Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueqe20

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

ISSN: 1363-2469 (Print) 1559-808X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Damage to Cultural Heritage Structures andBuildings Due to the 2015 Nepal GorkhaEarthquake

Satish Bhagat, H. A. D. Samith Buddika, Rohit Kumar Adhikari, AnujaShrestha, Sanjeema Bajracharya, Rejina Joshi, Jenisha Singh, Rajali Maharjan& Anil C. Wijeyewickrema

To cite this article: Satish Bhagat, H. A. D. Samith Buddika, Rohit Kumar Adhikari, AnujaShrestha, Sanjeema Bajracharya, Rejina Joshi, Jenisha Singh, Rajali Maharjan & Anil C.Wijeyewickrema (2018) Damage to Cultural Heritage Structures and Buildings Due to the2015 Nepal Gorkha Earthquake, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 22:10, 1861-1880, DOI:10.1080/13632469.2017.1309608

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1309608

Published online: 23 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 265

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Damage to Cultural Heritage Structures and Buildings Due tothe 2015 Nepal Gorkha EarthquakeSatish Bhagata, H. A. D. Samith Buddikaa, Rohit Kumar Adhikaria, Anuja Shresthaa,Sanjeema Bajracharyaa, Rejina Joshia, Jenisha Singha, Rajali Maharjanb,and Anil C. Wijeyewickremaa

aDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan;bDepartment of International Development Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan

ABSTRACTCultural heritage structures are an integral facet of the irreplaceablecultural heritage of a nation and have been constructed several hun-dreds and even thousands of years ago. In this paper, based on a fieldreconnaissance of the highly damaged areas of Kathmandu Valley andSindhupalchowk district, damage to cultural heritage structures due tothe 2015 Nepal Gorkha earthquake and its impact on Nepal arereported. Damages to engineered and non-engineered buildings arealso discussed. The damage patterns observed and discussed will beuseful for the prevention of damage to cultural heritage structures andother buildings in seismically active countries.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 10 February 2017Accepted 27 February 2017

KEYWORDSCultural Heritage Structures;Earthquake ReconnaissanceSurvey; Engineered andNon-Engineered Buildings;Structural Damage; 2015Nepal Gorkha Earthquake

1. Introduction

An earthquake of momentous magnitude ðMwÞ 7.8 occurred in the central region of Nepalon April 25, 2015, at 11:56 Nepal Standard Time. The epicenter (28.147°N, 84.708°E) ofthe earthquake was located in the village of Barpak, Gorkha district, which is approxi-mately 78 km northwest of the capital city, Kathmandu (Fig. 1), and its focal depth was 15km [USGS, 2015]. Over 472 aftershocks with Mw greater than 4.0 have been recorded as ofOctober 2016 [NSC, 2016], with some significant seismic events having Mw 6:7 on April26, 2015, and Mw 7:3 on May 12, 2015 (Fig. 1). The earthquake resulted in a MaximumMercalli Intensity of IX (Violent) with about 8790 deaths, and 22,300 people injured[NPC, 2015]. Significant damages to many public and private buildings were reported. Inaddition, many cultural heritage structures were also damaged, ranging from moderatedamage to total collapse. It was reported that 2900 structures with a historical andreligious significance were affected [NPC, 2015], of which 133 had collapsed, 95 werepartially collapsed and 515 were partly damaged [DOA, 2015].

The cultural heritage of a nation depicts the social beliefs, customs, and traditions thatconnect people and provide a sense of unity and belonging to a nation. Cultural heritagestructures (i.e. tangible cultural heritage) also serve as tourist attractions but are vulnerableto strong ground shaking due to seismic events, as these structures were obviously builtbefore structural design guidelines were established. The traditional materials used for the

CONTACT Anil C. Wijeyewickrema wijeyewickrema.a.aa@m.titech.ac.jp Department of Civil and EnvironmentalEngineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, O-okayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8552, Japan.Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ueqe.

JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING2018, VOL. 22, NO. 10, 1861–1880https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1309608

© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

construction of cultural heritage structures need proper maintenance at regular intervalsto maintain structural integrity. Lack of regular maintenance and deterioration of con-struction materials can lead to significant damage to these structures, even under minorground motion intensity levels.

Damage to cultural heritage structures in Italy are discussed in detail by Parisi andAugenti [2013]. Protection of cultural heritage structures is always a matter of concernand has gained significant attention in many European countries [Kappos et al., 2007;Milani and Valente, 2015]. In Nepal, the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act empowersthe Department of Archeology to be responsible for all heritage sites in the country.Inadequate resources and mechanisms to implement projects and protect heritage sites,and conflicting interests of multiple stakeholders involved in conservation and mainte-nance of heritage structures, have led to a situation where there are problems with theimplementation of regular maintenance of all cultural heritage structures [Chapagain,2008]. This resulted in extensive damage to cultural heritage structures due to the 2015Nepal Gorkha earthquake.

Many engineered and non-engineered buildings were also damaged due to the 2015 NepalGorkha earthquake. A total of 498,852 buildings were fully damaged and 256,697 buildingswere partially damaged [NPC, 2015]. This includes both engineered and non-engineeredbuildings. Damage to buildings due to the 2015 Nepal Gorkha earthquake have been reportedin many studies [for e.g. Adhikari et al., 2015; Sun and Yan, 2015; Goda et al., 2015; Shakyaand Kawan, 2016; Sharma et al., 2016]. These studies mainly focused on damage to

Figure 1. Location of the mainshock and two major aftershocks of the 2015 Nepal Gorkha earthquake[modified from Parajuli and Kiyono, 2015]. Note: Kathmandu Valley consists of Kathmandu, Lalitpur, andBhaktapur districts.

1862 S. BHAGAT ET AL.

reinforced concrete buildings highlighting some of the major causes such as weak column-strong beam mechanism, lack of confining reinforcement, low-quality construction materi-als, and poor reinforcement detailing. Parajuli and Kiyono [2015] investigated damage tostone masonry structures. However, these studies do not discuss damage to cultural heritagestructures, which are one of the most valuable cultural assets of a nation.

In the last few decades, shortly after the occurrence of a major seismic event, manyreconnaissance surveys have been carried out by different groups of researchers. The reconnais-sance surveys mainly focusing on structural damage can be broadly categorized as focusing on(a) damage to building structures [e.g. Tsai et al., 2000; Eberhard et al., 2010; Kawashima et al.,2010; Romão et al., 2013; Parajuli and Kiyono 2015; Lukkunaprasit et al., 2016; Yazgan et al.,2016]; (b) damage to cultural heritage structures [e.g. Leite et al., 2013; Sorrentino et al., 2014;Adami et al., 2016] (c) seismic pounding of buildings [e.g. Kasai and Maison, 1997; Cole et al.2012]; and (d) damage to bridges [e.g. Kawashima et al., 2009; Schanack et al. 2012].

The present paper reports the findings of the earthquake reconnaissance after the 2015 NepalGorkha earthquake, where the focus is on the damage caused to cultural heritage structures andthe resulting impact on Nepal. A field reconnaissance of the highly damaged areas ofKathmandu Valley (which consists of Kathmandu, Lalitpur, and Bhaktapur districts) andSindhupalchowk district (Fig. 1) was conducted by a team from the Tokyo Institute ofTechnology, Japan from June 1 to 8, 2015. In addition, damage to engineered and non-engineered buildings located in areas where there were a large number of casualties is alsodiscussed. The observations and related discussions provided in this paper would be useful whenformulating plans to preserve cultural heritage structures and other buildings from futureearthquakes in seismically active nations.

2. Characteristics of Nepalese Heritage Structures

Kathmandu Valley has seven monument zones included in the list of UNESCOWorld heritagesites, revealing a wide range of historic and artistic achievements over the centuries. Thesemonument zones include the Durbar Squares of Kathmandu, Patan, and Bhaktapur, theBuddhist stupas of Swayambhu and Boudhanath, and the Hindu temples of Pashupatinathand Changu Narayan [UNESCO, 2016]. All these cultural heritage structures have uniquefeatures and depict the traditions and culture of Nepal. Besides this, the design approach,materials, and craftsmanship adopted during the construction of these structures represent theancient remarkable architectural typologies. Most of these cultural heritage structures are builtusing stone masonry and brick masonry bonded with mud mortar or lime mortar, which easilydeteriorate with time (in a few of these structures the main frame is made of timber), thusmaking them susceptible to damage under lateral shaking. In general, Nepalese temples can bebroadly grouped into three categories based on their architectural pattern: Pagoda style, Stupastyle, and Shikhara style, all of which vary from each other in their construction methods.

3. Seismicity of Nepal

Since Nepal lies in the vicinity of the active plate boundary between the Indo-Australian andEurasian plates, there is always a risk of a major earthquake. Nepal is divided into three tectoniczones from south to north, viz., the Main Central Thrust (MCT), the Main Boundary Thrust(MBT), and the Himalayan Frontal Thrust or the Main Frontal Thrust (MFT). The major and

JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 1863

minor earthquakes in Nepal are associated with these active thrusts. Some of the major earth-quakes in Nepal up to 2016 and their locations are shown in Fig. 2. The 1934 Nepal-Biharearthquake was the most devastating seismic event that led to 8514 fatalities in Nepal, of which4296 fatalities were in Kathmandu Valley alone [Pandey and Molnar, 1988]. It is noted that theApril 25, 2015 earthquake occurred near the MFT, between the subducting Indo-Australianplate and the overriding Eurasian plate, moving at a relative rate of approximately 45 mm/yeartowards the north-northeast [USGS, 2015] region. The acceleration time histories of East-West(EW), North-South (NS), and vertical (UD) components for the groundmotion recorded at theKATNP station during the mainshock of April 25, 2015 are shown in Fig. 3. The EW, NS, andUD components had peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.158, 0.164, and 0.186 g, respectively.The response spectra of the acceleration time histories are shown in Fig. 4, where the EWcomponent has a predominant period of 4.55 s and the NS component has two predominantperiods at 0.43 and 4.85 s. The predominant period of the UD component is 0.08 s. Hence, bothlow- and high-rise structures are expected to havemore damage due to theNS component of theground motion, while the EW component is expected to cause more damage to taller structureswith a longer fundamental period. However, 40- to 50-story high-rise buildings (correspondingto buildings with a fundamental period approximately in the range of 4.0–5.0 s) have not yetbeen constructed in Kathmandu Valley. The tallest building in Kathmandu Valley when theearthquake occurred was an 18-story high-rise building.

Ms 7.7 Nepal-TibetAugust 28, 1916 Darchula district

Mw 6.8 Nepal-BiharAugust 21, 1988 Udayapur district

Ms 8.0 Kathmandu-BiharAugust 26, 1833 Rasuwa

Mw 6.9 Nepal-SikkimSeptember 18, 2011 Taplejung district

Mw 8.1 Nepal -Bihar January 15, 1934 Udayapur district

Ms 6.5 Kathmandu July 7, 1869 Kathmandu district

Mw 7.8 Nepal-GorkhaApril 25, 2015 Gorkha district

Ms 6.3 Nepal-IndiaJuly 27, 1966 Bajhang district

Ms 6.5 Nepal-PithoragarhJuly 29, 1980Bajhang district

Mw 7.3 Nepal-Dolakha May 12, 2015Dolakha district

BA

district

Figure 2. Map of Nepal showing the major earthquakes up to 2016.Note: Mw = moment magnitude; Ms = surface wave magnitude. (A) Kathmandu Valley (Kathmandu,Lalitpur, and Bhaktapur districts) and (B) Sindhupalchowk district.

1864 S. BHAGAT ET AL.

4. Damage to Cultural Heritage Structures

The devastating earthquake caused enormous destruction to historic centers in Nepal, resultingin irreparable damage to the cultural legacy of the country. Major destruction was observed inmost of the cultural heritage sites in KathmanduValley. Of the nearly 750 damaged or destroyedmonuments, about 450 were located in Kathmandu Valley and 20 were located inSindhupalchowk district. Most of the Nepalese temples and monuments were constructedduring the 14th–19th centuries, without considering proper seismic resistance requirements.Some of the inherent structural characteristics of Nepalese monuments, such as symmetrical

0 20 40 60 80 100 120-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

PGA = 0.158g

Acc

eler

atio

n (g

)

KATNP-EW

0 20 40 60 80 100 120-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

PGA = 0.164g

Acc

eler

atio

n (g

)

KATNP-NS

0 20 40 60 80 100 120-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

PGA = 0.186g

Acc

eler

atio

n (g

)

Time (s)

KATNP-UD

Figure 3. Ground motion recorded at Kantipath station (KATNP), Kathmandu on April 25, 2015 [Source:USGS, 2015].

0 2 4 6 80.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

TNS, 1

= 0.43 s

EW NS UD

Spec

tral

acc

eler

atio

n (g

)

Period (s)

TEW

= 4.55 s

TNS, 2

= 4.85 s

TUD

= 0.08 s

Figure 4. Response spectra for ground motion recorded at Kantipath station (KATNP), Kathmandu onApril 25, 2015.

JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 1865

construction, multi-level plinth, and conical mass distribution resulted in an enhanced seismicperformance. However, the lack of vertical structural continuity, lack of rigid connectionsbetween various structural components, and heavy roof structures make these structures morevulnerable to strong ground motions.

4.1. Temples

During the earthquake reconnaissance survey carried out by the authors in June 2015, itwas observed that some of the temples constructed with brick masonry and a timber framesustained less damage than those constructed without a timber frame. Additionally, it wasalso observed that the construction materials used in most of the damaged monumentswere already deteriorated, highlighting the need for appropriate repair and maintenanceprograms. Damages to these cultural heritage structures are discussed using the photo-graphs taken during the field survey.

Figure 5 shows the Nautalley Durbar (which means nine-story Palace), located inKathmandu Durbar Square, that was damaged during the earthquake. This structurewas built in 1768 AD to commemorate the victory of King Prithvi Narayan Shah ofNepal. The lower three stories were constructed in the Newari farmhouse style, whilethe upper six stories (four tiers) were constructed in the Pagoda style. The brick

Figure 5. South face of Nautalley Durbar located in Kathmandu Durbar Square viewed from BasantapurDabali: (a) before earthquake, (b) after earthquake, (c) load path discontinuity in Nautalley Durbar, and(d) damage to white masonry building next to the Durbar. The upper three stories (two tiers) of theNautalley Durbar collapsed due to the earthquake. The white masonry building next to the Durbarsuffered severe damage and the entire front part of the building (south face) was destroyed.

1866 S. BHAGAT ET AL.

masonry and timber structural elements used in the four-tiered roofs contributed to theheavy weight at the top, causing collapse of the upper three stories (two tiers). Inaddition, the lack of continuous vertical structural elements (i.e. load path discontinu-ity) from the base to the roof in the pagoda style construction of the Durbar as seen inFig. 5(c) resulted in toppling of the upper floors in this structure. Moreover, the lack ofproper connections between struts, purlins, joists, and load bearing walls witnessedduring the field survey, was another factor to undermine the seismic strength. Themasonry building next to the Nautalley Durbar was also heavily damaged as seen inFig. 5(d). The damage to this building was due to deterioration of the bricks andmortar used for the construction, as well as seismic pounding of the building with theadjacent Nautalley Durbar, as seen in Fig. 5(d).

The pre- and post-earthquake photographs of the pagoda-style Maju Dega temple andNarayan temple constructed in the late 17th century, also located in Kathmandu DurbarSquare, are shown in Fig. 6. The massive multi-level plinth supported the Maju Degatemple above it, while the plinth of the Narayan temple was relatively lower in height(Figs. 6(a) and (b)). The walls used for the main structures are constructed over the innertimber beams (Fig. 6c), where a firm connection between the brick walls and the woodenbeams at the top level of plinth could not be observed. The timber column stands over atimber beam on a base with a pin inserted into the base stone. The connection between

Narayantemple

Maju Degatemple

Narayantemple

Maju Degatemple

Inner beams

External beams

Base stone

Figure 6. Pagoda style Maju Dega temple and Narayan temple located in Kathmandu Durbar Square:(a) before earthquake, (b) after earthquake, and (c) close-up view of the connection of Narayan templeafter damage. The lack of a rigid connection between the base and the superstructure led to thecollapse of the temple.

JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 1867

the timber column and the base stone is also described in Shakya et al. [2014]. The lack ofa rigid connection between the base and the superstructure led to the collapse of thesuperstructure of these two temples. A similar collapse occurred at the Fasidega templethat was also supported on a multi-level plinth located in Bhaktapur Durbar Square isshown in Fig. 7. This temple was rebuilt after it was fully damaged in the 1934 Nepal-Bihar earthquake.

In contrast to the collapse of the Maju Dega temple and the Fasidega temple (Figs. 6 and 7),some temples that had a wide plinth sustained no damage and performed well during theearthquake. The Taleju Bhawani temple located in Kathmandu Durbar Square (constructed in1549 AD) and the Nyatapola temple located in Bhaktapur Durbar Square (constructed in 1702AD), shown in Figs. 8(a) and (b), did not suffer any damage, while a small temple located in frontof the Taleju Bhawani temple collapsed completely.

The brick masonry walls on the ground floor of the pagoda-style Changu Narayan templelocated in Bhaktapur district suffered severe damage as shown in Fig. 9. The temple wasoriginally built in the 4th century and was rebuilt in 1702 AD after a major fire damaged thetemple. Local residents confirmed that frequent repairs and maintenance of the temple used tobe carried out. The vertical layers of brick walls built with mud mortar, were not wellinterconnected and could not withstand large displacement demands and resulted in out-of-plane failure as seen in Fig. 9(b). During the field survey, it was observed that the temple wasextensively supported by shores, to carry out necessary repair and retrofitting works (Fig. 9(a)).However, there were no signs of tilting or out-of-plumb of the timber frame that supports theentire structure.

Another type of temple that was damaged during the earthquake was the Shikhara styletemples with a superstructure composed of a tall curvilinear or pyramidal tower. These areslender structures, constructed using brick masonry with lime mortar or mud mortar.They are brittle in nature, and their slenderness makes them more susceptible to damage

Figure 7. Fasidega temple located in Bhaktapur Durbar Square: (a) before earthquake and (b) afterearthquake. The lack of a rigid connection between the base and the superstructure led to the collapseof the temple.

1868 S. BHAGAT ET AL.

under large lateral displacements. Some of the Shikhara style temples located in BhaktapurDurbar Square that sustained damage are shown in Figs. 10–12. The pinnacle of the SiddhiLaxmi temple that was built in 1702 AD tilted, but the rest of the temple was intact(Fig. 10). Only the upper part of the Shiva temple that was constructed in 1674 ADcollapsed (Fig. 11), but the entire Vatsala Durga temple that was constructed in 1696 ADhad collapsed (Fig. 12). The smaller size of columns in the Vatsala Durga temple andadded weight above it (Fig. 12(a)) resulted in failure of the columns leading to totalcollapse. The deterioration of the construction materials is clearly visible in Fig. 11(c), andlack of regular maintenance was the reason for collapse.

Figure 8. Temples with wide plinth that sustained no damage due to the earthquake: (a) TalejuBhawani temple located in Kathmandu Durbar Square and (b) Nyatapola temple located inBhaktapur Durbar Square. Rubble in front of Taleju Bhawani temple is from a small temple in thevicinity that collapsed completely.

Figure 9. Changu Narayan temple located in Bhaktapur district: (a) shores used to support the templeafter the earthquake and (b) out-of-plane failure of the corner brick masonry walls at the mainentrance. The timber frame that supports the entire structure was intact. ((b) source: http://rubinmuseum.org/page/then-and-now-changu-narayan).

JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 1869

4.2. Landmark Tower

The failure of the 203 foot (61.88 m) tall Dharahara tower, which is made of brick masonry withlime mortar and mud mortar, is shown in Fig. 13. The tower had been constructed with thickwalls tomake the structure stable and capable of withstanding gravity loads and to accommodatean internal spiral stairway (Fig. 13(c)). The increased weight of the structure due to the thickwalls and absence of reinforcing bars resulted in a brittlemode of failure, which prevented peoplefrom evacuating, leading to the deaths of 180 people. Since April 25, 2015 was a Saturday, there

Figure 10. The Shikhara style Siddhi Laxmi temple located in Bhaktapur Durbar Square: (a) beforeearthquake and (b) after earthquake. The pinnacle was tilted due to the earthquake.

Figure 11. The Shikhara style Shiva temple located in Bhaktapur Durbar Square: (a) before earthquake,(b) after earthquake, and (c) deterioration of bricks used for construction exposed after the earthquake.The upper part collapsed due to the earthquake.

1870 S. BHAGAT ET AL.

were many people who were visiting the Dharahara tower and were using the internal spiralstairway. Most of the people who lost their lives or were injured were on the internal spiralstairway of the Dharahara tower.

5. Damage to Engineered and Non-Engineered Buildings

5.1. Damage to Engineered Reinforced Concrete (RC) Buildings

The 2015 Nepal Gorkha earthquake caused damage to many reinforced concrete (RC)buildings. Damages to residential buildings, school buildings, factories, and apartment

Figure 12. The Shikhara style Vatsala Durga temple located in Bhaktapur Durbar Square: (a) beforeearthquake and (b) after earthquake. The temple was completely destroyed.

Figure 13. The historic landmark tower known as Dharahara: (a) before earthquake and (b, c) afterearthquake. The spiral stairway is visible in (c).

JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 1871

buildings were observed during the survey. Inadequate seismic design (and not obtainingapproval from the relevant authority prior to the construction of buildings), use of lowquality construction materials, and poor workmanship were the major reasons for damageto RC buildings. Here, an overview of the performance of RC buildings and some of themajor causes for damage in Kathmandu Valley and Sindhupalchowk district surveyed bythe Tokyo Tech team in June 2015 are discussed.

5.1.1. Inadequate Seismic Design, Low-Quality Construction Materials, and PoorWorkmanshipEvidence of inadequate seismic design is shown in Figs. 14 and 15. Buildings where thesize of columns required to resist the lateral forces due to the earthquake was insufficientare shown in Figs. 14(a) and (b), and the close-up view of a damaged column is shown inFig. 14(c). The absence of stirrups at beam-column joints (Fig. 15(a)) and wide spacing ofstirrups at beam-column joints (Figs. 15(b) and (c)) were observed in collapsed andseverely damaged buildings.

A severely damaged building where low-quality construction materials had been usedfor the structural members is shown in Fig. 16. Although the size of columns and theamount of rebars required to sustain the load of the superstructure may have beensufficient during the design phase, the use of low quality concrete during the construction

Figure 14. Inadequate seismic design—insufficient size of columns: (a) fully collapsed building, (b)tilted building, and (c) close-up view showing the size of columns.

Figure 15. Inadequate seismic design—stirrup issues: (a) no stirrups at the joint, (b), and (c) widespacing of stirrups at the beam-column joint.

1872 S. BHAGAT ET AL.

led to the failure. The rebars that were used were already corroded, and the concrete useddid not have proper grading of aggregates.

Figure 17 shows an example of poor workmanship during construction, where it is clearthat there is inadequate cover concrete in the beam (Fig. 17(a)) and improper concreting atthe beam-column joint (Fig. 17(b)), which resulted in corrosion of the exposed rebars.

5.1.2. Soft Story Collapse of a School BuildingThe Jana Jagriti Higher Secondary School with three main buildings, located inSindhupalchowk district, was inaugurated in October 2005 but suffered damage due tothe earthquake as shown in Fig. 18. Figure 18(b) shows the complete collapse of the firststory of the four-story building. The circular columns with 300-mm diameter had six 16-mm rebars, but the stirrups were placed at 150 mm spacing, which was inadequate.However, the two-story building in the same school compound constructed about 5 maway from the collapsed building suffered only minor structural damage (Fig. 18(c)), whilethe three-story building located about 30 m from the collapsed building sustained only

Figure 16. Low-quality construction materials used for structural members: (a) crushing of coreconcrete and (b) failure of column.

Figure 17. Poor workmanship during construction: (a) insufficient cover concrete in beam and (b)improper concreting of beam-column joint.

JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 1873

non-structural damage (Fig. 18(d)). The four-story building was constructed at the edge ofa slope, while the other two buildings had no such slopes nearby. Evidence of differentialsettlement could be observed as indicated by the inclination and cracks on the first floorslab as seen in Figs. 18(e) and (f). However, lack of stirrups due to inappropriate spacingat the joints (Fig. 18(b)) was also one of the causes of failure.

5.1.3. Structural Failure Due to Addition of Stories to Existing BuildingsIn some buildings that were severely damaged, the building facade indicated that addi-tional stories had been added to the existing building. The increase in the weight of the

Cantilever slab

(i)

(d)(c)

(a) (b)

(ii) (iii)

4-story 2-story 3-story

(e) (f)

Figure 18. Damage to a school building in the Sindhupalchowk district: (a) plan view of the three mainbuildings in the school compound, (b) collapse of the first story of the 4-story building, (c) minorstructural damage to the 2-story building, (d) non-structural damage to the 3-story building, (e), and (f)cracks and inclination in the first floor slab.

1874 S. BHAGAT ET AL.

building resulted in increased story shear demands during the earthquake, and resulted inpancake failure of the fourth floor (Fig. 19(a)). Although the building in Fig. 19(b) did notcollapse, it is almost impossible to repair or retrofit the building, as there is completefailure at the column joint of the first story.

5.2. Damage to Non-Engineered Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Buildings

Several non-engineered unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings built without any con-sideration of seismic performance had partially collapsed or fully collapsed. Most of theseURM buildings were made of brick masonry bonded with cement mortar, lime mortar, ormud mortar with timber joist floors. In the case of mud mortar, the mortar hardens withtime, leading to shrinkage and separation of joints in masonry structures. The mostcommon damage patterns observed in such structures are: (a) curtain fall collapse of theside walls (partial or full) (Figs. 20(a) and (b)); (b) vertical cracks on walls along themortar joint (Fig. 20(c)); (c) diagonal cracks across the walls due to the inability of the wallto resist tensile stresses (Fig. 20(d)); and (d) collapse of the entire structure (Fig. 20(e)).Similar damage to URM buildings was also observed during the 2011 Sikkim-Nepalearthquake [Shakya et al., 2013]. The main cause of damage to these URM buildings isdue to: (a) strength deterioration of the construction materials; (b) lack of regularmaintenance; (c) lack of proper connections at the corners; and (d) excessive weight inthe upper part of the building.

6. Performance of Restored Structures and Seismically Retrofitted Structures

Some of the cultural heritage structures that had been restored prior to the earthquakewere unaffected by the earthquake, while some suffered only minor damage. The Bhimsentemple located in Patan Durbar Square, the Palace of Fifty-Five Windows and ChyasilinMandap located in Bhaktapur Durbar Square, and the Pashupatinath temple were restored

Figure 19. Structural failure due to insufficient load carrying capacity: (a) pancake failure of 4th floordue to addition of extra story on the top and (b) insufficient load carrying capacity of lower floorcolumns due to the addition of extra upper floors.

JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 1875

before the earthquake and survived with only very minor damage. Restored culturalheritage structures performed remarkably well during the earthquake and are also dis-cussed in the EERI report [EERI, 2016].

A total of 160 public schools in Kathmandu Valley, which were part of an AsianDevelopment Bank (ADB)–supported school safety program that included seismic retrofit,withstood the earthquake and its aftershocks [ADB, 2015]. A number of hospitals, whichwere seismically retrofitted as a core part of a preparedness plan under a World HealthOrganization initiative, provided continuous service after the earthquake [UNISDR, 2015].

Partially damaged structures must undergo seismic performance assessment to evaluatethe remaining seismic capacity, followed by retrofitting work. Restoration and retrofit ofcultural heritage structures have been done in many seismically active countries such asChile, Greece, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, and Turkey. The techniques adopted in thesecountries can be useful for the restoration and seismic retrofit of cultural heritagestructures in Nepal and other countries that have not yet implemented such plans in acomprehensive manner.

7. Impact of Damage to Cultural Heritage Structures on Nepalese Society

Cultural heritage structures are crucial to the tourism industry in Nepal, and are one ofthe major sources of income for the country. Damage to cultural heritage structures due tothe 2015 Nepal Gorkha earthquake has caused a large reduction in the number of tourists

Figure 20. Damage observed in non-engineered URM buildings: (a) and (b) curtain fall collapse of theside wall, (c) vertical disintegration of brick joints, (d) cracks along the walls due to excessive tensilestress, and (e) collapse of the entire building.

1876 S. BHAGAT ET AL.

and resulted in a significant reduction in the revenue generation of the country. A declinein the number of tourists from 790,118 in 2014 to 583,970 in 2015 was reported as aconsequence of the earthquake [MOCTCA, 2015]. A loss of 600 million Nepalese rupees(NPR) (approximately 6M USD) was expected due to the decline in revenue generatedfrom ticket sales at cultural heritage sites in Kathmandu Valley [NPC, 2015]. The declinein the number of tourists visiting Nepal after the earthquake has also affected the employ-ment of local people who mainly depend upon the tourism industry for their livelihood.

In addition to the economic impact, damage to cultural heritage structures has affectedthe social and cultural aspects of the Nepalese society. Cultural heritage structures are notonly the pride of the nation but also the inseparable part of daily life of the people. Thesecultural heritage structures include a number of temples that many people visit on a dailybasis for religious reasons. Cultural heritage sites are also a place for social and culturalinteractions where traditional events are organized on a frequent basis. Sudden destruc-tion of these structures has lowered the morale of the people, as well as disrupted theirdaily lives.

The estimated total loss due to the damage caused to the physical assets and infra-structure at the cultural heritage sites is 16.9 billion NPR (approximately 169M USD)[NPC, 2015]. These direct and indirect losses may be recovered with proper restoration ofthe damaged cultural heritage structures and the reconstruction of collapsed structures.The National Planning Commission of Nepal estimates that about 21 billion NPR(approximately 210M USD) and a period of six years will be required for the restorationand reconstruction of these cultural heritage structures, and for seismically retrofitting thestructures [NPC, 2015].

8. Summary

The magnitude 7.8 Nepal Gorkha earthquake, which occurred on April 25, 2015, causedwidespread damage to cultural heritage structures as well as engineered and non-engi-neered buildings in Nepal. The damage was exacerbated by two significant aftershocks ofMw 6:7 on April 26, 2015, and Mw 7:3 on May 12, 2015. In the present paper, the damagelevels in Kathmandu Valley and Sindhupalchowk district are discussed, as these areas hadthe largest number of casualties. Valuable lessons can be learned from the damage thatwas observed.

The damage to cultural heritage structures was mainly due to the magnitude of theseismic event, the deterioration of construction materials, and lack of maintenance. Majordamage may have been prevented if there was a planned schedule of restoration andseismic retrofit, followed by routine maintenance of these structures. Seismic vulnerabilityassessment of cultural heritage structures that were partly damaged or not damagedshould be carried out, followed by appropriate restoration and seismic retrofit withminimal disturbance to the original structural features. In addition, the connection ofthe timber framing with the brick masonry walls must also be investigated, as manytemples have a timber main frame. Since these structures must be preserved for posterity,scheduled inspections should be carried out, and repairs should be done immediately, ifrequired.

Damage to engineered buildings was mainly due to inadequate size of columnsnecessary to resist lateral forces, large spacing of stirrups at the beam-column joints,

JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 1877

and insufficient concrete cover leading to corrosion of the rebars. Considering the con-struction materials and construction quality, structural damage should have been expectedfollowing the occurrence of a major seismic event. It is important that appropriate seismicdesign, good-quality construction materials and approved construction methods are usedto minimize damage to engineered buildings.

Since non-engineered URM buildings were constructed using brick masonry with cementmortar or lime mortar, such buildings are not capable of withstanding large lateral deforma-tions due to its brittle nature. Reinforcing these structures will ensure that these buildings willbe capable of sustaining large deformations and prevent major structural damage.

Adopting proper design and engineering practices to build resilient structures willensure the operability of structures right after an earthquake. Besides this, seismic mon-itoring of cultural heritage structures and important buildings could be done to observethe dynamic behavior during a seismic event.

Policymakers and government officials in seismically active countries, especially develop-ing countries, should recognize the threat to cultural heritage structures and develop appro-priate plans to safeguard the irreplaceable, cultural heritage structures from seismic events.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Professor Junichiro Niwa, Dr. Jiro Takemura, and Professor Akihiro Takahashiof the Department of Civil Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology for their kind support andencouragement of the field visit. They convey special thanks to Professor Prem Nath Maskey of theInstitute of Engineering (IOE), Tribhuvan University (TU) for providing useful suggestions andassisting with the field visit in Nepal. They also extend thanks to Professor Gokarna Bahadur Motra,Dr. Basanta Raj Adhikari and Mr. Nagendra Raj Sitaula of IOE, TU, and Dr. Ramesh Guragain,Deputy Executive Director of NSET-Nepal for their kind cooperation and suggestions relevant tothe field visit.

The authors acknowledge the anonymous review comments that have improved the manuscript.

Funding

Partial financial support from the Department of Civil Engineering and the Civil Engineering AlumniAssociation of the Tokyo Institute of Technology for the field visit is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Adami, A., Chiarini, S., Cremonesi, S., Fregonese, L., Taffurelli, L., and Valente, M. V. [2016] “Thesurvey of cultural heritage after an earthquake: The case of Emilia-Lombardia in 2012,” ISPRS-International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences,July 12–19, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 161–168.

Adhikari, R. K., Bhagat, S., and Wijeyewickrema, A. C. [2015] “Damage scenario of reinforcedconcrete buildings in the 2015 Nepal earthquakes,” New Technologies for Urban Safety of MegaCities in Asia, USMCA 2015, October 29–31, Kathmandu, Nepal, SN1–7.

ADB. [2015] Asian Development Bank, “Schools with Earthquake-proof Technology Survive NepaliDisaster,” (available online at http://www.adb.org/news/features/schools-earthquake-proof-technology-survive-nepali-disaster).

Chapagain N. K, [2008] “Heritage conservation in Nepal: Policies, stakeholders and challenges,”Third Annual Himalayan Policy Research Conference, October 16, Madison, WI, USA, 26 pages.

1878 S. BHAGAT ET AL.

Cole, G. L., Dhakal, R. P., and Turner, F. M. [2012] “Building pounding damage observed in the 2011Christchurch earthquake,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 41(5), 893–913.

DOA. [2015] Department of Archeology, Nepal, “Preliminary list of affected by the earthquake onApril 25, 2015,” (available online at http://www.doa.gov.np/docdownload.php?id=3).

Eberhard, M. O., Baldridge, S., Marshall, J., Mooney, W., and Rix, G. J. [2010] “The Mw 7.0 Haitiearthquake of January 12, 2010: USGS/EERI Advance Reconnaissance Team Report, US GeologicalSurvey, Open-File Report,” 1048, 64 pages.

EERI. [2016], “Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Earthquake Reconnaissance TeamReport: M7.8 Gorkha, Nepal earthquake on April 25, 2015 and its aftershocks,” (available onlineat http://www.eqclearinghouse.org/2015-04-25-nepal/files/2016/05/Nepal-Gorkha-Earthquake-Report-Reduced.pdf).

Goda, K., Kiyota, T., Pokhrel, R. M., Chiaro, G., Katagiri, T., Sharma, K., and Wilkinson, S. [2015]“The 2015 Gorkha Nepal earthquake: Insights from earthquake damage survey,” Frontiers inBuilt Environment 1, Article 8, 15 pages.

Kappos, A. J., Panagopoulos, G., and Penelis, G. G. [2008] “Development of a seismic damage andloss scenario for contemporary and historical buildings in Thessaloniki, Greece,” Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering 28(10), 836–850.

Kasai, K., and Maison, B. F. [1997] “Building pounding damage during the 1989 Loma Prietaearthquake,” Engineering Structures 19(3), 195–207.

Kawashima, K., et al. [2010] “Reconnaissance investigation on the damage of the 2009 L’Aquila,Central Italy earthquake,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 14(6), 817–841.

Kawashima, K., Takahashi, Y., Ge, H., Wu, Z., and Zhang, J. [2009] “Reconnaissance report ondamage of bridges in 2008 Wenchuan, China, earthquake,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 13(7), 965–996.

Leite, J., Lourenco, P. B., and Ingham, J. M. [2013] “Statistical assessment of damage to churchesaffected by the 2010–2011 Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquake sequence,” Journal ofEarthquake Engineering 17(1), 73–97.

Lukkunaprasit, P., Ruangrassamee, A., Boonyatee, T., Chintanapakdee, C., Jankaew, K.,Thanasisathit, N., and Chandrangsu, T. [2016] “Performance of structures in the Mw 6.1 MaeLao earthquake in Thailand on May 5, 2014 and implications for future construction,” Journal ofEarthquake Engineering 20(2), 219–242.

Milani, G., and Valente, M. [2015] “Failure analysis of seven masonry churches severely damagedduring the 2012 Emilia-Romagna (Italy) earthquake: Non-linear dynamic analyses vs conven-tional static approaches,” Engineering Failure Analysis 54, 13–56.

MOCTCA (Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation). [2015] Nepal Tourism Statistics-2015,Government of Nepal.

NPC. [2015] National Planning Commission, “Nepal Earthquake 2015: Post disaster needs assess-ment, executive summary,” Government of Nepal, Kathmandu.

NSC. [2016] National Seismological Centre, Nepal (available online at http://www.seismonepal.gov.np/index.php?listId=161).

Pandey, M. R. and Molnar, P. [1988] “The distribution of intensity of the Bihar-Nepal earthquake of15 January 1934 and bounds on the extent of the rupture zone,” Journal of Nepal GeologicalSociety 5(1), 22–44.

Parajuli, R. R., and Kiyono, J. [2015] “Ground motion characteristics of the 2015 Gorkha earth-quake, survey of damage to stone masonry structures and structural field tests,” Frontiers in BuiltEnvironment 1, Article 23, 12 pages.

Parisi, F., and Augenti, N. [2013], “Earthquake damages to cultural heritage constructions andsimplified assessment of artworks,” Engineering Failure Analysis 34, 735–760.

Romão, X., Costa, A. A., Paupério, E., Rodrigues, H., Vicente, R., Varum, H., and Costa, A. [2013]“Field observations and interpretation of the structural performance of constructions after the 11May 2011 Lorca earthquake,” Engineering Failure Analysis 34, 670–692.

Schanack, F., Valdebenito, G., and Alvial, J. [2012] “Seismic damage to bridges during the 27February 2010 magnitude 8.8 Chile earthquake,” Earthquake Spectra 28(1), 301–315.

JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 1879

Shakya, K., Pant, D. R., Maharjan, M., Bhagat, S., Wijeyewickrema, A. C., and Maskey, P. N. [2013]“Lessons learned from performance of buildings during the September 18, 2011 earthquake inNepal,” Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (BHRC) 14(5), 719–733.

Shakya, M., and Kawan, C. K. [2016] “Reconnaissance based damage survey of buildings inKathmandu valley: An aftermath of 7.8 Mw, 25 April 2015 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake,”Engineering Failure Analysis 59, 161–184.

Shakya, M., Varum, H., Vicente, R., and Costa, A. [2014] “Seismic sensitivity analysis of thecommon structural components of Nepalese pagoda temples,” Bulletin of EarthquakeEngineering 12(4), 1679–1703.

Sharma, K., Deng, L., and Noguez, C. C. [2016] “Field investigation on the performance of buildingstructures during the April 25, 2015, Gorkha earthquake in Nepal,” Engineering Structures 121,61–74.

Sorrentino, L., Liberatore, L., Decanini, L. D., and Liberatore, D. [2014] “The performance ofchurches in the 2012 Emilia earthquakes,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 12(5), 2299–2331.

Sun, B. and Yan, P. [2015] “Damage characteristics and seismic capacity of buildings during NepalMs 8.1 earthquake,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 14(3), 571–578.

Tsai, K. C., Hsiao, C. P., and Bruneau, M. [2000] “Overview of building damages in 921 Chi–Chiearthquake,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology 2(1), 93–108.

UNESCO. [2016] (available online at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/121).UNISDR. [2015] “25 April 2015 Gorkha earthquake disaster risk reduction situation report, DRR

sitrep 2015-002—June 2, 2015,” (available online at http://www.unisdr.org/files/44592_gorkhaearthquakedisasterriskreducti.pdf).

Ulak, N. [2016], “Nepal’s Earthquake-2015: Its impact on various sectors,” The Gaze: Journal ofTourism and Hospitality 7, 58–86.

U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). [2015] (available online at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us20002926#general).

Yazgan, U., Oyguç, R., Ergüven, M. E., and Celep, Z. [2016] “Seismic performance of buildingsduring 2011 Van earthquakes and rebuilding efforts,” Earthquake Engineering and EngineeringVibration, 15(3), 591–606.

1880 S. BHAGAT ET AL.