

B3 19.74 4.95 24.68 0.35

C3 46.16 11.57 57.73 0.62

D3 46.16 11.57 57.73 0.62

A4 19.74 2.15 21.89 0.31

B4 27.20 2.96 30.17 0.32

C4 27.20 2.96 30.17 0.32

D4 34.62 3.77 38.39 0.55

A5 19.74 8.39 28.13 0.40

B5 34.62 14.71 49.33 0.71

C5 34.62 14.71 49.33 0.71

D5 34.62 14.71 49.33 0.71

A.5 Calculation of Shear capacity of column using capacity design method

Checking shear capacity of column (C-4)
Shear capacity of column required = 1.4( Ml+Mr)/hst
The Longitudinal Beam (along 4-4 at C-4) of size230 x 355 is reinforced with 5-16∅ (1006mm2,
i.e. 1.33%) bar at both top and 3-16∅(603mm2, i.e. 0.80%) bar at bottom
Where,
b = 230 mm; d=330mm
Ast = 1006 mm2 (5-16∅)
Asc =603mm2 (3-16∅)

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

24
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

fck = 20 N/mm2
fy = 415 N/mm2
The hogging and sagging moment capacities are evaluated as 103.86N-m and 54.05kN-m
respectively.
The shear force in column corresponding to these moments
Vu = 1.4 (Mubl + Mubr)/hst = 1.4 x (103.86 + 54.05)/2.87= 77.0kN

For Column C-4 of size 300mm ∅

As = 1609mm2 (8-16∅)
fck = 20 N/mm2
fy = 415 N/mm2
From SP:16 Table 61, for Pt = 2.28 %, τc = 0.818N/mm2
Shear capacity of concrete section = (0.818 * 22/7*300^2/4) / 1000 = 57.8kN
Shear to be carried by stirrups Vus = 77.0– 57.8 = 19.2kN
From table 62, SP -16: for 8mm dia. 2- legged stirrups @ 150mm c/c
For stirrups
Vus / d = 242.08kN/m
Vus provided = 242.08 * 0.26 = 62.9kN > 19.2kN
Hence, the check is satisfied

B. Axial Stress check

B.1 The Axial stress due to gravity loads as per FEMA 310
Permissible axial stress = 0.1 fc’ = 2.0N/mm2
The axial stress due to gravity loads in column C-4 of Ground Floor
The axial stress due to gravity loads in column
= Load on column (N) / Cross section Area of Column
=1014*1000 / (22/7*300*300/4)
= 14.3N/mm2 > 2.0N/mm2
Hence, the check not satisfied

B.2 Axial stresses in moments frames

(Using IITK-GSDMA Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening of Buildings, 6.5.4)
Axial force in columns of moment frames at base due to overturning forces,
Fo = (2 VB H) / (3 nf L)
VB = Base shear = 518KN
nf = Total no of frames in the direction of loading = 4
H = Total height in meters = 8.61m
L= Length of the building in meters = 14.32m
Fo = 52KN

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

25
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

s = Axial Stress = 0.75N/mm2

sall = 0.25 fck = 5.0N/mm2
Hence, the check is satisfied

C. Check for torsion

Checking eccentricity between centre of mass and centre of stiffness at ground floor
Location of centre of stiffness at ground floor (Kx, Ky ) = ( 8.71m, 8.01m)
Location of effective mass center at ground floor (Wx, Wy) = (10.23m, 7.27m)
Calculated eccentricity along X direction ex = | 10.23 – 8.71 | =1.52m
Calculated eccentricity along Y direction, ey = | 8.01 – 7.27| = 0.74m
Permissible eccentricity along X direction ex (30% of 16.34 m length along X-dir) = 4.90m
Permissible eccentricity along Y direction, ey (30% of 14.32 m length along Y-dir) = 4.30m
Hence, the check is satisfied

D. Check for Strong column weak beam

1. Checking capacity of column C-4 at ground floor
The Longitudinal Beam (along 4-4 at C-4) of size230 x 355 is reinforced with 5-16∅ (1006mm2,
i.e. 1.33%) bar at both top and 3-16∅(603mm2, i.e. 0.80%) bar at bottom
Where,
b = 230 mm; d=330mm
Ast = 1006 mm2 (5-16∅)
Asc =603mm2 (3-16∅)
2
fck = 20 N/mm
fy = 415 N/mm2
The hogging and sagging moment capacities are evaluated as 103.86N-m and 54.05kN-m
respectively.
Factored column axial load = 1014kN
Pu / (fck *b* D) = (1014*1000)/ (20*300 * 300) = 0.56
The column is reinforced with 8-16mm∅ bar
Asc= 1609mm2; pt =2.28%
pt/fck = 2.28/ 20 = 0.114
Using SP-16; Chart 56 & 57
Mu / fck *b* D 2 = 0.026
Mu = 14.0KN-m
1.1Σ Mb = 1.1(103.86+54.05) = 173.70 KN-m
Σ Mc = 14.0 + 14.0 = 28.0 KN-m < 1.1Σ Mb
Hence, strong column weak beam requirement is not satisfied.

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

26
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

Annex 5: Building Drawings

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

27
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

28
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

29
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

30
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

31
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

32
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

33
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

34
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

35
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

36
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

37
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

38
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

39
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

40
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

41
 Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Residential building of Mrs Aruna Thapa at Baluwatar

Annex 6: Photographs

Use of Ferroscan detector for verification of

Beam column junction
reinforcement details

Masonry structure for Overhead Water tanks with

Columns in cantilever slab rigid pipe connection

National Society for Earthquake Technology-Nepal

42