Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodology

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS
Thesis No: S04/070
Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Historic Structures (A Review of Existing
Methodology)
by
Bivek Sigdel
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOT THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
LALITPUR, NEPAL
NOVEMBER, 2015
COPYRIGHT
The author has agreed that the library, Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk
Campus, Institute of Engineering, may make this thesis freely available for inspection.
Moreover, the author has agreed that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for
scholarly purpose may be granted by the professor(s) who supervised the work recorded
herein or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department wherein the thesis was done.
It is understood that the recognition will be given to the author of this thesis and to the
Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering in any
use of the material of this thesis. Copying or publication or the other use of this thesis
for financial gain without approval of the Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk
Campus, Institute of Engineering and author’s written permission is prohibited.
Request for permission to copy or to make any other use of the material in this thesis in
whole or in part should be addressed to:
………………………………
Head
Department of Civil Engineering
Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering
Lalitpur, Nepal
2
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
The undersigned certify that they have read, and recommended to the Institute of
Engineering for acceptance, a thesis entitled "Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of
Historic Structures (A Review of Existing Methodology)" submitted by Mr. Bivek
Sigdel (070/MSS/104) in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master
of Science in Structural Engineering.
................................................... ...................................................
Supervisor, Prof. Dr. Gokarna Bahadur Motra Co-Supervisor, Dr. Huma Kanta Mishra
Department of Civil Engineering Department of Local Infrastructure
Institute of Engineering Development and Agricultural Roads
Pulchowk Campus (DoLIDAR)
Pulchowk, Lalitpur
................................................... ...................................................
External Examiner Committee Chairperson
Dr. Suman Narsingh Rajbhandari Dr. Kamal Bahadur Thapa
Assistant Professor, Nepal Engineering College Department of Civil Engineering
Changunarayan, Bhaktapur Institute of Engineering
Pulchowk Campus
Date:-
3
ABSTRACT
After 25th April 2015 earthquake, it has now become apparent that still no. of researches
are required in the field of safety of historic structures against earthquakes. The
methodologies used to assess the vulnerability of the structures in past few years were
found to develop fragility curves, which shows the probability of prescribed level of
damage that an earthquake can cause in a structure for different range of PGA values.
This method in itself relies upon several assumptions of the parameters used in it. Thus
the reliability of this methodology to the historic temples of Nepal is still a question
unless the researched temples face a real ground motion. On April 25th 2015, this
opportunity was gained when a 7.6 magnitude earthquake with PGA of 0.177g hit
Nepal. This research uses the real ground motion data of this Gorkha earthquake of
April 25th 2015, to assess the vulnerability of selected historic structures. A total no. of
three historic structures of Kathmandu durbar square are studied. The comparative
study of actual damage observed due to the earthquake versus expected damage shown
by fragility curves, using the real time history data of Gorkha Earthquake 25th April
2015 and additionally, Elcentro and Chamauli ground motion time histories are done.
Along with the linear time history analysis, seismic coefficient method has also been
conducted to find out the base shear that the structures must sustain according to the
response spectrum and methodology suggested by IS 1893:2002 and NNBC105.
Fragility curves have represented closely the actual damage state in case of Jagannath
and Indrapur temple and small deviations were observed in case of Shiva Parvati
temple. However, it can be concluded that in the case of these structures the results of
fragility curves are applicable to assess their vulnerability.
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express deep gratitude to my thesis supervisors Prof. Dr. Gokarna
Bahadur Motra and Dr. Huma Kant Mishra for providing me valuable suggestions,
helpful guidance, continuous encouragement and support throughout my thesis work.
My sincere gratitude also goes to my colleagues and my senior Er. Sunil Poudyal for
helping me throughout my research. I would like to mention the name of my colleagues
Er. Narayan Prasad Dumre, Er. Rabin Chaulagain and Er. Birendra Khadka who
continuously encouraged me to remain within the deadline.
Lastly, I would like to thank all the staff at Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk
Campus, IOE, who supported me throughout my research without hesitation.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COPYRIGHT ................................................................................................................. 2
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................. 5
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... 8
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 12
1.1 Background ................................................................................................... 12
1.2 Need of the study........................................................................................... 13
1.3 Research Objective ........................................................................................ 14
1.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 15
1.5 Scope and limitations of the study ................................................................ 17
1.6 Report organization ....................................................................................... 18
2. DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED STRUCTURES ................................................ 20
2.1 Shiva Parvati temple...................................................................................... 20
2.2 Jagannath temple ........................................................................................... 20
2.3 Indrapur temple ............................................................................................. 21
2.4 Location Map ................................................................................................ 22
3. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 23
3.1 Seismic Vulnerability Analysis ..................................................................... 23
3.2 Fragility Curves ............................................................................................. 25
3.3 Modal Analysis ............................................................................................. 28
3.4 Linear Static Method of Analysis.................................................................. 29
3.5 Linear Time-History Analysis ....................................................................... 30
4. BUILDING MODELLING AND ANALYSIS .................................................... 33
4.1 Modelling ...................................................................................................... 33
4.1.1 Masonry Element ....................................................................................... 34
6
4.1.2 Timber Element ......................................................................................... 35
4.1.3 Material Properties .................................................................................... 37
4.1.4 Overview of Modelling ............................................................................. 37
4.2 Load Calculation ........................................................................................... 38
4.3 Modal Analysis ............................................................................................. 41
4.4 Time History Analysis .................................................................................. 43
4.5 Linear Static Analysis. .................................................................................. 49
4.5.1 Shiva Parvati Temple................................................................................. 49
4.5.2 Jagannath temple ....................................................................................... 52
4.5.3 Indrapur temple.......................................................................................... 53
5. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 55
5.1 Observed Damage States ............................................................................... 55
5.2 Expected Damage States ............................................................................... 56
5.2.1 Shiva Parvati Temple................................................................................. 57
5.2.2 Jagannath Temple ...................................................................................... 63
5.2.3 Indrapur Temple ........................................................................................ 70
5.3 Analysis with scaled up accelerogram .......................................................... 77
5.4 Summary of the fragility analysis ................................................................. 79
5.5 Conclusion and Discussions .......................................................................... 81
5.6 Recommendations for future work ................................................................ 84
ANNEX I: Architectural drawing of structures ........................................................... 87
ANNEX II: Observed damages of the structures ......................................................... 91
7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Shiva Parvati Temple ................................................................................... 20

Figure 2: Jagannath temple .......................................................................................... 21
Figure 3: Indrapur temple ............................................................................................ 22
Figure 4: Location map of the structures. .................................................................... 22
Figure 5: Modelling strategies for masonry structures: (a) masonry sample; (b) detailed
micro-modelling; (c) simplified micro-modelling; (d) macro-modelling. (Laurenco
et.al, 1995) ................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 6:3D model of Shiva-Parvati Temple ............................................................... 35
Figure 7: 3D model of Jagannath temple ..................................................................... 36
Figure 8: 3D model of Indrapur temple ....................................................................... 36
Figure 9: Fourier Amplitude Spectrum of Gorkha Earthquake (N-S) ......................... 46
Figure 10: Fourier Amplitude Spectrum of Gorkha Earthquake (E-W) ...................... 47
Figure 11:Fourier Amplitude Spectrum of Elcentro Earthquake ................................. 47
Figure 12: Fourier Amplitude Spectrum of Chamauli Earthquake .............................. 47
Figure 13:Fragility curve due to N-S component Gorkha Earthquake in Shiva-Parvati
Temple ......................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 14Fragility curve due to E-W component of Gorkha Earthquake in Shiva-Parvati
Temple ......................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 15: Fragility curves due to 0.177g scaled Elcentro Earthquake in Shiva-Parvati
Temple ......................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 16:Fragility curves due to 0.127g scaled Elcentro Earthquake in E-W dirn. in
Shiva-Parvati Temple................................................................................................... 60
Figure 17Fragility curve due to 0.177g scaled Chamauli Earthquake in Shiva-Parvati
Temple ......................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 18:Fragility curves due to 0.127g scaled Chamauli Earthquake in E-W dirn. in
Figure 19Fragility curves due to N-S component Gorkha Earthquake in Jagannath
Temple ......................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 20:Fragility curves due to E-W component Gorkha Earthquake in Jagannath
Temple ......................................................................................................................... 65
8
Figure 21:Fragility curves due to 0.177g scaled Elcentro Earthquake in Jagannath
Temple ......................................................................................................................... 66
Jagannath Temple ........................................................................................................ 67
Figure 23:Fragility curves due to 0.177g Chamauli Earthquake in Jagannath Temple
...................................................................................................................................... 68
Jagannath Temple ........................................................................................................ 69
Figure 25:Fragility curves due to N-S component Gorkha Earthquake in Indrapur
Temple ......................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 26:Fragility curves due to E-W component Gorkha Earthquake in Indrapur
Temple ......................................................................................................................... 72
Figure 27: Fragility curves due to 0.177g scaled Elcentro Earthquake in Indrapur
Temple ......................................................................................................................... 73
Indrapur Temple.......................................................................................................... 74
Figure 29:Fragility curves due to 0.177g scaled Chamauli Earthquake in Indrapur
Temple ......................................................................................................................... 75
Indrapur Temple........................................................................................................... 76
Figure 31: Fragility curves due to 0.45g scaled N-S component of Gorkha Earthquake
in Shiva-Parvati Temple. ............................................................................................ 78
Figure 32: East face ..................................................................................................... 92
Figure 33:Close view of the tilted wall ........................................................................ 92
Figure 34: West Face on 1st floor ................................................................................ 92
Figure 35: Out-of-Plane movement of North face wall on 1st floor............................ 92
Figure 36: 45mm crack at horn level of window on east face. .................................... 93
Figure 37: West face wall. ........................................................................................... 93
Figure 39: East face wall.............................................................................................. 94
9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:Comparasion of expected vs observed damage state at 0.177PGA using

fragility curves developed with lalitpura time history. ................................................ 24
Table 2: Material Properties for Brick Masonry .......................................................... 37
Table 3: Material Properties for Timber ...................................................................... 37
Table 4: Results of modal analysis for Shiva Parvati temple. ..................................... 41
Table 5: Results of Modal Analysis for Jagannath Temple. ........................................ 42
Table 6: Results of modal analysis for Indrapur temple. ............................................ 43
Table 7: Observed Damage States of structures due to Gorkha Earthquake ............... 56
Table 8:Results of time history analysis for Shiva Parvati Temple. ............................ 57
Table 9: Results of linear static analysis for Shiva Parvati Temple. .......................... 57
Table 10: Calculation of probabilities of failure due to N-S component Gorkha
Earthquake in Shiva-Parvati Temple ........................................................................... 58
Table 11:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to E-W component Gorkha
Earthquake in Shiva-Parvati Temple ........................................................................... 59
Table 12:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to 0.177g scaled Elcentro
Earthquake in N-S dirn. in Shiva-Parvati Temple ...................................................... 60
Earthquake in E-W dirn. in Shiva-Parvati Temple ..................................................... 61
Table 14:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to 0.177g Chamauli Earthquake in
Table 15:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to 0.127g scaled Chamauli
Earthquake in E-W dirn. in Shiva-Parvati Temple ..................................................... 63
Table 16:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to N-S component Gorkha
Earthquake in Jagannath Temple ................................................................................. 65
Table 17:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to E-W component Gorkha
Earthquake in Jagannath Temple- ................................................................................ 66
Table 18: Calculation of probabilities of failure due to 0.177g scaled Elcentro
Earthquake in E-W dirn. in Jagannath Temple ........................................................... 68
10
Earthquake in E-W dirn. in Jagannath Temple ........................................................... 70
Table 22:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to N-S component of Gorkha
Earthquake in Indrapur Temple ................................................................................... 72
Table 23:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to E-W component of Gorkha
Table 25:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to 0.127g scaled Elecntro
Earthquake in E-W dirn. in Indrapur Temple ............................................................. 75
Earthquake in E-W dirn. in Indrapur Temple ............................................................. 77
Table 28:Base shear and displacement response of Shiva-Parvati temple subjected to
N-S component of Gorkha Earthquake(0.177g) with PGA scaled up to 0.45g. ......... 77
Table 29: Calculation of probabilities of failure due to 0.45g scaled N-S component of
Gorkha Earthquake in Shiva-Parvati Temple. ............................................................. 78
Table 30: Summary of fragility analysis for Shiva Parvati Temple. .......................... 79
Table 31: Summary of fragility analysis for Jagannath Temple. ................................. 80
Table 32: Summary of fragility analysis for Indrapur Temple. ................................... 80
Table 33:Comparison between expected and observed damage states due to Gorkha(N-
S) and Gorkha(E-W) earthquakes. ............................................................................... 80
Table 34: Comparison between expected and observed damage states due to linearly
scaled El-Centro and Chamauli earthqukes. ................................................................ 81
Table 35:Amplitudes of frequency components in respective N-S components of
accelerograms, dominant at natural vibration modes of the structures in N-S direction.
...................................................................................................................................... 83
11
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Earthquakes are no more a matter of surprise for mountainous country Nepal with
several number of active faults (T. Nataka, 1989). The damages to the historic structures
equally have histories associated with it. Nepal has always lost its precious heritages
after every strong ground motion.
According to the referenced literatures, the first recorded earthquake in history of Nepal
took place on June 7, 1255 AD. According to records, one third of the total population
of Kathmandu were killed, including Abahya Malla, the King of Kathmandu valley.
Numerous buildings and temples of the valley were entirely destroyed while many of
them were severely damaged. The magnitude of the earthquake is said to be around 7.7
on the Richter scale.
Around 1316 BS/ 1260 AD, the next recorded big earthquake occurred during the reign
of King Jayadev Malla. Many buildings and temples collapsed and many more were
severely damaged.
In 1408, another major earthquake hit Kathmandu in the month of August/ September.
The temple of Rato Macchendranath was completely destroyed while many other
temples and buildings collapsed and were damaged.
The 1681 AD’s earthquake was another major quake that occurred during the reign
King Sri Niwas Malla. Although very little information is available on this particular
earthquake, there was a heavy loss of lives as well as many buildings, including
temples, that were either damaged or destroyed.
In months of June and July of 1767 AD, another significant earthquake seemed to have
hit Nepal. Twenty one shocks and aftershocks of this particular earthquake is said to
have occurred in a span of twenty four hours. During the reign of King Girban Yudha
Bikram Shah, in the months of May or June, twenty one shocks of earthquakes in total
were felt in Nepal in 1810 AD. In 1823, another earthquake hit Kathmandu Valley
causing a heavy loss of life and property. Similarly, in 1883, two major earthquakes
struck Kathmandu Valley. According to records, houses, temples, and
12
public shelters collapsed. The tower of Dharahara was also severely damaged.Four
major earthquakes were felt in the months of June and July of 1834 AD. These
earthquakes destroyed or damaged many buildings and temples.
In 1934 January, a major earthquake, Known as the Great Nepal-Bihar Earthquake

struck the Kingdom of Nepal and its surrounding areas. The magnitude of the
earthquake was 8.4 on the Richter scale. Casualty figures were the highest for any
recorded earthquake in the history of Nepal. In total, 8,519 people lost their lives in
Nepal. A total of 126,355 houses were severely damaged. Some 80,893 buildings were
completely destroyed.
The earthquake on 25th April once again made the historical structures like Dharahara,
Multi-tiered temples in durbar squares, that once represented Nepal throughout the
world to suffer. Dharahara collapsed entirely while leaving many other monuments to
collapse completely as well as partially. Thus, historical structures need more attention
regarding seismic safety.
This research involves the study the three historic structures and develop fragility
curves to obtain a expected level of damage for 0.17g PGA earthquake using the real
ground motion data of April 25th , 2015. This expected level of damage shall then be
compared to actual damage state visually observed and the discrepancy or accuracy of
the theoretical methodology shall be obtained. The three structures include Shiva
Parvati Temple, Jagannath temple and Indrapur temple of Kathmandu Durbar Square.
1.2 Need of the study
Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of historical structures are recently being practiced

in Nepal. Out of many vulnerability assessment methods that shall be discussed later,
two methods of vulnerability assessment are Macroseismic and Mechanical method
(Lagomarsino and Giovinazzi, 2006).
Macroseismic method is an observed damage based vulnerability method. This method

requires large number of data of structures. However, the assessment is based on
building typological classification and surficial observation of structural defects in
those buildings.
13
Mechanical method of assessment, which uses limited no of structures under study but
requires detailed structural analysis is seen to be practiced by past researchers to
develop fragility curves. These researches done recently indicates the reliability of
researchers on fragility curves so it is utmost that this method need an urgent
verification. These fragility curves are used to predict a expected level of damage state
that the structures are likely to face in an earthquake with similar PGA used in the
analysis. However, the reliability of this method still remains a question unless a real
test on structures are performed which would not be possible unless a recorded
earthquake hits the structures. This opportunity was gained from an structural
engineering point of view on April 25th, 2015 which caused from minor cracks to
complete collapse of historic structures. Hence, this earthquake and the real damages
observed are taken as an opportunity to validate our research methodologies.
1.3 Research Objective
The main objective of this research is to make a comparative study of expected damage
state indicated by fragility curves vs the actual observed damage states due to April
25th, 2015 earthquake and hence revise the applicability of the existing methodology.
The additional objectives may be further summarized develop the finite element model
of selected historical timber-masonry structures that represents the behavior of actual
structure as close as possible.
1. To determine analytically the dynamic properties of the structures like natural
modes of vibration, frequency, time period by conducting a modal analysis to
estimate its seismic behavior.
2. To perform linear time history analysis of the selected historical structures.
3. To determine the maximum displacement and maximum base shear in the

structures due to the time histories data applied to the structure.
4. To Perform seismic coefficient method of analysis of the structures to find out

the seismic demand of the structures using the response spectrum curves of
Nepal National Building Code, IS Code and make a comparative study.
14
1.4 Methodology
The following methodology was followed during the research.

1. Literature review
2. Field Visit
The structures whose vulnerability assessment had ready been conducted
previously were visited to see if the predicted damage level was observed or
not. Similarly, at least 30 different historic structures at Patan Durbar Square,
Bhaktapur Durbar Square and Kathmandu Durbar Square were visited to see
the level of damage due to the April 25th ,2015 earthquake.
3. Selection of structures for detailed study
Three structures namely Shiva Parvati temple, Jagannath temple and Indrapur
temple located at Kathmandu Durbar Square were selected. Shiva Parvati
temple is rectangular in plan whereas Jagannath and Indrapur are squared shape.
The architectural detail drawings of the temples are shown in Annex I.
4. Seismic coefficient method of analysis of the structures were performed to
compare the base shear force induced in the structures due to the real ground
motion and the design base shear provided by IS 1893:2002 and NNBC:105
codal provisions.
5. Modelling the structures
SAP 2000V15 was used to model the structures. The structures were modelled
as timber-masonry structures. Masonry walls were modelled as 4 noded thick
shell structures while timber beams and posts were modelled as two–noded
frame elements. The connection between timber posts, floor joists and masonry
has been idealized as hinged connection.
6. Selection and fourier analysis of accelerograms to be used as loading for linear
time-history analysis.
7. Determination of estimated damage using fragility curves and comparative
study with the actual observed damage.
15
Identification of the
Literature Review
Need of Study
[Kathmandu Durbar
Square, Patan Durbar
Field Visit
Square and Bhaktapur
Durbar Square]
Damage grade
Selection of structures to classification and close
study observation of the
selected structures
Calculation of Base
Obtaining the real
shear using seismic
ground motion data from
coefficient methods of IS
Nepal Seismological
1893:2002 and
Centre
NNBC:105
Conducting linear time

Finite Modelling of the history analysis using
structures in SAP2000 Gorkha earthquake,
v15 Elcentro and Chamauli
earthquake data
Development of Fragility
Curves and comparison
Interpretation of Result
of expected damage vs
observed damage
16
1.5 Scope and limitations of the study
This research aims to make a comparative analysis of expected damage state obtained
analytically as indicated by fragility curves vs the real damage observed due to Gorkha
earthquake of 25th April, 2015. Still the research relies on several assumptions in
material properties, soil structure interaction, and ground motion attenuation. This
research only studies about the timber-masonry structures. The masonry behavior has
been idealized as a homogeneous and isotropic material with elastic linear properties,
though the masonry structures are heterogeneous, anisotropic and largely influenced by
the constitutive materials. The material properties of the structures could not be
determined doing field tests because of difficulties in getting access into the temples
due to their huge religious beliefs. Hence, the material properties has been referenced
from the past research work of Parajuli (2012).
The time history data of April 25th, 2015 used in the analysis has been recorded at
Lainchaur, Kathmandu, nearly 2kms from the site under study. This distance being very
short for ground motion to get attenuated, the attenuation has not been considered.
Similarly, it is assumed that the ground motion has directly vibrated the super structure
without considering any losses during soil structure interaction.
The structural wall consists of brick units constructed in mud mortar. The properties
and strength vary along each direction. Thus, the actual properties are much better
reflected in non-linear and micro modelling. However, micro modelling and
consideration of non-linearity requires huge computational effort and time using
presently existing computing capacity. Thus, non-linearity of the brick masonry has not
been considered.
The timber horizontal elements at the top of masonry walls help to keep the masonry
units remain intact during vibration. The linear model of wall used in the analysis in
itself cannot undergo separation because of finite element principles during vibration
hence only the self weight of the timber members has been considered in the model.
Guidelines of HAZUS-MH-MR3 has been followed to determine the displacement

capacity of the buildings. Pushover analysis is required to develop capacity curves,
however due to insufficient non-linear data this analysis could not be performed.
17
Additionally, the effect of environmental factors, time, temperature on material
properties, and inaccuracies in construction has not been considered in the analysis.
The results are also based on the accuracy of the analytical modelling done in
SAP2000V15. It is difficult to model the structure that best represents the actual
material properties and boundary conditions in a historical masonry structure
(Dogangun and Sezen 2012). The change in partial fixity of the connections create
variations in the time period of the structures. Hence the results obtained are also based
on the modelling techniques used in this research.
The actual damage state observed in the structures due to the Gorkha Earthquake on
April 25th, 2015 has been classified according the guidelines provided by HAZUS-MH-
MR3 and based on visually observed wall cracks, diaphragm separation etc.. The
damage states are classified into 4 groups namely slight, moderate, extreme, and
complete.
It is further noted here that, modelling in an analysis software ignores any partial
material defects eg. rot in timber, improperly connected or tied timber and masonry etc.
Also, historic structures suffer material deterioration for long time, hence the analysis
results may vary from the expected ones. Since, these factors are not considered in
detail, thus, is also a limitation of the study.
It is assumed that the lateral component of Gorkha Earthquake is responsible for the
major damages observed in the structures and in this regard the vertical component of
the earthquake is not taken into consideration.
1.6 Report organization
This thesis conducts a review on existing methodology of vulnerability assessment of

historic structures. This report has been organized into 5 chapters and 2 ANNEXES as
shown below.
Chapter-1 provides introduction to the thesis, the need of study, objectives, background
of the research, description of selected structures that were studied and scope as well as
limitations of the study.
Chapter-2 provides the description of the selected structures.
18
Chapter-3 includes literatures reviewed during the thesis as well as theoretical part of
the analysis performed.
Chaper-4 is dedicated to modelling and analysis of the selected structures. Results of

modal analysis are presented and thus the parameters for time history analysis are
calculated separately for each structure.
Chapter-5 presents the results of all analysis. The comparative results are illustrated and
conclusions of the thesis are discussed.
The architectural drawings of the structures are presented in ANNEX 1 and damages
incurred in them due to the Gorkha Earthquake 2015 are presented in ANNEX II.
19
2. DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED STRUCTURES
2.1 Shiva Parvati temple.
Built in 18th century by Bahadur Shah, youngest son of King Prithivi Narayan Shah, the
temple was partially renovated on 1998 A.D. The two storied building has rectangular
plan dimensions of 10.91m x 5.21m and height of 7.83m from plinth level. The
structure faces south and has a wide opening for door towards south in its ground floor
which significantly decreases its stiffness in north south direction. Additionally no cross
walls are provided along the shorter span enhancing the decrease of stiffness. The
masonry wall of the structure is made up of traditional brick in mud mortar and covered
by a wooden roof truss at top. Three pinnacles rests at the top of the structure. The
structure is oriented at an angle of 19 from north. This angle being small, the building
is idealized to be orthogonal to north-south and east-west direction.
Figure 1: Shiva Parvati Temple
2.2 Jagannath temple
Built in 16th century, the Jagannath temple has its square shaped base with plan
dimensions of 8.44m x 8.44m with height of 11.16m from plinth level. The building
materials are timber and traditional brick in mud mortar. It is two tiered with a pinnacle
20
at its top. The structure is oriented at an angle of 12 from north. This angle too being
small, the building is idealized to be orthogonal to north-south and east-west direction.
Figure 2: Jagannath temple
2.3 Indrapur temple
Indrapur temple is also a two tiered temple with plenty of wooden elements. The outer
walls are supported on timber posts while the core is made up of brick masonry from
the very bottom. The plan dimensions are 3.49m x 3.49m and height from the very
foundation to top is 10m. Similar to above two structures the materials used are timber
and traditional brick in mud mortar. The structure is oriented at an angle of 12 from
north. Once again for the same reasons specified earlier, the building is idealized to be
orthogonal to north-south and east-west direction.
21
Figure 3: Indrapur temple
The detailed plans and elevations of the structures are provided in ANNEX I.
2.4 Location Map
Figure 4: Location map of the structures.
22
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 Seismic Vulnerability Analysis
In Nepal, number of researches have been carried out to study the seismic vulnerability
of historic structures, i.e., unreinforced masonry buildings. Past researches indicate that
the methodologies used were linear static and dynamic methods. However, recent trend
of research show the use of macro seismic as well as mechanical methods as done by
Prem Nath Maskey 2012, Srijana Gurung Shrestha 2013 and Saroo Shrestha 2014.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 154, 2002) prepared a hand book to
conduct Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings in 1988 to evaluate the buildings in
California. Revisions have been made in this handbook after obtaining new data on the
performance of the buildings in earthquakes. Rapid Visual Screening method has been
used by Prem Nath Maskey 2012, and Srijana Gurung Shrestha 2013 in their researches.
Giovinazzi and Lagomarsino 2004, presented macroseismic method for the

vulnerability assessment of built-up area. They derived the method in a conceptually
rigorous way, by the use of Probability and of Fuzzy Set Theory, considering
Macroseismic Scale Definitions. Later on 2006, they adopted a classification for the
proposal of vulnerability methods within Risk-UE project on 2006 A.D, for European
towns and regions where two approaches were proposed: (1) an observed damage-based
vulnerability method referred to as “macroseismic method”; (2) a mechanical-based
method reffered to as “mechanical method”. As both the methods intend to assess the
vulnerability of the same structures a cross validation was also performed.
Macroseismic method include the development of capacity curves or fragility curves of

the structures under study.
Prem Nath Maskey 2012, carried out seismic vulnerability assessment for a typical
settlement area of Byasi tole of Bhaktapur city, with consideration of the traditional
masonry buildings. The research used both qualitative as well as quantitive approaches
of seismic vulnerability assessment in the 5 types of building representing 147 numbers
of buildings in the study area. The qualitative method of EMS-98,
23
FEMA 154 method was used to determine the vulnerability of the buildings. The
buildings also were analyzed using FEM technique in SAP2000 to obtain fragility
curves for different damage states. These five buildings conducted in this research were
visually inspected for the damages due to the earthquake of April 25th, 2015. The
fragility curves were developed using Lalitpura time history. The expected damage
states at 0.17g were not found to match the real damage for 4 of them. This mismatch
also motivated me to conduct a research into the matter.
The results of the observed actual damage state vs expected damage states are shown
below.
Building No. Damage States (%) Expected Observed

Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Damage Damage
143 86 46 16 2 Slight Slight
118 55 14 0 0 Slight Extensive
109 3 0 0 0 Slight Collapse
93 100 96 52 21 Moderate Collapse
8 65 24 1 0 Slight Moderate
Table 1:Comparasion of expected vs observed damage state at 0.177PGA using fragility curves developed with
lalitpura time history.
Likewise, Srijana Shrestha Gurung, 2013 also conducted Rapid Visual Screening
(RVS) method and additionally developed fragility curves to assess the vulnerability
for five typical building models located at Jhatapol, Patan. She found that the results of
fragility analysis are different from that of RVS methodology of assessing vulnerability.
Similarly, Sharoo Shrestha, 2014 also conducted the seismic vulnerability of a historic
timber masonry monumental building in Nepal. She studied the seismic vulnerability
assessment of Saat Talle Durbar (Seven-storey Palace) of Nuwakot following the
guidelines of HAZUS-MH-MR3 for the estimation of displacement capacity during
different damage states. The seismic demand, on the other hand , was been determined
from linear Time History analysis. Finally, structural vulnerability of the building were
expressed in terms of fragility curves.
These researches done recently indicates the reliability of researchers on fragility curves
so it is utmost that this method need an urgent verification.
Development of fragility curves require the modelling of the structure to closely

represent the structure. Unreinforced Timber-Masonry Buildings in the study are made
24
up of timber and brick in mud mortar. Floorings are timber joists with wooden boards
over them. These floorings represent flexible diaphragm. According to Brignola et. al.
2008, Extensive damage observed during past earthquakes on URM buildings of
different type have highlighted serious shortcomings of typical retrofit interventions
adopted in the past with the intention to stiffen the diaphragm. They further state that
recent numerical investigations have also confirmed that stiffening the diaphragm is not
necessarily going to lead to an improved response, sometimes actually having
detrimental effects on the response. Thus the flooring in this model has also been
considered a flexible timber joists connection.
3.1 Fragility Curves
Recent practices in vulnerability assessment of historic masonry structures include the

generation of fragility curves. Fragility function provides the probability of exceeding
a prescribed level of damage for a wide range of ground motion intensity. The level of
damages are categorized into four states i.e slight damage, moderate damage, extensive
damage and complete damage. These damage states are numerically interpreted as a
function of yield displacement (dy) and ultimate displacement (du) capacity whose
values as suggested by HAZUS-MH MR3 (Table 5.7c) are dy=0.27 inch and du=1.81
inch for Unreinforced masonry structures and for low code seismic design level. These
values correspond to URMM (Unreinforced Masonry Mid-Rise buildings) having a
typical height of 10.6m. Thus the four damage states (ds) used as the capacity of the
building in terms of yield displacement (dy) and ultimate displacement (du) as suggested
by Giovianazzi and Lagomarsino 2006 after conducting a pushover analysis are:
For slight damage capacity = 0.7dy
Moderate damage capacity = 1.5dy
Extensive damage capacity = 0.5 (dy+du)
Complete damage capacity = du
where yield displacement (dy) = 0.27 inches
ultimate displacement (du) = 1.81 inches
25
These four numerical values, used as the capacity of the building for a prescribed level
̅ ) at which the
of damage represents the median value of spectral displacement (𝑆𝑑,𝑑𝑠
building reaches the threshold of the damage, ds
The description of the damage states according to HAZUS-MH-MR3 for unreinforced

Masonry Bearing walls (URM) are
Slight Structural Damage: Diagonal, stair-step hairline cracks on masonry wall

surfaces; larger cracks around door and window openings in walls with large proportion
of openings; movements of lintels; cracks at the base of parapets.
Moderate Structural Damage: Most wall surfaces exhibit diagonal cracks; some of
the walls exhibit larger diagonal cracks; masonry walls may have visible separation
from diaphragms; significant cracking of parapets; some masonry may fall from walls
or parapets.
Extensive Structural Damage: In buildings with relatively large area of wall openings
most walls have suffered extensive cracking. Some parapets and gable end walls have
fallen. Beams or trusses may have moved relative to their supports.
Complete Structural Damage: Structure has collapsed or is in imminent danger of

collapse due to in-plane or out-of-plane failure of the walls. Approximately 15% of the
total area of URM buildings with complete damage is expected to be collapsed.
The spectral displacement demand, Sd used here is the response of structure in terms
of top displacement of its structural component (Masonry Wall) for a given ground
motion. The ground motion is input as time history data of the selected accelerograms.
Then, the probability of being in or exceeding a given damage state is modeled as a

cumulative lognormal distribution. For structural damage, given the spectral
displacement demand, Sd, the probability of being in or exceeding a damage state ds, is
modelled as:
1 𝑆𝑑
𝑃[𝑑𝑠|𝑆𝑑 ] = ∅ [ 𝑙𝑛 ( )]
𝛽𝑑𝑠 ̅
𝑆𝑑,𝑑𝑠
where:
26
̅
𝑆𝑑,𝑑𝑠 is the median value of spectral displacement at which the
building reaches the threshold of the damage, ds
𝛽𝑑𝑠 is the standard deviation of the natural logarithm of spectral

displacement of damage state, ds, and
 is the standard normal cumulative distribution function.
According to 5.4.4 section of HAZUS-MH-MR3, the total variability of each equivalent

PGA structural damage state, 𝛽(𝑆𝑃𝐺𝐴) is modelled by the combination of following two
contributors to damage variability:
 uncertainty in the damage-state threshold of the structural system (𝛽𝑀(𝑆𝑃𝐺𝐴) =

0.4 for all building types and damage states),
 variability in response due to the spatial variability of ground motion demand
(𝛽𝐷(𝑉) = 0.5 for long period spectral response).
The two contributors to damage state variability are assumed to be lognormally

distributed, independent random variables and the total variability is simply the square-
root-sum-of-the-squares combination of individual terms i.e 𝛽(𝑆𝑃𝐺𝐴) = 0.64.
A typical fragility curve is shown below which shows the probabilities of exceeding
prescribed level of damage for different ground motion intensity (PGA) in a structure
using Elcentro time history data as loading.
27
Typical fragility Curve
Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
1.000
0.900
PROBABILITY OF FAILURE 0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
In this way number of historical timber-masonry structures (Saat talle durbar of

Nuwakot (2014), masonry structures at Jhatapol of Patan, (2013), masonry structures
at Byasi tol Bhaktapur (2012) etc.) are being studied against seismic vulnerability.
Unfortunately, the methodology used in assessing the vulnerability never got a chance
to be experimentally verified as its been decades Nepal didn’t face strong ground
motion before the last research. However this time a strong ground motion of PGA
0.1771g (N-S component), 0.1268g (E-W component) and 0.2055g (D vertical
component) shook the structures on 25th April, 2015. This thesis hence aims to find the
vulnerability of the selected historic timber-masonry structure, develop fragility curves
based on the time history data of the recent earthquake and compare the expected results
or expected damage state versus the actual damage state observed actually due to the
earthquake.
3.3 Modal Analysis
Modal analysis of a structure is used to find its dynamic properties like time period,
natural frequencies, vibration mode shapes etc. Conducting the modal analysis of
complex structure upto higher modes by hand calculation is very tedious and time
consuming. Hence, the modal analysis has been performed using SAP2000. Literatures
and the software indicate the availability of two methods of modal analysis. i.e Eigen
vector analysis and Ritz-vector analysis. According to CSI analysis reference manual,
28
Eigenvector analysis determines the undamped free-vibration mode shapes and
frequencies of the system. These natural modes provide an excellent insight into the
behavior of the structure
Ritz-vector analysis seeks to find modes that are excited by a particular loading. Ritz
vectors can provide a better basis than do Eigenvectors when used for response-
spectrum or time-history analyses that are based on modal superposition.
3.4 Linear Static Method of Analysis
Linear static method of analysis using seismic code of IS 1893:2002 and NNBC:105
are carried out to make a comparative analysis between the design base shears given by
the two codal provisions.
The procedure given by either of the codes are:
IS1893:2002
For buildings with brick infill frames the following expression is used to calculate the
time period .
T = 0.09h/( d) , and this period shall be given as input.
The value of seismic base shear is computed using the following expression.
Vb = AhW (IS:1893 Section.7.5.3)
and Ah is given by the following equation:
Ah = ZISa /2Rg (IS:1893 Section.6.4.2)
where,
Ah = The design horizontal spectrum value
Sa /g = Spectral acceleration coefficient computed using expressions given in section

6.4.5 of IS:1893 for 5% damping
R = Response reduction factor.
I = Importance factor.
W = Seismic weight of the building

29
NNBC:105
The horizontal seismic shear force acting at the base of the structure, in the direction
being considered against which the structure should remain safe is given as:
V = Cd Wt (section 10.1.1)
Where, Cd = CZIK , desigh horizontal seismic coefficient (section 8.1.1)
where,
C = Basic seismic coefficient for the fundamental translational period in the

direction under consideration. (Figure 8.1 of NNBC:105)
Z = Seismic zoning factor (Figure 8.2 of NNBC:105)
I = Importance factor (Table 8.1 of NNBC:105)
K = Structural performance factor (Table 8.2 of NNBC:105)
Wt = Seismic Weight of the building.
3.5 Linear Time-History Analysis
Time-history analysis is a step-by-step analysis of the dynamical response of a structure

to a specified loading that may vary with time (CSI Analysis Reference Manual).
Time- history analysis is used to determine the dynamic response of a structure to

arbitrary loading. The dynamic equilibrium equations to be solved are given by:
𝑴𝑢̈ + 𝑪𝑢̇ + 𝑲𝑢 = 𝑟(𝑡)
where K is the stiffness matrix; C is the damping matrix; M is the diagonal mass matrix;
𝑢̈ , 𝑢̇ and 𝑢 are the accelerations, velocities and displacements of the structure; and r is
the applied load. If the load includes ground acceleration, the displacements, velocities,
and accelerations are relative to this ground motion.
Time-history analysis is performed at discrete time steps. The number of output time
steps are specified with parameter n-step and the size of the time steps with parameter
dt. The time span over which the analysis is carried out is given by product of n-step
30
and dt. Responses are calculated at the end of each dt time increment, resulting in
nstep+1 values for each output response quantity.
According to the CSI Analysis Reference manual, two types of linear time history
analysis methods are available, i.e., Modal Time-History Analysis and Direct-
Integration Time-History Analysis.
Modal Time-History Analysis:
Modal superposition provides a highly efficient and accurate procedure for performing
time-history analysis. Closed form integration of the modal equations is used to
compute the response, assuming linear variation of the time functions, fi(t), between the
input data time points.
Direct Integration Time-History Analysis
In Direct Integration Time-History Analysis, full damping that couples the modes can
be considered as an advantage over Modal Time-History Analysis. Direct integration
results are extremely sensitive to time-step size.
For the rigid structures modelled in SAP2000 with flexible timber connections, the very
first modes are not seen compatible and not in translational direction, hence owing to
these inaccuracies the Direct Integration Time-History Analysis method is followed. A
variety of common methods are available for performing direct-integration time-history
analysis, for e.g., Newmark, Wilson, Collocation, Hilber-Hughes-Taylor and Chung
and Hulbert, out which “Hilber-Hughes-Taylor alpha” (HHT) method has been used
without any discussion.
The damping associated with the analysis were used as mass and stiffness proportional
damping whose values as suggested by Clough and Penzien, were calculated using the
following Raleigh’s formula,
𝑎0 2𝜉 𝜔 𝜔
{𝑎 } = { 𝑚 𝑛}
1 𝜔𝑚 + 𝜔𝑛 1
where,
31
𝜉 = 0.05
𝜔𝑚 = Fundamental frequency of MDOF system
𝜔𝑛 = Set among the higher frequencies of the modes that contribute
significantly to the dynamic response
𝑎0 = mass proportional coefficient
𝑎1 = stiffness proportional coefficient
The past researches in Nepal as stated above seem to have followed the guidelines of
Eurocode-8 2004. This document provides the guidelines for design of structures for
earthquake resistance. Time-history data for the analysis is stated as an alternative
representation of the seismic action. As due to the absence of real ground motion data
specific at the site, the rules given by the eurocode-8, 2004 were followed which states
that the suite of artificial accelerograms should observe the following rules:
1. a minimum of 3 accelerograms should be used.
2. in the range of periods between 0, 2T1 and 2T1, where T1 is the fundamental
period of the structure in the direction where the accelerogram will be applied;
no value of mean 5% damping elastic spectrum, calculated from all time
histories, should be less than 90% of the corresponding value of the 5% damping
elastic response spectrum.
Development of fragility curves includes the estimation of displacement demands for
wide range of PGA. The time history analysis provides the maximum displacement
demand of the structure. However, a linear scaling of the ground motion data is required
to obtain peak displacement at various PGA values. Past researches seem to follow the
work of (Bommer, Acevedo and Douglas 2003) who state that linear scaling of the
amplitude of records is acceptable, in particular for those records of earthquakes with
similar magnitude to that of the earthquake scenario, since the shape of response
spectrum is not highly sensitive to distance.
32
4. BUILDING MODELLING AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Modelling
Timber masonry structures are indeed complex to be analyzed manually, hence the
analytical models were prepared in SAP2000 V15. Various methods of modelling a
brick masonry structure are available.
Micro-modelling: Masonry is a composite material that consists of units and mortar

joints as shown in figure below. A comprehensive analysis of masonry , hereby denoted
detailed, micro modelling, must then include a representation of units, mortar and the
unit/mortar interface. In this case units and mortar in the joints are represented by
continuum elements whereas the unit-mortar interface is represented by discontinuous
elements. The Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio and , optionally inelastic properties of
both unit and mortar are to be taken into account. The interface represents a potential
crack/slip plane with initial dummy stiffness to avoid inter penetration of the
continuum. This enables the combined action of unit, mortar and interface to be studied
under a magnifying glass. However such a model leads to large memory and huge
computational time. Thus this method of analysis has not been adopted.
Macro-modelling: In large and practice-oriented analyses the knowledge of the

interaction between units and mortar is, generally, negligible for the global structural
behavior. In these cases a different approach can be used, hereby denoted macro-
modelling, where a distinction between individual units and joints is not made. Instead
the material is regarded as an anisotropic composite and a relation is established
between average masonry strains and average masonry stresses. This is clearly a
phenomenological approach, meaning that the material parameners must be obtained
from masonry tests of sufficient size under homogeneous states of stress. Macro-models
are applicable when the structure is composed of solid walls with sufficiently lagre
dimensions so that the stresses across or along a macro-length will ne essentially
uniform. Clearly, macro-modelling is more practice oriented due to reduced time and
memory exigencies as well as a user friendly generation. This type of modelling is most
valuable when a compromise between accuracy and efficiency is needed (Laurenco. et.
al 1995). Hence adhering to the above reasons it became reasonable to use macro-model
for the analysis.
33
Figure 5: Modelling strategies for masonry structures: (a) masonry sample; (b) detailed micro-modelling; (c)
simplified micro-modelling; (d) macro-modelling. (Laurenco et.al, 1995)
4.1.1 Masonry Element
Masonry wall has been modelled as 4-noded homogeneous thick shell element.
According to CSI Analysis Reference Manual, a four-point numerical integration
formulation is used for the shell stiffness. Stresses and internal forces and moments, in
the elemental local coordinate system, are evaluated at the 2-by-2 Gauss integration
points and extrapolated to the joints of the element. Development of fragility curves
requires only the displacement demand of the building hence stresses inside the shell
elements has not been focused here. The shell element element always activates all six
degrees of freedom at each of its connected joints (CSi Analysis Reference Manual)
hence the connection with beam element remains compatible.The shape guidelines of
the shell element as provided by CSi Reference has been followed
34
4.1.2 Timber Element
Timber element has been modeled as 2-noded beam element with 6 dof’s at each end.
The connection between timber and masonry interface and timber to timber interface
are modelled using linear link elements. Linear link element creates a link support
between its two ends and hence maintains the actual gap between two elements it
connects so that the mass distribution at the two nodes is not altered.
Figure 6:3D model of Shiva-Parvati Temple
35
Figure 7: 3D model of Jagannath temple
Figure 8: 3D model of Indrapur temple
36
4.1.3 Material Properties
Material properties of historical structures vary with time due to environmental
weathering, creep etc. It is thus best to study the material properties on site prior to
conducting the research. However, the structures associated in the research due to their
religious belief created restrictions in conducting experimental work inside the temples.
However, as an alternative an experimental test done on building of nearly same age in
nearby location with same construction materials could provide similar material
properties. Thus the material properties were referenced from the work of Parajuli,
2009, who studied the mechanical and dynamic properties of similar historic structure
Lalitpura pati. The values as per the reference journal are shown below:
Brick Masonry
Density (Kg/m3) 1768
Compressive Strength (N/mm2) 1.82
Shear Strength (N/mm2) 0.15
Mod. of Elasticity, E (N/mm2) 509
Poisson's ratio (ν) 0.25
Shear Modulus (N/mm2) 204
Table 2: Material Properties for Brick Masonry
Wood (IS 883:1994)

Density (Kg/m3) 800
Mod. of Elasticity, E (N/mm2) 12.6e3
Table 3: Material Properties for Timber
4.1.4 Overview of Modelling
1. The dimensions of Shiva-Parvati temple were tape measured at the site while
the dimensions of Jagannath and Indrapur temple were provided by Kathmandu
Valley Preservation Trust (KVPT).
2. Masonry wall was modeled as thick shell elements while timber elements were
modeled using beam element.
3. Average thickness of wall has been used where the door and timber bands have
partially occupied the thickness of wall.
4. The end connections of timber posts are hinged as no exact value of partial
rigidity could be found and masonry walls were fixed to the ground.
5. Average size of timber have been taken where carvings reduces its cross
sectional area.
37
6. Only linear static and linear dynamic analysis has been considered.
7. Mass and Stiffness proportional damping has been considered in linear time
history analysis followed by direct integration method of analysis.
8. Floor joists have been modeled as flexible timber connections with hinged
connection to the walls as no exact data was available about their partial rigidity.
9. Only the weight of non-structural timber projections from the wall is included
in the modal.
10. The shell element for the wall was meshed for sizes not greater than 300 mm x
300 mm. Edge constraints have been assigned to the shell and automatic
meshing to beam elements.
4.2 Load Calculation
The self-weight of the members modelled in the structure are automatically taken by
the software. Some parts of the structure like roofing tiles, mud, wooden boards and
floor loads have not been modeled, thus, their weights have been calculated manually
and applied to the structural system bearing their loads. The loads have been calculated
separately for each structure:
1. Shiva-Parvati Temple
Roof Load Calculations:
Load of roofing tiles: Unit weight = 14 KN/m3
Thickness = 0.025m
Surface load = 0.35 KN/m2
Load of Mud topping: Unit weight = 14 KN/m3
Thickness = 0.05m
Load of Wooden boards: Unit weight = 8 KN/m2
Thickness = 0.025m
Consideration for pegs, nails bolts and other accessories = 0.05 KN/m2
Total Surface load = 1.3 KN/m2
Spacing of rafters = 0.34m (Rafters are uniformly spaced)
38
Thus, UDL line loading in each rafter = 0.442 KN/m
Floor load calculations:
Load of flooring tiles: Unit weight = 14 KN/m3 (telia brick tiles)
Thickness = 0.075m
Thickness = 0.025m
Consideration for pegs, nails bolts and other accessories = 0.1 KN/m2
Total Surface load = 1.35 KN/m2
Spacing of joists = 0.274m (Joists along short direction)
= 0.254m (Joists along long direction)
Thus, UDL line loading in each joist along short direction = 0.37 KN/m
And, UDL line loading in each joist along long direction = 0.343 KN/m
2. Jagannath temple
The roofing materials are same as Shiva-Parvati Temple and hence the surface
load is taken from above calculation. The rafters however unlike Shiva-parvati
temple are radiating outward rather than equally spaced. Thus UVL load is
provided to each rafter instead of UDL.
Lower roof calculations:
Surface load due to tiles and mud topping = 1.3 KN/m2
Spacing of rafters at the top = 0.1m
Load/m at the top of rafter = 0.13 KN/m
Spacing of rafters at the bottom = 0.4m
Load/m at the bottom of rafter = 0.52 KN/m
Upper roof calculations:
Spacing of rafters at the top = 0m
Load/m at the top of rafter = 0 KN/m
39
There was no access to the upper floor of Jagannath temple, hence it is
assumed that the upper and lower floors have the same flooring systems. The
lower floor consisted only of wooden boards over the timber joists.
Thickness = 0.025m
Spacing of timber joists = 0.2m
Thus, UDL line loading in each joist = 0.04 KN/m
3. Indrapur temple
The roofing system of this temple is also same as that of Jagannath temple,
i.e., rafters radiating outwards.
Lower roof calculations:
Spacing of rafters at the top = 0.0862m
Load/m at the top of rafter = 0.112 KN/m
Upper roof calculations:
Spacing of rafters at the top = 0m
Load/m at the top of rafter = 0 KN/m
Thickness = 0.025m
Spacing of timber joists = 0.2m
Thus, UDL line loading in each joist = 0.04 KN/m
40
4.3 Modal Analysis
The time periods and modal mass participation factors obtained using Ritz algorithm
are discussed and presented below.
1. Shiva-Parvati Temple
The first mode of vibration shows a time period of 0.25 seconds with major
mass participation (75%) towards the shorter direction of structure. The second
mode shows the time period of 0.21 second along longer direction with modal
mass participation of 54%. The results are obvious as the structure is rectangular
in plan and considerable opening of door is present at the shorter direction. More
than 90% of the mass has participated within first 12 modes. The results of
modal analysis are:
TABLE: Modal Participating Mass Ratios

OutputCase StepType StepNum Period UX UY SumUX SumUY
Text Text Unitless Sec Unitless Unitless Unitless Unitless
MODAL Mode 1.0000 0.2549 0.0005 0.7500 0.0005 0.7500
MODAL Mode 2.0000 0.2137 0.5444 0.0006 0.5449 0.7506
MODAL Mode 3.0000 0.1837 0.0000 0.0000 0.5449 0.7506
MODAL Mode 4.0000 0.1759 0.0183 0.0000 0.5632 0.7506
MODAL Mode 5.0000 0.1318 0.0557 0.0000 0.6189 0.7506
MODAL Mode 6.0000 0.1130 0.0000 0.0094 0.6189 0.7600
MODAL Mode 7.0000 0.1036 0.0220 0.0000 0.6409 0.7600
MODAL Mode 8.0000 0.0999 0.0001 0.0862 0.6410 0.8462
MODAL Mode 9.0000 0.0755 0.1837 0.0000 0.8246 0.8463
MODAL Mode 10.0000 0.0677 0.0000 0.0292 0.8247 0.8754
MODAL Mode 11.0000 0.0374 0.1052 0.0000 0.9299 0.8754
MODAL Mode 12.0000 0.0323 0.0000 0.0688 0.9299 0.9442
Table 4: Results of modal analysis for Shiva Parvati temple.
2. Jagannath Temple
The first translational mode of vibration is obtained on second mode with time
period of 0.26 sec along X direction with modal mass participation of 63% . The
structure being symmetric shows same dynamic property along Y direction also
41
in its third mode of vibration. More than 90% of the mass has participated within
first 20 modes as shown in table below. The results of modal analysis are:

MODAL Mode 1 0.2753 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000
MODAL Mode 2 0.2621 0.6313 0.0007 0.6316 0.0007
MODAL Mode 3 0.2614 0.0007 0.6376 0.6324 0.6384
MODAL Mode 4 0.1720 0.0000 0.0000 0.6324 0.6384
MODAL Mode 5 0.1617 0.0000 0.0001 0.6324 0.6385
MODAL Mode 6 0.1424 0.0018 0.0004 0.6341 0.6389
MODAL Mode 7 0.1421 0.0004 0.0022 0.6346 0.6411
MODAL Mode 8 0.1374 0.0138 0.0050 0.6484 0.6461
MODAL Mode 9 0.1371 0.0054 0.0156 0.6538 0.6617
MODAL Mode 10 0.1300 0.0006 0.0010 0.6544 0.6628
MODAL Mode 11 0.1146 0.0255 0.0113 0.6798 0.6741
MODAL Mode 12 0.1135 0.0012 0.1637 0.6811 0.8378
MODAL Mode 13 0.1111 0.1470 0.0000 0.8280 0.8378
MODAL Mode 14 0.1041 0.0075 0.0003 0.8355 0.8381
MODAL Mode 15 0.0930 0.0021 0.0035 0.8376 0.8416
MODAL Mode 16 0.0900 0.0056 0.0024 0.8432 0.8440
MODAL Mode 17 0.0730 0.0029 0.0336 0.8462 0.8776
MODAL Mode 18 0.0726 0.0285 0.0025 0.8747 0.8802
MODAL Mode 19 0.0570 0.0024 0.0205 0.8771 0.9007
MODAL Mode 20 0.0559 0.0243 0.0018 0.9014 0.9025
MODAL Mode 21 0.0362 0.0003 0.0300 0.9017 0.9325
MODAL Mode 22 0.0348 0.0313 0.0003 0.9329 0.9328
MODAL Mode 23 0.0170 0.0473 0.0018 0.9802 0.9346
MODAL Mode 24 0.0165 0.0017 0.0485 0.9819 0.9831
Table 5: Results of Modal Analysis for Jagannath Temple.
3. Indrapur Temple
Indrapur temple is quite different from the above two. It has a wooden roof
whose weight is lumped about 2m above the top of the wall. Due to this
distribution of mass, the structure shows its time period for translational
vibration at second mode, i.e., 0.39 second. This time period is very high for
such structure. It is also to be noted that only 25% of modal mass has
participated in the vibration as seen in the table. However, another translational
42
vibration is seen at fifth mode with a time period of 0.17 second. This mode of
vibration encompasses 41% of modal mass and seems to appropriately represent
the mode shape of the building. The results of the modal analysis are presented
below.

MODAL Mode 1.0000 0.4014 0.0271 0.0001 0.0271 0.0001
MODAL Mode 2.0000 0.3907 0.2511 0.0000 0.2781 0.0001
MODAL Mode 3.0000 0.3877 0.0032 0.0000 0.2813 0.0001
MODAL Mode 4.0000 0.3688 0.0000 0.2498 0.2813 0.2499
MODAL Mode 5.0000 0.1745 0.4142 0.0005 0.6956 0.2504
MODAL Mode 6.0000 0.1664 0.0005 0.4576 0.6961 0.7079
MODAL Mode 7.0000 0.1153 0.0009 0.0025 0.6970 0.7105
MODAL Mode 8.0000 0.0823 0.0208 0.0000 0.7177 0.7105
MODAL Mode 9.0000 0.0793 0.0030 0.0000 0.7208 0.7105
MODAL Mode 10.0000 0.0764 0.0000 0.0091 0.7208 0.7196
MODAL Mode 11.0000 0.0741 0.0034 0.0031 0.7242 0.7228
MODAL Mode 12.0000 0.0718 0.0021 0.0153 0.7263 0.7380
MODAL Mode 13.0000 0.0680 0.0002 0.0256 0.7265 0.7637
MODAL Mode 14.0000 0.0663 0.0373 0.0006 0.7638 0.7643
MODAL Mode 15.0000 0.0626 0.0010 0.0017 0.7648 0.7660
MODAL Mode 16.0000 0.0596 0.0045 0.0000 0.7693 0.7660
MODAL Mode 17.0000 0.0467 0.0158 0.0003 0.7851 0.7662
MODAL Mode 18.0000 0.0443 0.0010 0.0059 0.7861 0.7722
MODAL Mode 19.0000 0.0346 0.0111 0.0210 0.7972 0.7932
MODAL Mode 20.0000 0.0340 0.0169 0.0143 0.8141 0.8074
MODAL Mode 21.0000 0.0243 0.0008 0.0766 0.8149 0.8840
MODAL Mode 22.0000 0.0231 0.0708 0.0008 0.8858 0.8848
MODAL Mode 23.0000 0.0117 0.0174 0.0697 0.9031 0.9545
MODAL Mode 24.0000 0.0115 0.0695 0.0171 0.9726 0.9716
Table 6: Results of modal analysis for Indrapur temple.
4.4 Time History Analysis
Linear Time history Analysis of the three structures were performed using SAP2000
V15 as explained below to find their peak displacement demands. Time history analysis
can be performed by either modal superposition method or by direct integration method.
The higher modes associated with the structures have very less modal mass
participation, thus, doesn’t seem compatible as unlike R.C.C structure, the timber
43
masonry structures are a combination of rigid masonry with flexible timber beams and
posts. Direct integration method has been used to carry out the linear time history
analysis.
4.4.1 Accelerograms
The thesis is targeted to obtain an expected damage state due to the Gorkha earthquake
2015 using fragility curves analytically and make a comparative study with the actually
observed damages. In this regard, the actual ground motion data of April 25th, 2015 was
obtained from Nepal Seismological Centre, Lainchaur. Additionally, Elcentro, 1940
and Chamauli with their PGA scaled to 0.177 PGA are also used to develop fragility
curves in order to maintain the spectrum compatibility of records as specified in
Eurocode-8, 2004. The graphical representation of the accelerograms are:
Gorkha earthquake (PGA=0.177g) (N-S) component

0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
44
Gorkha earthquake (PGA=0.1268g) (EW)
component
1.5
0.5
0
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Elcentro PGA = 0.31882g

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Chamauli, PGA = 0.459g

0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30
-0.40
45
4.4.2 Fourier Amplitude Spectrum of Accelerograms
The most important features of the accelerogram record obtained, from the standpoint
of the effectiveness in producing structural response, are the amplitude, the frequency
content, and the duration. [Clough and Penzien]. The accelerograms shown above itself
illustrates the amplitude and time duration of earthquake, however it is required to have
a fourier transformation of the record to reveal the frequency content. Frequency
amplitude spectrum shows the amplitudes of the various frequency contents of the
waves that compose the accelerogram. It is represented in an increasing order of
frequency. Fourier spectrum reveals that for the same peak
amplitude of acceleration (0.177g) except for Grokha(E-W) component, Elcentro
earthquake has maximum amplitude for one of its frequency component i.e 2.15hz in
comparison to other accelerograms. It means that, if any imaginary three buildings had
their natural fundamental frequency same as that of frequency corresponding to
maximum amplitude in each accelerogram and are subjected to the respective
earthquakes, the building subjected to Elcentro would show maximum response as this
resonating frequency has maximum amplitude. The absolute maximum amplitude with
their respective frequency for the accelerograms used in this study are tabulated below.
Figure 9: Fourier Amplitude Spectrum of Gorkha Earthquake (N-S)
46
Figure 10: Fourier Amplitude Spectrum of Gorkha Earthquake (E-W)
Figure 11:Fourier Amplitude Spectrum of Elcentro Earthquake
Figure 12: Fourier Amplitude Spectrum of Chamauli Earthquake
47
Accelerogram P.G.A Frequency(f) Time period (1/f) Amplitude
Elecentro Scaled to 0.177g 2.15 0.465 0.006862
Chamauli Scaled to 0.177g 1.17 0.855 0.005019
Gorkha (N-S) 0.177g 0.26 3.846 0.000756
Gorkha (E-W) 0.127g 0.25 4.000 0.005019
4.4.3 Analysis Parameters
The damping associated with the analysis were used as mass and stiffness proportional
damping whose values as suggested by Clough and Penzien, were calculated using the
following Raleigh’s formula,
𝑎0 2𝜉 𝜔 𝜔
{𝑎 } = { 𝑚 𝑛}
1 𝜔𝑚 + 𝜔𝑛 1
where,
𝜉 = 0.05
𝜔𝑚 = Fundamental frequency of MDOF system
𝜔𝑛 = Set among the higher frequencies of the modes that contribute
significantly to the dynamic response
𝑎0 = mass proportional coefficient
𝑎1 = stiffness proportional coefficient
These coefficients are evaluated for each structure.
Shiva-Parvati Temple
𝜔𝑚 = 23.87 for T = 0.25 sec at Mode 1
𝜔𝑛 = 83.22 for T = 0.0755 sec at Mode 9
𝜉 = 0.05
Thus,
𝑎0 2 𝑥 0.05 23.87 𝑥 83.22
{𝑎 } = { }
1 23.87 + 83.22 1
1.7109
={ }
0.001186
Jagannath Temple
48
𝜉 = 0.05
Thus,
𝑎0 2 𝑥 0.05 23.97 𝑥 57.12
{𝑎 } = { }
1 23.97 + 57.12 1
1.6884
={ }
0.001233
Indrapur Temple

𝜉 = 0.05
Thus,
𝑎0 2 𝑥 0.05 16.081 𝑥 37.75
{𝑎 } = { }
1 16.081 + 37.75 1
1.127
={ }
0.001858
Once these parameters are set, the method of time integration is selected as Hilber-
Hughes-Taylor alpha method. The output time steps was 0.005 seconds for a total of
11000 steps indicating a total time of 55 seconds for Gorkha earthquake, similiarly the
output time step for elecentro was 0.02 sec and 0.005 for Chamauli accelerogram. Each
time history analysis took about 6 hours of computing effort.
4.5 Linear Static Analysis.
Linear static analysis is performed for each structure using the codal provision of IS
1893: 2002 and NNBC:105 to make a comparative study of base shears to be designed
according to the codes and actual base shear observed in the structure due to the Gorkha
Earthquake.
The seismic weights of the structures are obtained from SAP2000. The linear static
analysis performed for each structure are as follows:
4.5.1 Shiva Parvati Temple
Calculation of Base shear using IS 1893:2002 Response Spectrum:

49
The design Base shear for which the structure should be safe according to IS 1893:2002
is given as VB = Ah x W.
Where, W is the seismic weight of the building = 1909.57 KN, Ah is the design
horizontal seismic coefficient as found below:
Width(d) = 5.210m
length(l) = 10.910m
Time period along width,
0.09∗ℎ
Ta = √𝑑
0.09∗7.833
= √5.210
= 0.308 sec
Ta = 0.308 sec
𝑆𝑎
= 2.5 since ( 0.10  Ta 0..55)
𝑔
Time period along length,
0.09∗7.833
Ta =
√10.910
= 0.213 sec
Ta = 0.213 sec
𝑆𝑎
= 2.5 since ( 0.10  Ta 0..55) and soft soil conditions.
𝑔
Thus, the average response acceleration coefficient is same along both direction.
Zone factor (Z) = 0.36 (for V zone)
Importance Factor (I) = 1.5
Response reduction factor(R) = 2.5 ( as Shiva Parvati temle is reinforced with

horizontal RC bands.
50
𝑍𝐼𝑆 0.36∗1.5∗2.5
Thus, Ah = 2𝑅𝑔𝑎 , Ah = = 0.27
2∗2.5
thus, Base Shear, VB = 0.27*1909.57 = 515.58 KN
Calculation of Base shear using NNBC105 Response Spectrum:
The horizontal seismic shear force acting at the base of the structure, in the direction
being considered against which the structure should remain safe is given as:
V = Cd Wt
Where, Cd = CZIK and Wt = Seismic Weight of the building calculated in table above.
Thus for the current structure,
0.09∗ℎ
Ta = √𝑑
0.09∗7.833
= √5.210
= 0.308 sec
Ta = 0.308 sec (< 0.4 sec)
𝐶 = 0.08 according to the basic seismic coefficient, C
Time period along length,
0.09∗7.833
Ta = √10.910
= 0.213 sec
Ta = 0.213 sec (<0.4 sec)
𝐶 = 0.08 according to the basic seismic coefficient, C.
Thus the basic seismic coefficient, C both along longer side and shorter side is
C = 0.08
Other parameters:
Z = 1 for Kathmandu
51
I = 1.5 for monumental buildings
K = 4 for masonry bearing wall structures
Thus, Cd = 0.08 x 1 x 1.5 x 4
= 0.48
Base Shear = 0.48 x 1909.57 KN
= 916.59 KN
4.5.2 Jagannath temple
Seimic weight = 4773.905
Width(d) / length = 8.44m and square shaped.
height (h) = 11.16m
The Time period along width,
0.09∗ℎ
Ta =
√𝑑
0.09∗11.16
=
√8.44
= 0.359 sec
𝑆𝑎
= 2.5 since ( 0.10  Ta 0.55)
𝑔
Response reduction factor(R) = 1.5 ( as Jagannath temple is unreinforced)
𝑍𝐼𝑆 0.36∗1.5∗2.5
Thus, Ah = 2𝑅𝑔𝑎 , Ah = = 0.45
2∗1.5
Thus, Base Shear, VB = 0.45*4773.905 = 2148.257 KN
52
0.09∗ℎ
Ta =
√𝑑
0.09∗11.16
=
√8.44
= 0.359 sec
Ta = 0.359 sec (< 0.4 sec)
𝐶 = 0.08 According to the basic seismic coefficient, C
Other parameters:
Z = 1 for Kathmandu
Thus, Cd = 0.08 x 1 x 1.5 x 4
= 0.48
Thus, Base Shear VB = 0.48 x 4773.905 KN = 2291.47 KN
4.5.3 Indrapur temple
Seimic weight = 760.868 KN
Width(d) / length = 3.02m and square shaped.
height (h) = 10m
The Time period along width,
0.09∗ℎ
Ta =
√𝑑
0.09∗10
=
√3.02
= 0.517 sec
53
𝑆𝑎
= 2.5 since ( 0.10  Ta 0.55)
𝑔
Response reduction factor(R) = 1.5 ( as Indrapur temple is unreinforced)
𝑍𝐼𝑆𝑎 0.36∗1.5∗2.5
Thus, Ah = , Ah = = 0.45
2𝑅𝑔 2∗1.5
Thus, Base Shear, VB = 0.45*760.868 = 342.39 KN
0.09∗10
Ta =
√3.02
= 0.517 sec
Ta = 0.517 sec (> 0.4 sec)
𝐶 = 0.067 According to the basic seismic coefficient, C
Other parameters:
Z = 1 for Kathmandu
Thus, Cd = 0.067 x 1 x 1.5 x 4
= 0.402
Thus, Base Shear VB = 0.402 x 760.868 KN = 305.86 KN
54
5. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Observed Damage States
HAZUS-MH-MR3 provides four classification of damage states as already discussed

above. The identification of damage states were carried out using those guidelines.
While Shiva Parvati temple could be closely observed, Jagannath and Indrapur temples
could only be observed partially due to restrictions to measure the cracks due to their
religious beliefs and lack of access at the upper floors. However, the observations for
damages are sufficient for this research. The descriptions of the damage grades are
explained separately below and some pictorial presentations are shown in ANNEX-2.
The basis of damage grades are once again presented here:
Slight Structural Damage: Diagonal, stair-step hairline cracks on masonry wall

surfaces; larger cracks around door and window openings in walls with large proportion
of openings; movements of lintels; cracks at the base of parapets.
Moderate Structural Damage: Most wall surfaces exhibit diagonal cracks; some of
the walls exhibit larger diagonal cracks; masonry walls may have visible separation
from diaphragms; significant cracking of parapets; some masonry may fall from walls
or parapets.
Extensive Structural Damage: In buildings with relatively large area of wall openings
most walls have suffered extensive cracking. Some parapets and gable end walls have
fallen. Beams or trusses may have moved relative to their supports.
Complete Structural Damage: Structure has collapsed or is in imminent danger of

collapse due to in-plane or out-of-plane failure of the walls. Approximately 15% of the
total area of URM buildings with complete damage is expected to be collapsed.
According to HAZUS-MH-MR3 guidelines, small cracks are assumed to be visible

cracks with a maximum width of less than 1/8th. Cracks wider than 1/8th are referred to
as large cracks.
Shiva-Parvati temple has suffered moderate to extensive structural damage. However,

to be specific, the damage can be called moderate. The longer wall on the top floor have
drifted about 10 cm but was prevented from falling down due to a concrete tie band at
55
the top of the wall. Walls along the shorter or north direction are seen to suffer extensive
diagonal cracks. The cracks have mainly propagated from the corner of the window
openings and extended to the side of the walls and exceed 1/8” size. Crack sizes were
measured upto 50 mm. Diaphragm separation could be observed about 2 cm. Historical
unreinforced masonry structures have no special corner stitching which in this case too
has resulted in corner separation of orthogonal walls.
Jagannath temple can be assigned to have slight damages. It has almost no visible cracks
at the ground floor. Diagonal cracks however were observed at the walls of top floor of
about 30mm maximum, exceeding the width of 1/8”. Since the cracks were observed
at the top part of building, it hardly plays role as a structural unit to support the whole
structure. No other significant damage was observed.
Similiarly, Indrapur temple has also survived the earthquake with no serious damages.
Step line diagonal cracks could be observed in the walls that exceeded 1/8” size. No
symptoms of moderate damage states i.e diaphragm separation, falling of masonry wall
were identified. Thus, the damage state according to the definitions is assigned to be
slight.
Structure Observed Damage State

Shiva Parvati Temple Moderate
Jagannath Temple Slight
Indrapur Temple Slight
Table 7: Observed Damage States of structures due to Gorkha Earthquake
5.2 Expected Damage States
Fragility curves are plotted for each linear time history analysis as shown below. The
peak displacement demands has to be observed at the top of the masonry wall being it
the main structural element, thus the nodes are selected at the top of masonry wall. The
observation node was selected as that node which provided maximum lateral
deformation on the application of time history load. Before fragility curves, the results
of the time history analysis due to the selected earthquake accelerograms along each
north-south and east-west direction.
56
Results in terms of displacement and base shear
5.2.1 Shiva Parvati Temple

Height of the displacement observation node = 6.17 m.
Base shear (KN) Max. Displacement of node, mm

Earthquake P.G.A(g)
Along Along Along East, node Along north, node
East North 103 6360
Gorkha (N-S) 0.177 - 435.4 - 6.587
Gorkha (E-W) 0.127 280.4 - 2.563 -
Linearly scaled
Elcentro to 0.177 - 659.5 - 13.12
Linearly scaled
Elcentro to 0.127 336.3 - 3.072 -
Linearly scaled
Chamauli to 0.177 - 498.3 - 7.536
Linearly scaled
Chamauli to 0.127 337.2 - 3.769 -
Table 8:Results of time history analysis for Shiva Parvati Temple.
Base shear obtained from static analysis are:

Codal Provision of: Seismic Weight (KN) Base Shear (KN)
IS 1893:2002 1909.57 515.58
NNBC:105 1909.57 916.59
Table 9: Results of linear static analysis for Shiva Parvati Temple.
Fragility curves:
1. Gorkha Earthquake (N-S) (0.177g PGA
Gorkha Earthquake(PGA=0.177), 2015
slight moderate extensive complete
1.000
0.900
PROBABILITY OF FAILURE
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
Figure 13:Fragility curve due to N-S component Gorkha Earthquake in Shiva-Parvati Temple
57
Top Displacement (mm)
PGA Probability of Failure at damage State (Pf)
Capacity Displacement (mm)
(g) Demand
Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
0.000 0.000 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.050 1.861 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.069 0.004 0.000 0.000
0.100 3.721 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.345 0.056 0.001 0.000
0.150 5.582 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.593 0.170 0.008 0.000
0.177 6.587 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.689 0.243 0.015 0.001
0.200 7.443 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.753 0.307 0.024 0.002
0.250 9.304 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.849 0.438 0.051 0.006
0.300 11.164 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.906 0.551 0.089 0.014
0.350 13.025 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.941 0.644 0.135 0.024
0.400 14.886 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.961 0.718 0.185 0.039
0.450 16.747 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.975 0.777 0.238 0.057
0.500 18.607 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.983 0.823 0.292 0.079
0.550 20.468 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.988 0.859 0.345 0.103
0.600 22.329 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.992 0.887 0.396 0.130
0.650 24.190 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.994 0.909 0.445 0.158
0.700 26.050 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.996 0.927 0.491 0.187
0.750 27.911 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.997 0.941 0.534 0.218
0.800 29.772 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.952 0.574 0.249
0.850 31.632 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.960 0.611 0.280
0.900 33.493 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.967 0.645 0.310
0.950 35.354 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.973 0.676 0.341
1.000 37.215 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.978 0.704 0.371
Table 10: Calculation of probabilities of failure due to N-S component Gorkha Earthquake in Shiva-Parvati Temple
2. Gorkha Earthquake (E-W) (0.127g PGA)

1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
Figure 14Fragility curve due to E-W component of Gorkha Earthquake in Shiva-Parvati Temple
58
(g) Demand
0.000 0.000 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.050 1.017 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.100 2.034 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.090 0.006 0.000 0.000
0.127 2.563 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.163 0.015 0.000 0.000
0.150 3.051 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.239 0.029 0.000 0.000
0.200 4.068 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.398 0.074 0.002 0.000
0.250 5.085 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.536 0.135 0.005 0.000
0.300 6.102 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.646 0.207 0.011 0.001
0.350 7.119 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.731 0.283 0.020 0.002
0.400 8.137 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.795 0.357 0.033 0.003
0.450 9.154 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.843 0.428 0.049 0.006
0.500 10.171 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.880 0.493 0.068 0.009
0.550 11.188 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.907 0.552 0.090 0.014
0.600 12.205 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.928 0.605 0.114 0.019
0.650 13.222 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.943 0.653 0.140 0.026
0.700 14.239 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.955 0.694 0.167 0.034
0.750 15.256 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.965 0.731 0.195 0.042
0.800 16.273 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.972 0.763 0.225 0.052
0.850 17.290 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.977 0.791 0.254 0.063
0.900 18.307 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.982 0.816 0.283 0.075
0.950 19.324 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.985 0.838 0.313 0.088
1.000 20.341 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.988 0.857 0.342 0.101
Table 11:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to E-W component Gorkha Earthquake in Shiva-Parvati Temple
3. Elcentro Earthquake scaled to 0.177g (N-S)
Elcentro Earthquake (PGA scaled to 0.177g)

1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
Figure 15: Fragility curves due to 0.177g scaled Elcentro Earthquake in Shiva-Parvati Temple
59
(g) Demand
0.000 0.000 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.050 3.706 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.343 0.055 0.001 0.000
0.100 7.412 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.751 0.304 0.024 0.002
0.150 11.119 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.905 0.548 0.088 0.013
0.177 13.120 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.942 0.648 0.137 0.025
0.200 14.825 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.961 0.716 0.183 0.038
0.250 18.531 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.983 0.821 0.290 0.078
0.300 22.237 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.992 0.886 0.394 0.128
0.350 25.944 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.996 0.926 0.489 0.186
0.400 29.650 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.951 0.572 0.247
0.450 33.356 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.967 0.642 0.308
0.500 37.062 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.977 0.702 0.368
0.550 40.768 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.984 0.751 0.426
0.600 44.475 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.989 0.792 0.479
0.650 48.181 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.992 0.826 0.529
0.700 51.887 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.994 0.854 0.575
0.750 55.593 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.996 0.878 0.617
0.800 59.299 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.997 0.897 0.655
0.850 63.006 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.998 0.913 0.689
0.900 66.712 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.998 0.926 0.720
0.950 70.418 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.999 0.937 0.747
1.000 74.124 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.999 0.947 0.772
Table 12:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to 0.177g scaled Elcentro Earthquake in N-S dirn. in Shiva-
Parvati Temple
4. Elcentro Earthquake scaled to 0.127g (E-W)
Elcentro (PGA Saled to0.127g)

Slignt Moderate Extensive Complete
1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
Figure 16:Fragility curves due to 0.127g scaled Elcentro Earthquake in E-W dirn. in Shiva-Parvati Temple
60
(g) Demand
0.000 0.000 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.050 1.209 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.100 2.419 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.142 0.012 0.000 0.000
0.127 3.072 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.243 0.029 0.000 0.000
0.150 3.628 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.331 0.052 0.001 0.000
0.200 4.838 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.505 0.119 0.004 0.000
0.250 6.047 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.641 0.203 0.011 0.001
0.300 7.257 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.741 0.293 0.022 0.002
0.350 8.466 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.812 0.380 0.038 0.004
0.400 9.676 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.863 0.462 0.058 0.007
0.450 10.885 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.900 0.535 0.083 0.012
0.500 12.094 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.926 0.600 0.111 0.018
0.550 13.304 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.944 0.656 0.142 0.026
0.600 14.513 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.958 0.705 0.175 0.036
0.650 15.723 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.968 0.746 0.209 0.047
0.700 16.932 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.976 0.782 0.244 0.059
0.750 18.142 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.981 0.812 0.279 0.073
0.800 19.351 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.985 0.838 0.313 0.088
0.850 20.561 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.988 0.860 0.348 0.104
0.900 21.770 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.991 0.879 0.381 0.121
0.950 22.980 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.993 0.895 0.414 0.139
1.000 24.189 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.994 0.909 0.445 0.158
Table 13:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to 0.127g scaled Elcentro Earthquake in E-W dirn. in Shiva-
Parvati Temple
5. Chamauli Earthquake scaled to 0.177g (N-S)
Elcentro (PGA scaled to 0.177g)

Series1 Series2 Series3 Series4
1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
Figure 17Fragility curve due to 0.177g scaled Chamauli Earthquake in Shiva-Parvati Temple
61
(g) Demand
0.000 0.000 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.050 2.129 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.102 0.007 0.000 0.000
0.100 4.258 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.426 0.084 0.002 0.000
0.150 6.386 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.672 0.228 0.013 0.001
0.177 7.536 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.759 0.313 0.025 0.002
0.200 8.515 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.815 0.384 0.038 0.004
0.250 10.644 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.893 0.521 0.078 0.011
0.300 12.773 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.937 0.632 0.128 0.023
0.350 14.902 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.962 0.719 0.186 0.039
0.400 17.031 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.976 0.785 0.246 0.060
0.450 19.159 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.985 0.834 0.308 0.086
0.500 21.288 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.990 0.872 0.368 0.114
0.550 23.417 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.993 0.901 0.425 0.146
0.600 25.546 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.995 0.922 0.479 0.179
0.650 27.675 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.997 0.939 0.529 0.214
0.700 29.803 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.952 0.575 0.249
0.750 31.932 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.962 0.617 0.285
0.800 34.061 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.969 0.654 0.320
0.850 36.190 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.975 0.689 0.354
0.900 38.319 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.980 0.719 0.388
0.950 40.447 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.984 0.747 0.421
1.000 42.576 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.987 0.772 0.452
Table 14:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to 0.177g Chamauli Earthquake in Shiva-Parvati Temple
6. Chamauli Earthquake Scaled to 0.127g (E-W)
Chamauli Earthquake(PGA Scaled to 0.126g)

1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
Figure 18:Fragility curves due to 0.127g scaled Chamauli Earthquake in E-W dirn. in Shiva-Parvati Temple
62
(g) Demand
0.000 0.000 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.050 1.484 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.033 0.001 0.000 0.000
0.100 2.968 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.226 0.026 0.000 0.000
0.127 3.769 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.353 0.058 0.001 0.000
0.150 4.452 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.453 0.095 0.003 0.000
0.200 5.935 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.630 0.195 0.010 0.001
0.250 7.419 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.752 0.305 0.024 0.002
0.300 8.903 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.833 0.411 0.045 0.005
0.350 10.387 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.886 0.506 0.072 0.010
0.400 11.871 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.921 0.589 0.106 0.017
0.450 13.355 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.945 0.658 0.143 0.027
0.500 14.839 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.961 0.716 0.184 0.039
0.550 16.322 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.972 0.765 0.226 0.053
0.600 17.806 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.980 0.804 0.269 0.069
0.650 19.290 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.985 0.837 0.312 0.087
0.700 20.774 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.989 0.864 0.354 0.107
0.750 22.258 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.992 0.886 0.394 0.129
0.800 23.742 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.994 0.904 0.434 0.151
0.850 25.226 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.995 0.919 0.471 0.174
0.900 26.709 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.996 0.932 0.507 0.198
0.950 28.193 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.997 0.942 0.541 0.222
1.000 29.677 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.951 0.572 0.247
Table 15:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to 0.127g scaled Chamauli Earthquake in E-W dirn. in Shiva-
Parvati Temple
5.2.2 Jagannath Temple
Height of the observation node = 10.2317 m.
Base shear (KN) Max. Displacement of node 193

Earthquake P.G.A(g) Along Along
Along East Along North
East North
Gorkha (N-S) 0.177 - 1029.3 - 7.388
Gorkha (E-W) 0.127 961.5 - 6.714 -
Linearly scaled
Elcentro - 1410 - 15.1
to 0.177
Linearly scaled
Elcentro 1029 - 10.56 -
to 0.127
Linearly scaled
Chamauli - 1293 - 10.96
to 0.177
Linearly scaled
Chamauli 951.2 - 7.307 -
to 0.127
63
Design base shear according to codal provisions:

IS 1893:2002 4773.905 2148.26
NNBC:105 4773.905 2291.47
Fragility curves:
1. Gorkha Earthquake (N-S) (0.177g PGA)
Gorkha Earthquake(N-S)(PGA=0.177), 2015

1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
Figure 19Fragility curves due to N-S component Gorkha Earthquake in Jagannath Temple

(g) Demand
0.000 0.000 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.050 2.087 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.097 0.006 0.000 0.000
0.100 4.174 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.413 0.079 0.002 0.000
0.150 6.261 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.661 0.219 0.012 0.001
0.177 7.388 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.750 0.302 0.023 0.002
0.200 8.348 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.806 0.372 0.036 0.004
0.250 10.435 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.887 0.509 0.073 0.010
0.300 12.522 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.933 0.621 0.122 0.021
0.350 14.609 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.959 0.708 0.177 0.037
0.400 16.696 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.974 0.775 0.237 0.057
0.450 18.783 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.983 0.827 0.297 0.081
0.500 20.870 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.989 0.865 0.356 0.109
64
0.550 22.957 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.993 0.895 0.413 0.139
0.600 25.044 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.995 0.918 0.467 0.171
0.650 27.131 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.997 0.935 0.517 0.205
0.700 29.218 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.949 0.563 0.239
0.750 31.305 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.959 0.605 0.274
0.800 33.392 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.967 0.643 0.309
0.850 35.479 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.973 0.678 0.343
0.900 37.566 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.979 0.709 0.376
0.950 39.653 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.982 0.737 0.409
1.000 41.740 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.986 0.763 0.440
Table 16:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to N-S component Gorkha Earthquake in Jagannath Temple
Gorkha Earthquake(E-W)(PGA=0.127g), 2015

1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
Figure 20:Fragility curves due to E-W component Gorkha Earthquake in Jagannath Temple

(g) Demand
0.000 0.000 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.050 2.087 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.097 0.006 0.000 0.000
0.100 4.174 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.413 0.079 0.002 0.000
0.150 6.261 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.661 0.219 0.012 0.001
0.177 7.388 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.750 0.302 0.023 0.002
0.200 8.348 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.806 0.372 0.036 0.004
0.250 10.435 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.887 0.509 0.073 0.010
0.300 12.522 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.933 0.621 0.122 0.021
0.350 14.609 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.959 0.708 0.177 0.037
65
0.400 16.696 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.974 0.775 0.237 0.057
0.450 18.783 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.983 0.827 0.297 0.081
0.500 20.870 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.989 0.865 0.356 0.109
0.550 22.957 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.993 0.895 0.413 0.139
0.600 25.044 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.995 0.918 0.467 0.171
0.650 27.131 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.997 0.935 0.517 0.205
0.700 29.218 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.949 0.563 0.239
0.750 31.305 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.959 0.605 0.274
0.800 33.392 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.967 0.643 0.309
0.850 35.479 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.973 0.678 0.343
0.900 37.566 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.979 0.709 0.376
0.950 39.653 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.982 0.737 0.409
1.000 41.740 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.986 0.763 0.440
Table 17:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to E-W component Gorkha Earthquake in Jagannath Temple-
Elcentro scaled to PGA=0.177g

1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
Figure 21:Fragility curves due to 0.177g scaled Elcentro Earthquake in Jagannath Temple

(g) Demand
0.000 0.000 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.050 4.266 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.427 0.084 0.002 0.000
0.100 8.531 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.815 0.385 0.039 0.004
0.150 12.797 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.937 0.633 0.129 0.023
0.177 15.100 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.963 0.726 0.191 0.041
0.200 17.062 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.976 0.785 0.247 0.061
0.250 21.328 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.990 0.873 0.369 0.115
66
0.300 25.593 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.996 0.923 0.480 0.180
0.350 29.859 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.952 0.576 0.250
0.400 34.124 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.970 0.655 0.321
0.450 38.390 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.980 0.720 0.389
0.500 42.655 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.987 0.773 0.453
0.550 46.921 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.991 0.815 0.513
0.600 51.186 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.994 0.849 0.567
0.650 55.452 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.996 0.877 0.615
0.700 59.718 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.997 0.899 0.659
0.750 63.983 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.998 0.917 0.697
0.800 68.249 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.998 0.931 0.731
0.850 72.514 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.999 0.943 0.762
0.900 76.780 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.999 0.952 0.789
0.950 81.045 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.999 0.960 0.812
1.000 85.311 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 1.000 0.967 0.833
Table 18: Calculation of probabilities of failure due to 0.177g scaled Elcentro Earthquake in Jagannath Temple
4. Elcentro Earthquake scaled to 0.127g (E-W)
Elcentro Earthquake (PGA Saled to 0.127g)

1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
Figure 22:Fragility curves due to 0.127g scaled Elcentro Earthquake in E-W dirn. in Jagannath Temple

(g) Demand
0.000 0.000 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.050 4.157 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.411 0.078 0.002 0.000
0.100 8.315 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.805 0.370 0.035 0.004
0.127 10.560 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.891 0.516 0.076 0.011
0.150 12.472 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.932 0.618 0.120 0.021
67
0.200 16.630 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.974 0.774 0.235 0.056
0.250 20.787 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.989 0.864 0.354 0.107
0.300 24.945 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.995 0.917 0.464 0.170
0.350 29.102 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.948 0.560 0.237
0.400 33.260 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.967 0.641 0.306
0.450 37.417 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.978 0.707 0.374
0.500 41.575 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.985 0.761 0.438
0.550 45.732 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.990 0.804 0.497
0.600 49.890 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.993 0.840 0.551
0.650 54.047 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.995 0.868 0.600
0.700 58.205 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.997 0.891 0.644
0.750 62.362 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.998 0.910 0.683
0.800 66.520 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.998 0.925 0.718
0.850 70.677 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.999 0.938 0.749
0.900 74.835 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.999 0.948 0.777
0.950 78.992 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.999 0.957 0.801
1.000 83.150 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.999 0.963 0.823
Table 19:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to 0.127g scaled Elcentro Earthquake in E-W dirn. in Jagannath
Temple
5. Chamauli Earthquake scaled to 0.177g (N-S)
Chamauli (PGA scaled to 0.177g)

1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
Figure 23:Fragility curves due to 0.177g Chamauli Earthquake in Jagannath Temple

Probability of Failure at damage State (Pf)
PGA Capacity Displacement (mm)
(g) Deman
d Sligh Extensiv Complet Sligh Extensiv
Moderate Moderate Complete
t e e t e
0.000 0.000 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
68
0.050 3.096 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.247 0.030 0.000 0.000
0.100 6.192 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.655 0.214 0.012 0.001
0.150 9.288 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.849 0.437 0.051 0.006
0.177 10.960 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.901 0.539 0.085 0.013
0.200 12.384 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.931 0.614 0.118 0.020
0.250 15.480 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.966 0.738 0.202 0.044
0.300 18.576 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.983 0.822 0.291 0.078
0.350 21.672 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.991 0.878 0.379 0.120
0.400 24.768 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.995 0.915 0.460 0.167
0.450 27.864 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.997 0.940 0.533 0.217
0.500 30.960 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.957 0.598 0.268
0.550 34.056 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.969 0.654 0.320
0.600 37.153 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.978 0.703 0.370
0.650 40.249 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.983 0.745 0.418
0.700 43.345 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.988 0.780 0.463
0.750 46.441 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.991 0.811 0.506
0.800 49.537 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.993 0.837 0.546
0.850 52.633 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.995 0.859 0.584
0.900 55.729 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.996 0.878 0.618
0.950 58.825 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.997 0.895 0.650
1.000 61.921 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.997 0.908 0.679
Table 20:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to 0.177g scaled Chamauli Earthquake in Jagannath Temple
6. Chamauli Earthquake scaled to 0.127g (E-W)
Chamauli Earthquake (PGA Saled to 0.127g)

1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
Figure 24:Fragility curves due to 0.127g scaled Chamauli Earthquake in E-W dirn. in Jagannath Temple
69
(g) Demand
0.000 0.000 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.050 2.877 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.212 0.023 0.000 0.000
0.100 5.754 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.611 0.182 0.009 0.001
0.127 7.307 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.744 0.297 0.022 0.002
0.150 8.630 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.820 0.392 0.040 0.004
0.200 11.507 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.914 0.570 0.097 0.015
0.250 14.384 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.957 0.700 0.171 0.035
0.300 17.261 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.977 0.791 0.253 0.063
0.350 20.137 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.987 0.853 0.336 0.099
0.400 23.014 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.993 0.896 0.415 0.140
0.450 25.891 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.996 0.925 0.487 0.185
0.500 28.768 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.997 0.946 0.553 0.232
0.550 31.644 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.960 0.611 0.280
0.600 34.521 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.971 0.662 0.327
0.650 37.398 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.978 0.707 0.374
0.700 40.275 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.984 0.745 0.418
0.750 43.152 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.987 0.778 0.461
0.800 46.028 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.990 0.807 0.501
0.850 48.905 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.993 0.832 0.538
0.900 51.782 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.994 0.854 0.574
0.950 54.659 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.995 0.872 0.607
1.000 57.535 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.996 0.888 0.637
Table 21:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to 0.127g scaled Chamauli Earthquake in E-W dirn. in Jagannath
Temple
5.2.3 Indrapur Temple

Height of the observation node = 7.53 m.
Base shear (KN) Max. Displacement of node 111

Earthquake P.G.A(g) Along Along
Along East Along North
East North
Gorkha (N-S) 0.177 - 134.6 - 5.483
Gorkha (E-W) 0.127 125.9 - 6.098 -
Linearly scaled
Elcentro - 230.8 - 8.113
to 0.177
Linearly scaled
Elcentro 159.9 - 7.311 -
to 0.127
Linearly scaled
Chamauli - 182.5 - 6.456
to 0.177
Linearly scaled
Chamauli 144.7 - 6.784 -
to 0.127
70
Design base shear according to codal provisions:
IS 1893:2002 760.868 342.39
NNBC:105 760.868 305.86
Fragility curves:
1. Gorkha Earthquake (N-S) (0.177g PGA)

1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
Figure 25:Fragility curves due to N-S component Gorkha Earthquake in Indrapur Temple

(g) Demand
0.000 0.000 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.050 1.549 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.039 0.002 0.000 0.000
0.100 3.098 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.247 0.030 0.000 0.000
0.150 4.647 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.480 0.107 0.003 0.000
0.177 5.483 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.582 0.163 0.007 0.000
0.200 6.195 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.655 0.214 0.012 0.001
0.250 7.744 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.772 0.329 0.028 0.003
0.300 9.293 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.849 0.437 0.051 0.006
0.350 10.842 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.898 0.533 0.082 0.012
0.400 12.391 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.931 0.614 0.118 0.020
0.450 13.940 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.952 0.683 0.159 0.031
0.500 15.489 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.966 0.739 0.202 0.045
0.550 17.038 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.976 0.785 0.247 0.060
0.600 18.586 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.983 0.822 0.291 0.079
0.650 20.135 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.987 0.853 0.336 0.099
0.700 21.684 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.991 0.878 0.379 0.120
71
0.750 23.233 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.993 0.898 0.420 0.143
0.800 24.782 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.995 0.915 0.460 0.167
0.850 26.331 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.996 0.929 0.498 0.192
0.900 27.880 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.997 0.940 0.534 0.217
0.950 29.429 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.950 0.567 0.243
1.000 30.977 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.958 0.598 0.269
Table 22:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to N-S component of Gorkha Earthquake in Indrapur Temple
Gorkha Earthquake(E-W)(PGA=0.127g), 2015

1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
Figure 26:Fragility curves due to E-W component Gorkha Earthquake in Indrapur Temple

(g) Demand
0.000 0.000 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.050 2.420 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.142 0.012 0.000 0.000
0.100 4.840 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.505 0.119 0.004 0.000
0.127 6.098 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.646 0.207 0.011 0.001
0.150 7.260 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.741 0.293 0.022 0.002
0.200 9.679 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.863 0.462 0.058 0.007
0.250 12.099 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.926 0.600 0.111 0.018
0.300 14.519 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.958 0.705 0.175 0.036
0.350 16.939 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.976 0.782 0.244 0.059
0.400 19.359 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.985 0.838 0.314 0.088
0.450 21.779 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.991 0.879 0.381 0.122
0.500 24.198 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.994 0.909 0.446 0.158
0.550 26.618 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.996 0.931 0.505 0.197
0.600 29.038 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.948 0.559 0.236
72
0.650 31.458 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.960 0.608 0.277
0.700 33.878 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.969 0.651 0.317
0.750 36.298 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.976 0.690 0.356
0.800 38.717 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.981 0.725 0.394
0.850 41.137 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.985 0.756 0.431
0.900 43.557 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.988 0.783 0.466
0.950 45.977 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.990 0.807 0.500
1.000 48.397 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.992 0.828 0.532
Table 23:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to E-W component of Gorkha Earthquake in Indrapur Temple
Elcentro (PGA scaled to 0.177g)

Series1 Series2 Series3 Series4
1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
Figure 27: Fragility curves due to 0.177g scaled Elcentro Earthquake in Indrapur Temple

(g) Demand
0.000 0.000 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.050 2.887 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.213 0.024 0.000 0.000
0.100 5.774 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.613 0.183 0.009 0.001
0.150 8.661 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.822 0.394 0.041 0.005
0.177 10.220 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.881 0.496 0.069 0.009
0.200 11.548 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.915 0.572 0.098 0.015
0.250 14.435 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.957 0.702 0.173 0.035
0.300 17.322 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.978 0.792 0.255 0.064
0.350 20.209 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.988 0.854 0.338 0.100
0.400 23.096 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.993 0.897 0.417 0.141
0.450 25.983 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.996 0.926 0.490 0.186
73
0.500 28.870 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.997 0.947 0.555 0.234
0.550 31.757 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.961 0.613 0.282
0.600 34.644 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.971 0.664 0.329
0.650 37.531 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.978 0.708 0.376
0.700 40.418 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.984 0.747 0.420
0.750 43.305 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.988 0.780 0.463
0.800 46.192 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.991 0.809 0.503
0.850 49.079 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.993 0.833 0.541
0.900 51.966 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.994 0.855 0.576
0.950 54.853 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.996 0.873 0.609
1.000 57.740 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.996 0.889 0.639
Table 24:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to 0.177g scaled Elcentro Earthquake in Indrapur Temple
4. Elcentro Earthquake Scaled to 0.127g (E-W)
Elcentro Earthquake(PGA scaled to 0.127g)

1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
Figure 28:Fragility curves due to 0.127g scaled Elcentro Earthquake in E-W dirn. in Indrapur Temple

(g) Demand
0.000 0.000 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.050 2.878 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.212 0.023 0.000 0.000
0.100 5.757 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.612 0.182 0.009 0.001
0.127 7.311 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.744 0.297 0.022 0.002
0.150 8.635 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.820 0.392 0.040 0.004
0.200 11.513 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.914 0.570 0.097 0.015
0.250 14.392 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.957 0.700 0.171 0.035
0.300 17.270 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.977 0.791 0.253 0.063
0.350 20.148 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.987 0.853 0.336 0.099
0.400 23.027 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.993 0.896 0.415 0.140
74
0.450 25.905 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.996 0.925 0.488 0.185
0.500 28.783 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.997 0.946 0.553 0.232
0.550 31.662 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.961 0.611 0.280
0.600 34.540 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.971 0.662 0.328
0.650 37.419 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.978 0.707 0.374
0.700 40.297 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.984 0.745 0.418
0.750 43.175 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.987 0.779 0.461
0.800 46.054 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.990 0.807 0.501
0.850 48.932 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.993 0.832 0.539
0.900 51.810 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.994 0.854 0.574
0.950 54.689 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.995 0.872 0.607
1.000 57.567 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.996 0.888 0.637
Table 25:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to 0.127g scaled Elecntro Earthquake in E-W dirn. in Indrapur
Temple
5. Chamauli Earthquake Scaled to 0.177g (N-S)
Chamauli (PGA scaled to 0.177g)

1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
Figure 29:Fragility curves due to 0.177g scaled Chamauli Earthquake in Indrapur Temple

(g) Demand
0.000 0.000 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.050 2.678 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.181 0.018 0.000 0.000
0.100 5.356 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.568 0.154 0.006 0.000
0.150 8.035 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.789 0.350 0.031 0.003
0.177 9.481 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.856 0.449 0.055 0.007
0.200 10.713 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.895 0.525 0.079 0.011
75
0.250 13.391 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.946 0.660 0.144 0.027
0.300 16.069 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.970 0.757 0.219 0.050
0.350 18.748 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.983 0.826 0.296 0.081
0.400 21.426 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.990 0.874 0.372 0.116
0.450 24.104 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.994 0.908 0.443 0.157
0.500 26.782 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.996 0.933 0.509 0.199
0.550 29.461 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.950 0.568 0.243
0.600 32.139 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.962 0.620 0.288
0.650 34.817 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.972 0.667 0.332
0.700 37.495 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.978 0.708 0.375
0.750 40.174 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.983 0.744 0.417
0.800 42.852 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.987 0.775 0.456
0.850 45.530 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.990 0.803 0.494
0.900 48.208 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.992 0.826 0.530
0.950 50.887 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.994 0.847 0.563
1.000 53.565 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.995 0.865 0.594
Table 26:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to 0.177g scaled Chamauli Earthquake in Indrapur Temple
6. Chamauli Earthquake scaled to 0.127g (E-W)
Chamauli Earthquake(PGA scaled to 0.127g)

1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
Figure 30:Fragility curves due to 0.127g scaled Chamauli Earthquake in E-W dirn. in Indrapur Temple.

(g) Demand
0.000 0.000 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.050 2.671 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.180 0.018 0.000 0.000
0.100 5.342 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.566 0.153 0.006 0.000
0.127 6.784 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.705 0.258 0.017 0.001
76
0.150 8.013 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.788 0.348 0.031 0.003
0.200 10.683 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.894 0.524 0.079 0.011
0.250 13.354 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.945 0.658 0.143 0.027
0.300 16.025 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.970 0.756 0.217 0.050
0.350 18.696 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.983 0.825 0.295 0.080
0.400 21.367 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.990 0.873 0.370 0.116
0.450 24.038 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.994 0.908 0.441 0.155
0.500 26.709 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.996 0.932 0.507 0.198
0.550 29.380 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.949 0.566 0.242
0.600 32.050 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.962 0.619 0.286
0.650 34.721 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.971 0.665 0.330
0.700 37.392 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.978 0.706 0.373
0.750 40.063 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.983 0.742 0.415
0.800 42.734 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.987 0.774 0.455
0.850 45.405 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.990 0.801 0.492
0.900 48.076 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.992 0.825 0.528
0.950 50.746 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.994 0.846 0.561
1.000 53.417 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 1.000 0.995 0.864 0.593
Table 27:Calculation of probabilities of failure due to 0.127g scaled Chamauli Earthquake in E-W dirn. in Indrapur
Temple
5.3 Analysis with scaled up accelerogram
The analysis methodologies followed until now conducted the analysis using the
accelerograms with their amplitudes being linearly scaled up to certain PGA. From the
seismic hazard analysis map of Nepal, it is shown that PGA for 10% probability of
exceedence in 50 years (return period 475 years) is expected to be 0.45g in Kathmandu
Valley (Shrestha, 2014). Thus, an additional analysis was carried out on Shiva-Parvati
Temple, to study the expected vulnerability at 0.45 PGA level. For this, the N-S
component of Gorkha Earthquake with PGA 0.177g was linearly scaled to 0.45g. The
results of analysis and corresponding fragility curves are presented below:
Height of the displacement observation node = 6.17 m.

Base shear along
Max. Displacement of node
Earthquake P.G.A(g) North-South
6360 along north.(mm)
direction.(KN)
Linearly
Gorkha 16.85
Scaled 1102
(N-S)
to 0.45
Table 28:Base shear and displacement response of Shiva-Parvati temple subjected to N-S component of Gorkha
Earthquake(0.177g) with PGA scaled up to 0.45g.
77
Fragility Curves:
Gorkha Earthquake(PGA scaled to 0.45g), 2015

1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
PGA (G)
Figure 31: Fragility curves due to 0.45g scaled N-S component of Gorkha Earthquake in Shiva-Parvati Temple.

(g) Demand
0.000 0.000 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.050 1.872 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.071 0.004 0.000 0.000
0.100 3.744 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.349 0.057 0.001 0.000
0.150 5.617 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.597 0.172 0.008 0.001
0.200 7.489 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.756 0.310 0.024 0.002
0.250 9.361 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.852 0.441 0.053 0.006
0.300 11.233 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.908 0.555 0.091 0.014
0.350 13.106 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.942 0.647 0.137 0.025
0.400 14.978 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.962 0.721 0.188 0.040
0.450 16.850 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.975 0.780 0.241 0.058
0.500 18.722 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.983 0.825 0.295 0.080
0.550 20.594 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.989 0.861 0.349 0.105
0.600 22.467 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.992 0.889 0.400 0.132
0.650 24.339 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.994 0.911 0.449 0.160
0.700 26.211 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.996 0.928 0.495 0.190
0.750 28.083 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.997 0.942 0.538 0.221
0.800 29.956 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.953 0.578 0.252
0.850 31.828 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.998 0.961 0.615 0.283
0.900 33.700 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.968 0.648 0.314
0.950 35.572 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.974 0.679 0.344
1.000 37.444 4.801 10.287 26.416 45.974 0.999 0.978 0.707 0.374
Table 29: Calculation of probabilities of failure due to 0.45g scaled N-S component of Gorkha Earthquake in Shiva-
Parvati Temple.
78
5.4 Summary of the fragility analysis
The expected damage states indicated by fragility curves are summarized below:
1. Shiva Parvati temple

Base Probability of failure (%) Expected
Earthquake Shear
Damage State
(KN) Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
Gorkha (N-S) 68.9 24.3 1.5 0.1
435.4
(0.177g) Slight
Gorkha (E-W) 16.3 1.5 0 0
280.4
(0.127g) Slight
Elcentro
(Linearly scaled 659.5 94.2 64.8 13.7 2.5 Slight-
to 0.177g)(N-S) Moderate
Elcentro
(Linearly scaled 336.3 24.3 2.9 0 0
to 0.127g)(E-W) Slight
Chamauli
(Linearly scaled 498.3 75.9 31.3 2.5 0.2
to 0.177g)(N-S) Slight
Chamauli
(Linearly scaled 337.2 35.3 5.8 0.1 0
Gorkha (N-S)
1102 97.5 78.0 24.1 5.8 Moderate
(Linearly scaled
to 0.45g)
Table 30: Summary of fragility analysis for Shiva Parvati Temple.
2. Jagannath temple
Base Probability of failure (%)
Earthquake Expected Damage
Shear
(0.177 PGA) State
Gorkha (N-S)
1029.3 75 30.2 2.3 0.2
(0.177g) Slight
Gorkha (E-W)
961.5 70 25.2 1.6 0.1
(0.177g) Slight
Elcentro
(Linearly scaled 1410 96.3 72.6 19.1 4.1
to 0.177g)(N-S) Slight-Moderate
Elcentro
(Linearly scaled 1029 89.1 51.6 7.6 1.1
to 0.127g)(E-W) Slight-Moderate
79
Chamauli
(Linearly scaled 1329 90.1 53.9 8.5 1.3
to 0.177g)(N-S) Slight-Moderate
Chamauli
(Linearly scaled 951.2 74.4 29.7 2.2 0.2
Table 31: Summary of fragility analysis for Jagannath Temple.
3. Indrapur temple
Base Probability of failure (%) Expected
Earthquake Shear
Damage State
Gorkha (N-S)
134.6 58.2 16.3 0.7 0
(0.177g) Slight
Gorkha (E-W)
125.9 64.6 20.7 1.1 0.1
(0.177g) Slight
Elcentro
(Linearly scaled 230.8 88.1 50 6.9 0.9 Slight-
to 0.177g) (N-S) Moderate
Elcentro
(Linearly scaled 159.9 74.4 29.7 2.2 0.2
to 0.127g) (E-W) Slight
Chamauli
(Linearly scaled 182.5 85.6 44.9 5.5 0.7
to 0.177g) (N-S) Slight
Chamauli
(Linearly scaled 144.7 70.5 25.8 1.7 0.1
to 0.127g) (E-W) Slight
Table 32: Summary of fragility analysis for Indrapur Temple.
The comparative results can now be presented.

The main focus of study being the expected damage vs observed damage due to the
eartuquake of April 25th 2015, the results are interpreted at the beginning.
Damage States
Structure
Expected Observed
Shiva Parvati Temple Gorkha (N-S), 0.177g Slight Moderate
Gorkha (E-W),
Slight Moderate
0.127g
Jagannath Temple Gorkha (N-S), 0.177g Slight Slight
Gorkha (E-W),
Slight Slight
0.127g
Indrapur Temple Gorkha (N-S), 0.177g Slight Slight
Gorkha (E-W),
Slight Slight
0.127g
Table 33:Comparison between expected and observed damage states due to Gorkha(N-S) and Gorkha(E-W)
earthquakes.
80
Had there not been the occurrence of earthquake, yet the damage states could have been
predicted using other existing accelerograms. The accelerograms Elcentro and
Chamauli show the following comparative results:
Damage States
Structure Accelerogram Observed due to
Expected
Gorkha Earthquke
Shiva Parvati Elcentro, scaled to 0.177g Slight-
Moderate
Temple (N-S) Moderate
Elcentro scaled to 0.127g
Slight Moderate
(E-W)
Chamauli, scaled to 0.177g
Slight Moderate
(N-S)
Chamauli scaled to 0.127g
Slight Moderate
(E-W)
Elcentro, scaled to 0.177g Slight-
Jagannath Temple Slight
(N-S) Moderate
Elcentro scaled to 0.127g Slight-
Slight
(E-W) Moderate
Chamauli, scaled to 0.177g Slight-
Slight
(N-S) Moderate
Slight Slight
(E-W)
Elcentro, scaled to 0.177g Slight-
Indrapur Temple Slight
(N-S) Moderate
Elcentro scaled to 0.127g
Slight Slight
(E-W)
Chamauli, scaled to 0.177g
Slight
(N-S) Slight
Slight
(E-W) Slight
Table 34: Comparison between expected and observed damage states due to linearly scaled El-Centro and Chamauli
earthqukes.
5.5 Conclusion and Discussions
Three historic structures Shiva Parvati Temple, Jagannath temple and Indrapur temple
were analyzed after an earthquake with 0.177g lateral peak ground acceleration on 25th
April 2015 hit Nepal. The main motive behind the research was to review an existing
methodology of vulnerability analysis. The method, also known as mechanical method
of vulnerability analysis involves the development of fragility curves to indicate the
damage state, the structure is likely to suffer for a given PGA. The main idea was to
make a comparison of actually observed damage state in the earthquake vs expected
damage obtained by fragility curves so that the reliability of the methodology used to
analyze number of other historic structures could be tested. Additionally, linear static
81
analysis was conducted to verify whether the design base shear suggested by the codes
(IS 1893: 2002 and NNBC: 105) is sufficient for the structures to bear the base shear
due to 25th April 2015 or not and also make a comparison between codal provisions of
IS 1893:2002 and NNBC:105.
As the time-periods of the SAP 2000 V15 modals of the structures under study were
compared with the ones suggested by IS 1893:2002 and NNBC:105 codes, it is found
that the time period of Shiva-Parvati temple is 83% of the codal values (i.e. 0.308 sec.
as per both codes) along North-South direction and is same as the codal values along
East-West direction (i.e. 0213 as per both codes). Time-Period of modal of Jagannath
temple is 73% of the codal values along both directions (i.e 0.359sec. as per both codes).
For Indrapur temple, the time-period of the structure according to the codal provisions
is 0.517sec., while of the modal at the mode of maximum mass participation (42%),
as seen in table 6, is only 33% of the codal values in both directions while the time-
period of the modal at the mode of second maximum mass participation (25%) is
about 75% of the values suggested by the codes. The values of the time-periods given
by both the codes uses same formulation and hence are same.
The maximum base shear in the structures are induced along North-South directions.
Base shear induced in the structures due to the Gorkha earthquake of April 25th, 2015,
are well within the design base shear suggested by both the codes. However, the base
shear due to Elcentro, scaled to the PGA of Gorkha earthquake (0.177g), along North-
South direction in Shiva Parvati temple, exceeds the base shear calculated from IS
1893:2002 code by 28% while is still lower than the base shear calculated from
NNBC:105 by 28%.
The displacement response of the structures along North-South direction is higher than
East-West due to the greater PGA of north component of Gorkha earthquake at the site.
Though being at the same PGA level, the responses of different earthquake ground
motion showed different responses in terms of displacement and base shear. This is
because of their different frequency contents, which further shows that analysis of
structure with only one accelerogram might become insufficient to represent the exact
vulnerability. Comparing the base shears and displacement responses shown by the
analysis, it can also be concluded that for the same PGA level, nature of Gorkha
82
Earthquake is less vulnerable than Elcentro and Chamauli ground motions for these
structures. The following table shows the amplitude of frequency component in each
accelerogram that matches with the natural fundamental frequency of the structures. It
is seen that, higher the amplitude of the frequency component that matches with the
buidings natural frequency, higher is the response of the structure in terms of
displacement. Thus, in east-west direction of Shiva-Parvati temple, Chamauli shows
greater displacement response than El-centro and Gorkha (N-S), because its fourier
amplitude is higher that El-Centro and Gorkha (N-S), as evident from the table. And,
for the remaining cases El-Centro shows maximum response [refer sec. 4.2.1, 4.2.2,
4.2.3 for the responses]
Fundamental Fundamental Elcentro Chamauli Gorkha

Structure
Time-Period (t) frequency (1/t) (N-S) (N-S) (N-S)
Shiva-Parvati
0.2549 3.92 0.003256 0.00119 0.000085
Temple
Jagannath
0.2621 3.81 0.002314 0.001664 0.0000818
Temple
Indrapur
0.1664 6.00 0.002984 0.00041 0.0000605
Temple
Table 35:Amplitudes of frequency components in respective N-S components of accelerograms, dominant at natural
vibration modes of the structures in N-S direction.
Fundamental Fundamental Elcentro Chamauli Gorkha

Structure
Time-Period (t) frequency (1/t) (E-W) (E-W) (E-W)
Shiva-Parvati
0.2137 4.67 0.0009844 0.00136 0.000085
Temple
Jagannath
0.2614 3.82 0.0016603 0.001191 0.000087
Temple
Indrapur
0.1745 5.73 0.002224 0.000354 0.000094
Temple
Table 36: Amplitudes of frequency components in respective E-W components of accelerograms, dominant at
natural vibration modes of the structures in E-W direction.
After the complete analysis, the following conclusion can be arrived at.
 Fragility curves have represented closely the observed damage states [refer. Sec.
4.1] in case of Jagannath and Indrapur temple and small deviations were
observed in case of Shiva-Parvati temple. However, making majority of the
results as the basis, it can be concluded that in case of these structures the results
of fragility curves are applicable to assess their vulnerability.
 Additionally, the results of the analysis carried out with the Gorkha Earthquake
(N-S direction) being scaled up to 0.45g with one of the structure i.e Shiva-
Parvati temple indicate that the structure could have suffered Moderate level of
damage [refer. Table 30] and the base shear would have increased by 666.6 KN
83
in addition to the base shear due to N-S component of Gorkha earthquake with
0.177 PGA that occurred in 25th April, 2015.
5.6 Recommendations for future work
 As statistics require minimum three nos. of data for any result to be interpreted,
three structures are studied here. However, to improve results for reliability of
this mechanical method of analysis still more analysis can be performed on the
historic structures that have not suffered damages due to the earthquake.
 Due to insufficient data the partial rigidity between timber connection have been
assumed hinged. For better and accurate results, it is further recommended to
study the rigidity of such connections and re-conduct the analysis to study the
variations of the results.
 It is to be noted that unreinforced brick masonry in historic strucrures have
brittle mud mortar joints and it suddenly enters into non-linear zone. Once the
wall cracks, it doesn’t play role to resist loads in the same direction. Thus it is
recommended to analyze the structures considering non-linearity of the
materials.
84
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] S. G. Shrestha, "Seismic Vulnerability Analysis of Traditional Brick Masonry

Buildings," Masters Thesis, I.O.E, 2013.
[2] G. Scheibler, Building Today in a Historical Context, Bhaktapur, Nepal, Zurich:

Ratna Pustak Bhandar, 1982.
[3] K. Poudel, "Kathmandu Valley Quake: Real Risk," New SpotLight News
Magazine, vol. 07, no. 14, 2014.
[4] H. R. Parajuli, P. N. Maskey and H. Taniguchi, "Parametric Study and Dynamic

Analysis of a Historical Masonry Building of Kathmandu," Disaster Mitigation
of Cultural Heritage and Historic Cities, vol. 4, July 2010.
[5] P. N. Maskey, "Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Unreinforced Brick

Masonry Buildings of Nepal.," Research Paper, Center for Applied Research and
Development (CARD), 2012.
[6] S. Lagomarsino and S. Giovinazzi, "Macroseismic and mechanical models for the
vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings," Springer
Science+Buisness Media B.V, vol. 4, pp. 415-443, 2006.
[7] HAZUS-MH-MR3, "Multi-hazards Loss Estimation Methodology, Technical

Manual," Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washingtom D.C, 2003.
[8] S. Giovinazzi and S. Lagomarsino, "A Macroseismic Method for the

Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings," in 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 2004.
[9] B. A, P. S and P. S, "In-plane stiffness of wooden floor," in NZSEE, 2008.
[10] H. R. Parajuli, "Determination of mechanical properties of the Kathmandu World

Heritage brick masonry buildings," 15 WCEE, LISBOA, 2009.
85
[11] Computers & Structures INC., "CSi Analysis Reference Manual".
[12] "Design of Structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1: General rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings," European Standard, 2004.
[13] J. A. A. a. J. D. Bommer, "The selection and scaling of real earthquake

accelerograms for use in seismic desing and assessment," in Proceedings of ACI
International Conference on Seismic Bridge Design and Retrofit, Amrerican
Concrete Institute, La Jolla, California, U.S.A, 2003.
[14] Donangun, Adem and H. Sezen, "Seismic Vulnerability and Preservation of

Historical Masonry Monumental Structures," Earthquakke and Structures , vol.
3, pp. 83-95, 2012.
[15] T. Nakata, "Active faults of the Himalayas of India and Nepal," Geological
Society of America, Special Paper, vol. 32, pp. 232-243, 1989.
[16] B. P. Lourenco, G. J. Rots and J. Blaauwendraad, "Two approaches for the

analysis of masonry structures: micro and macro-modelling," HERON, vol. 40,
no. 4, 1995.
[17] S. Shrestha, "Seismic Vulnerability of a Historic Timber Masonry Monumental

Building in Nepal," Masters thesis, I.O.E, 2014.
[18] P. Dangol, Elements of Nepalese Architecture, 2011.
86
ANNEX I:
ARCHIITECTURAL DRAWING OF STRUCTURES
87
Shiva-Parvati Temple
88
Jagannath Temple
11.16 m
Front Elevation View Sectional View
Average thickness = 0.8m
8.4 m
Average thickness = 0.688m
8.4 m
Plan View
89
Indrapur Temple
10.285 m
Front Elevation View Section View
5.57 m
Average thickness = 0.635 m
3.49 m
Plan View
90
ANNEX II
OBSERVED DAMAGES OF THE STUDIED STRUCTURES
91
Shiva Parvati Temple:
Figure 32: East face
Figure 35: Out-of-Plane movement of North face

wall on 1st floor
Figure 34: West Face on 1st floor
Figure 33:Close view of the tilted wall
92
Figure 36: 45mm crack at horn level of window on east face.
Figure 37: West face wall.

93
Jagannath Temple
Figure 39: East face wall.
94
Indrapur temple
Figure 41: North face wall.
Figure 42: East face wall.
95

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

Thesis No: S04/070

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Historic Structures (A Review of Existing

SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOT THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Department of Civil Engineering

Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... 8

1.1 Background ................................................................................................... 12

1.2 Need of the study........................................................................................... 13

1.3 Research Objective ........................................................................................ 14

1.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 15

1.5 Scope and limitations of the study ................................................................ 17

1.6 Report organization ....................................................................................... 18

2. DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED STRUCTURES ................................................ 20

2.1 Shiva Parvati temple...................................................................................... 20

2.2 Jagannath temple ........................................................................................... 20

2.3 Indrapur temple ............................................................................................. 21

2.4 Location Map ................................................................................................ 22

3. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 23

3.1 Seismic Vulnerability Analysis ..................................................................... 23

3.2 Fragility Curves ............................................................................................. 25

3.3 Modal Analysis ............................................................................................. 28

3.4 Linear Static Method of Analysis.................................................................. 29

3.5 Linear Time-History Analysis ....................................................................... 30

4. BUILDING MODELLING AND ANALYSIS .................................................... 33

4.1 Modelling ...................................................................................................... 33

4.1.1 Masonry Element ....................................................................................... 34

4.1.3 Material Properties .................................................................................... 37

4.1.4 Overview of Modelling ............................................................................. 37

4.2 Load Calculation ........................................................................................... 38

4.3 Modal Analysis ............................................................................................. 41

4.4 Time History Analysis .................................................................................. 43

4.5 Linear Static Analysis. .................................................................................. 49

4.5.1 Shiva Parvati Temple................................................................................. 49

4.5.2 Jagannath temple ....................................................................................... 52

4.5.3 Indrapur temple.......................................................................................... 53

5. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 55

5.1 Observed Damage States ............................................................................... 55

5.2 Expected Damage States ............................................................................... 56

5.2.1 Shiva Parvati Temple................................................................................. 57

5.2.2 Jagannath Temple ...................................................................................... 63

5.2.3 Indrapur Temple ........................................................................................ 70

5.3 Analysis with scaled up accelerogram .......................................................... 77

5.4 Summary of the fragility analysis ................................................................. 79

5.5 Conclusion and Discussions .......................................................................... 81

5.6 Recommendations for future work ................................................................ 84

ANNEX I: Architectural drawing of structures ........................................................... 87

ANNEX II: Observed damages of the structures ......................................................... 91

Figure 1: Shiva Parvati Temple ................................................................................... 20

Table 1:Comparasion of expected vs observed damage state at 0.177PGA using

In 1934 January, a major earthquake, Known as the Great Nepal-Bihar Earthquake

1.2 Need of the study

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of historical structures are recently being practiced

Macroseismic method is an observed damage based vulnerability method. This method

1.3 Research Objective

2. To perform linear time history analysis of the selected historical structures.

3. To determine the maximum displacement and maximum base shear in the