TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS

TITLE PAGE

B/C Analysis Of Retrofit And Earthquake Resistant Techniques With Existing Conventional Techniques
by Ram Mani Ghimire (068/MSD/363) Ram Prasad Neupane (068/MSD/364) Sweta Amatya (068/MSD/369)

A PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER IN DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING LALITPUR, NEPAL

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research would never have carried out without the contribution of many individuals and organizations, to which we have the pleasure of expressing appreciations and gratitude. First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to our supervisor Dr. Jishnu Subedi for his valuable suggestions, indelible encouragement and guidance during the project work. I extend my gratitude to all faculty members and colleague of Disaster Risk Management Program, Pulchwok Campus, for their comments, suggestions for the study. We are also very grateful to Asso. Prof. Hari Darshan Shrestha and Mr. Nagendra Raj Sitoula, Program Co ordinator, Disaster Risk Management, IOE, Pulchowk Campus for providing us the valuable suggestions during our study period. We would like to thank all our friends and colleagues for their productive discussion and constructive suggestions, which helped in creative and conclusive thinking during our study period. Finally, we would like to thank all family members for their continuous inspiration, support and affection throughout the study period and thanks to all those unmentioned who helped us directly and/or indirectly in completion of this thesis work.

ABSTRACT In the context of Nepal also, disasters is one of the major concerns for development effort. Cities like Kathmandu have been urbanized but not in a way to enhance development, but rather to invite disasters. On the other hand, these built up structures has created concrete jungle in urban set up which are not even properly built in terms of engineering perspective. On top of that most of the buildings residing on it are not well structured due to weak implication of building code. This has led to the threatening fact of being trapped during disaster such as earthquake. This study could assist in clear visualization of importance of building code in terms of economic as well as safety perspective which can ultimately help to regulate building code in practicality. Main objective of our project is to evaluate the different technologies of construction i.e. Conventional techniques, Earthquake resistant techniques(MRT followed) and retrofit

techniques in terms of monetary value. And main aim of making the urban dwellers convinced to use more safer techniques(MRT and Retrofit) is based on benefit and cost analysis. On the basis of European Damage Grade Scale the loss and damage due to different level of earthquake is considered and this loss amount in different construction techniques analyzed and compared with the extra investment for changing Non MRT building to MRT or Retrofitted. The total cost was composed up of the major components like Structural, Non Structural, Service and Functional. Different components like Structural, Non Structural, Service and Functional are considered and comparatively analyzed in terms of money. Comparative analysis finally provide us with the distinct figure of per unit cost of each techniques and benefit cost ratio of two techniques with the conventional one providing us the strong base to inspire people for Building Code implementation.

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................. i CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 RATIONALE ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 MAIN OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 2 1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY ..................................................................................................... 3 1.5 LIMITATION ....................................................................................................................... 3 1.6 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 CURRENT CONSTRUCTION TREND AND CONVENTIONAL BUILDINGS ............. 5 2.2 MRT AND MRT FOLLOWED BUILDINGS ..................................................................... 5 2.3 RETROFITTING AND RETROFIT BUILDING ................................................................ 6 2.4 DAMAGE GRADE .............................................................................................................. 9 2.5. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................. 12 3.1 COST ANALYSIS OF MRT FOLLOWED BUILDINGS ................................................ 12 3.2 COST ANALYSIS OF NON-MRT BUILDINGS ............................................................. 17 3.3 COST ESTIMATION OF RETROFIT BUILDINGS ........................................................ 21 3.4 FUNCTIONAL COST ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 24 3.5 DAMAGE GRADE ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 25 CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................. 32 4.1 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 32 4.2 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 35
i

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 37 ANNEXES ....................................................................................................................................... i

ii

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

CHAPTER 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION Disasters are situations or events which overwhelm local capacity, necessitating a request to national or international level for assistance. Disasters and the way their risk is managed have become the subject of increasing research and debate in recent years. This heightened interest is because of the fact that the world has witnessed more disasters in the recent years and the people have become more vulnerable to them. In the context of Nepal also, disasters is one of the major concerns for development effort. Urbanization, which is understood as a milestone towards development, is also increasing disaster risk in Nepal.. Cities have been urbanized but not in a way to enhance development, but rather to invite disasters.Those open spaces and circulation routes have been engulfed by builtstructures. On the other hand, these built up structures has created concrete jungle in urban set up which are not even properly built in terms of engineering perspective. This has lead to the threatening fact of being trapped during disaster such as earthquake. On the other hand, it is the known fact that Nepal lies in 11th position in earthquake prone country. On top of that, those un-engineered built-up structures have enhanced threat to life of people during disaster. People tend to build such structures due to lack of awareness regarding its consequences. There are many such buildings which lack proper structure that can withstand earthquake shocks in urban set up. This depicts on the fact thatEarthquake does not kill people, building does. Houses are one of the basic needs of people all over the world and humankind is constructing it from the start of civilization. Although the technology has been evolved from long time, the buildings are often exposed to different kinds of hazards. In Nepal, people intend to make their houses aesthetically beautiful and functionally useful, but the houses often lack necessary provision for safety to disasters like earthquake. People prefer to construct reinforced concrete structures with their traditional knowledge which, although suitable for traditional materials, makes the structure vulnerable to earthquake. The main rational behind such construction is that earthquake safer buildings are not economical.

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

There are many existing buildings which are not safe during earthquake and require strengthening and retrofitting. The purpose of this project is to carry out the cost benefit analysis of different reinforced concrete (RCC) structures constructed using conventional and earthquake resistant technology and also to obtain cost required for retrofitting of the buildings. The project area under our study is Kathmandu valley. There are different typologies of buildings in Kathmandu from historical time to present. We have considered the only the residential RCC structures less than three storey. The buildings were sampled as per building typology but not as per location basis.

1.2 RATIONALE
In terms of disaster perspective, urban areas are in vulnerable condition. On top of that most of the buildings residing on it are not well structured due to weak implication of building code. This study could assist in clear visualization of importance of building code in terms of economic as well as safety purpose which can ultimately help to regulate building code in practicality.

1.2 MAIN OBJECTIVES

The main objective of the project work is compare cost of construction of RCC structure with conventional technology and with technology and specifications defined in Nepal Building Code with Mandatory Rule of Thumb (MRT). The project work also analyzes the cost requirement for retrofitting of the structures which are not safe during earthquakes. The specific objectives are as follows: To assess the structural, non-structural and functional cost for different buildings in Kathmandu To assess the cost required for construction of following types of buildings: Conventional Building (Non-MRT Building) MRT Building Retrofit Building

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

To conduct comparative cost analysis of above mentioned buildings in terms of their structural, non-structural and functional

1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

It has been felt that buildings on urbanscape have not only taken away the essence of real urban beauty rather unengineered buildings are intending to invite risk at the time of disaster. On the other hand people are much more intended towards conventional building in terms of initial cost. So, the project will focus on assessing the benefit cost analysis which can help to figure out actual benefit incurred by different construction techniques.

1.5 LIMITATION
Analysis has been carried out for damage grade analysis which is majorly based on European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98) Damage percentage of structural, non-structural and functional entity concerning damage grade are based upon literature Study focuses on residential buildings only Minimum sample size has been considered since detail rate analysis of samples has to be carried out in a short period of time. Retrofitting estimates are only based on Draft report of Retrofitting Guidelines by CoRD, MRB and UNDP

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

1.6 METHODOLOGY
Study has been carried out within research criteria which are better explained through following flowchart:

B/C Analysis of Retrofit and Earthquake Resistant Techniques with Existing Conventional Techniques Literature Review Data Collection Primary Data
Non- MRT Building MRT Building

Secondary Data
Retrofit Building Guidelines Damage Grade NBC-201(MRT)

Data Processing
Cost Estimation

Data Analysis
Cost Comparison B/C analysis

Final Report

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

CHAPTER 2
2.1 CURRENT CONSTRUCTION TREND AND CONVENTIONAL BUILDINGS
Peeping into the history of architecture of Nepal, building got its shape with load bearing structure with brick and mud mortar in it. With the pace towards modernity such trend has been changed into reinforced concrete framed structure in urban and semi-urban areas of Nepal. For the last 15 to 20 years there has been rise in reinforced concrete (RC) framed structure. Most of these buildings have been built on the advice of mid-level technicians and masons without any professional design input. On the other hand, if it is designed with engineering perspective also it is limited till municipality procedure only to get building permit. But on ground building is strengthened with the advice of mid-level technicians. Due to such reason, these building have been found to be most significantly vulnerable to a level of earthquake shaking which may result into loss of life and property at the time of earthquake.

2.2 MRT AND MRT FOLLOWED BUILDINGS

Construction trend in present context reflects on the fact that buildings are of unengineered construction and it has not been built as per structural consent, inviting vulnerability and loss of life and property. In order to address these consequences Mandatory Rules of Thumb (MRT) has been developed by Department of Urban Development and Building Construction. MRT building is one which uses the sizes and detailing of structural and non-structural elements, including the amount of reinforcement, which has been pre-established using standard design procedures for the given condition. All the buildings constructed by following requirements of MRT can be called as Pre-Engineered Building. Main objective of MRT is to provide ready to use dimensions and details for various structural and non-structural elements for upto three storied reinforced concrete framed,

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

ordinary residential buildings commonly being built by owner-builders in Nepal using brick infill wall. Standard design Criteria followed by MRT are as follows: Building should have regular column- beam with reinforced concrete slabs for roof and floors Area of slab panel shall not be more than 13.5 sq.m. Maximum height of the structure should be 11m or 3 storeys whichever is less. Within 11m height there may be an additional storey of smaller plan area whose area should not exceed 25% of the typical floor area Foundation shall be at uniform level Sill and lintel band must be provided Strap beam must be provided at foundation Plinth area should not be more than 1000 sq.ft. Column to column span should not be greater than 4.5m X 3m

2.3 RETROFITTING AND RETROFIT BUILDING

Buildings are of varied category and their coping capacity differs with its structural stiffness. Considering the seismic capacity of the buildings, response of old as well as unengineered buildings are considered to be vulnerable. Therefore, to re-strengthen such buildings additional structural strength is added with added reinforcement and concrete where needed. This procedure is called Retrofitting. Retrofit can be carried out in both reinforced as well as load bearing structures. Retrofit option for RC structures is costlier than in load bearing structure. Different techniques used for seismically deficit RC structures are as follows: a. Jacketing of structural members b. Addition of extra structural members c. Addition of energy dissipation device

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

a. Jacketing of structural members Various methods of jacketing of structural members are as follows: i. Concrete Jacketing:

Enlargement of structural members such as columns / beams section by placing reinforcement around its periphery and then concreting it is called Concrete Jacketing. It increases structure size and stiffness.

ii.

Steel Jacketing:

Jacketing of columns / beams with steel angles, band and channels are called Steel Jacketing. It does not increase the size of the structural members whereas it increases its

stiffness.

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

Fig.Steel Jacketing iii. Fiber reinforced polymer Jacketing: FRP jacketing is the modern technology of Jacketing reinforced concrete. Retrofit with FRP panel can be done with much ease. These are excellent option because of their high tensile strength, light weight, resistance to corrosion, high durability and ease to install. b. Addition of extra structural members: In this technology, shear wall is added in between column. Shear wall is constructed from the foundation level. Instead of this, column bracing could also

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

be used.

c. Addition of energy dissipation device: Energy Dissipation Device is Passive Seismic Control System. Viscous fluid damper and tuned mass dampers are passive seismic control system.

PhotoReferences: Seismic Retrofitting Guidelines of Building in Nepal (UNDP, CoRD and MRB & Associates Proposed Draft report)

2.4 DAMAGE GRADE

Post earthquake has numerous effects ranging from social to physical effect. Among physical effect damage on building is the one. There is various kind of damage that is found on structure and damage grade helps in describing the building damage patterns by seismic vulnerability. This helps investigators to classify building damaged without a gross error. The Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) proposed the guidelines for postearthquake investigations for the purpose of improving the science and practice of earthquake engineering and earthquake hazard reduction. According to EERI damage grade has been classified on six different categories for different types of buildings ranging from masonry, wood frame, and reinforced concrete with moment-resisting concrete frame. Among these RCC framed structure has been categorized as enlisted in table below:

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

RC buildings Damage rank Architectural Institute of Japan Rank 0:No damage Rank 1:Negligible damage (Hair line cracks in columns and beams of frame) Rank 2:Slight damage (Shear cracks in non-structural walls) Rank 3:Moderate damage (Shear cracks in columns and beams and in structural walls) Rank 4:Major damage (Spalling of concrete cover, Buckling of reinforced rods) Rank 5:Collapse (Collapse of total or parts of building)

1. Fall of pieces, 2.GF failure, 3.Mid-floor failure, 4. Upper floor failure, 5. Pancake collapse 6. Multiple factures Fig.: Typical damage pattern of reinforced concrete with moment-resting concrete frame buildings In the study carried out damage grade has been categorized into three classes as given in table below: Damage Grade Based on European Macroseismic Scale: Percentage of Damage in different components Category of Damage Average Range of Damgae damage index Minor Moderate Damage to 0-0.2 0.1 0.4 0.8 0% 20% 60% 20% 60% 100% 0% 40% 100% 0% 40% 100% Index Struct ural Non Structur al Servic es Funct ional

S.N.

1 2 3

Moderate to heavy Damage 0.2-0.6 Major Damage 0.6-1

10

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

2.5. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS (B/C Analysis):

Cost benefit analysis (CBA), sometimes called benefitcost analysis (BCA), is a systematic process for calculating and comparing benefits and costs of a project, decision or government policy. CBA has two purposes: 1. To determine if it is a sound investment/decision (justification/feasibility), 2. To provide a basis for comparing projects. It involves comparing the total expected cost of each option against the total expected benefits, to see whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and by how much. The benefit cost ratio for our case is calculated as follows:

(Loss in Non MRT - Loss in MRT Buildings) B/C Ratio= (Difference between MRT and Non MRT Cost )

11

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

CHAPTER 3
3.1 COST ANALYSIS OF MRT FOLLOWED BUILDINGS
During the study, 6 MRT building has been considered. Among them 3 of them were detail estimated and three of them were analyzed from questionnaire with owner, contractor and engineer. On the field following features has been found in MRT buildings: Column spanning : 10-9 to 14-9 Column size : 9 X 12 Footing size : 5 X 5 X 5.5 Beam size with slab: 9 X 1-2 and 9 X 15 Slab thickness : 5 Reinforcement Detail : Column : Main Bar : 4-12dia + 4-16dia, 8-16dia, 6-16dia Beam : Main bar : 4-16dia +2-12dia Stirrups : Column: 8dia-4L : Beam: 8dia 2L Slab : Main bar: 10dia @6 c/c ; Distribution bar : 8dia @ 6c/c Top bar 10 dia, @ 12c/c and binder 8 dia.@ 9c/c

12

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

S. N.

OWNER

LOCATI ON

BUILTUP AREA

PLINTH AREA

NO. OF STO REY 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 2.5 3.5

STRUCT URAL COST (RS/SQ.F T.) 1119.92 1207.74 1239.24 1236.60 1318.55 1163.33 1214.23

NONSTRUCTU RAL

SERVIC E COST

AVER AGE

NAME 1 2 3 4 5 6 BHUSAN GAUTAM ABHAYA YADAV BHABANA THAPA SHYAM PAUDEL NARAYAN SAPKOTA ENGINEER AVERAGE COST BALUW ATAR GAURIG HAT NAXAL DHUMB ARAHI BALUW ATAR DHUMB ARAHI

(S.FT.) 2420.56 2370.56 3203 3639 2706 3000

(S.FT.) 915 915 1291 1072 1111 810

COST (RS) 1280.70 2425.27 1143.08 1400.00 1390.00 1206.67 1474.29

(RS) 389.37 439.56 357.35 398.46 406.50 233.33 370.76

(RS) 2789. 99 4072. 57 2739. 67 3035. 06 3115. 06 2603. 33 3059. 28

Fig. MRT followed buildings Today generally new constructions are made following the codes and standards prepared. During our field visit we collect information from three areas of concerns i.e. home owners, contractors, consultant engineers. Some buildings were estimated in details as shown below to find out what amount of cost is incurred in construction by following the MRT guidelines. Generally we found that the view of people is changing from past to present for making their structure safe and resilient and they are referring to engineers suggestions and supervision during the construction period. We can take it as a progressive step which would help all the urban residential to learn from them and

13

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

contribute to urban resilience of Kathmandu valley. Following the above chart we can analyze that, the most important component on which people spend more is on Non Structural items like floorings, finishing, paints, plasters, architectural items etc. More than structural they spend more on non structural and functional items which would create a great loss of their physical properties if the buildings are not constructed following codes and standards i.e. MRT for our case. Hence its the time to convince them to spend little more on structural components and follow the MRT standards so that much of their properties are saved during the disasters. The main conclusions that can be drawn from above table are; The nonstructural cost is the main component of total cost of the building Average total cost for MRT followed building is found to be Rs 3059.28/sq.ft of built up area. In an average non structural cost is the main contributor for the total cost of building. Buildings are taken or sampled not as per location but as per building typology and requirements of the project objectives.

Fig. Cost components contribution to total cost in MRT buildings(per sq.ft.)

14

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

15

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

f ig. Typical Cross sections of existing structure

The detail of estimation and rate analysis is provided in the annex of the report.

16

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

3.2 COST ANALYSIS OF NON-MRT BUILDINGS

During the study, 5 NON-MRT building has been considered. Among them 3 of them were detail estimated and two of them were analyzed from questionnaire with owner, contractor. During the field visit following features have been found in MRT buildings: Column spanning : 10-0 to 14-0 Column size : 9 X 9 Footing size : 4 X 4 X 4 Beam size with slab: 9 X 1-1 Slab thickness : 4.5 Reinforcement Detail : Column : Main Bar : 4-12dia, 6-12dia Beam : Main bar : 4-12dia +2-12dia, 4-12dia Stirrups : Column: 6dia, 7dia, 8dia-2L : Beam: 6dia, 7dia, 8dia 2L Slab : Main bar: 10dia @6 c/c ; Distribution bar : 8dia @ 6c/c The information collected is summarized as below:
BUILTUP AREA (S.FT.)

S.N.

OWNER NAME RENUKA DEVI PANDEY LAXMAN SHRESTHA SHREE KANTA GHIMIRE KESARI SHRESTHA

LOCATION

PLINTH AREA (S.FT.)

NO. OF STOREY

STRUCTURAL COST (RS/SQ.FT.)

NONSTRUCTURAL COST (RS)

SERVICE COST (RS)

AVERAGE

1 2

BALUWATAR JORPATI

2638.00 2800.00

858.00 1114.00

3 2.5

791.51 785.16

1364.51 1364.51

370.00 370.00

2526.02 2519.67

3 4

KUPONDOLE DHUMBARAI

600.00 2548.00

600.00 1019.00

1 2.5

1146.28 765.13

1247.51 1380.00

370.00 370.00

2763.79 2515.13

17

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

RAMESH SAPKOTA AVERAGE COST

DHUMBARAI

2100.00

840.00

2.5

1020.59 901.73

1280.99 1327.50

370.00 370.00

2671.58 2599.24

We have visited different places of Kathmandu to see the residential buildings generally less than three story. During our survey for already built buildings in different locations we found different thoughts of people on the techniques of construction and their interest for making structure safe enough to resist earthquake. Some peoples view about the importance of MRT was found to be positive and convinced but some people do not think it necessary to follow MRT because it increases the cost by more amount than the prevailing rate they are constructing with. Following the above chart we can analyze that the most important component on which people spend more is on Non Structural items like floorings, finishing, paints, plasters, architectural items etc. Although their building is complying the codes and standards or not it is observed that costly nonstructural items are used for fine and finished external looks and so on. The main conclusions that can be drawn are; Non-MRT buildings are generally with 9X9 columns and beams, less no. of rods, higher spacing of stirrups, low strength concrete and so on The nonstructural cost is the main component of total cost of the building Structural cost vary considerably between MRT followed building and NonMRT building but other costs like nonstructural, service and functional remain nearly the same in both type of buildings. People are investing as high rate as Rs1146.28 per Sq.ft. on their structural cost but they are not aware of making the building safer and resilient with nearly the same amount for following codes and standards. People on an average invest about RS 2600/sq.ft for construction of building

although they do not follow the MRT guidelines. Buildings are taken or sampled not as per location but as per building typology and requirements of the project objectives.

18

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

Fig. Cost components contribution to total cost in Non-MRT buildings(per sq.ft.)

The details of estimation and rate analysis are provided in the annex of the report.

Fig. Non MRT buildings

19

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

20

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

fig. Typical Cross sections of existing structure 3.3 COST ESTIMATION OF RETROFIT BUILDINGS
Study of non-MRT residential building has been carried out which has average plinth area of 1000 sq.ft. These buildings seem to be vulnerable in terms of seismic activity as compared to MRT building. Henceforth, it has been essential to re-strengthen such building that could be possible through retrofitting. Retrofitting detail has been considered with reference to draft report on Seismic Retrofitting Guidelines of Buildings in Nepal proposed by CoRD, UNDP and MRB.

21

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

Fig. Plan of building (reference building for column jacketing )

22

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

Fig. Typical Sections of Non MRT and Jacketed Columns

23

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

3.4 FUNCTIONAL COST ANALYSIS

Post disaster earthquake has always created trauma and loss in different sectors. Concerning financial loss it even covers structural, non-structural, services as well as functional aspect of individual houses. Functional aspect covers different furniture placed in houses. Furniture of bedrooms are estimated as per their incurred cost and numbers whereas for kitchen cost has been estimated and the estimated cost has been considered as standard cost in the survey. The cost of the kitchen has been estimated as follows: Functional Cost per kitchen: 2 gas cylinders +set 1 kitchen rack 2 tables 1 Refrigerators(owners only) 1 Dining Table Kitchen Utensils Others TOTAL 15000 10000 6000 20000 20000 20000 10,000

101000

Damage to such elements also adds up to financial loss. In the study this consideration has been carried out. Since functional elements in the entire building are similar concerning residential area of 2.5 to 3 storied so this cost has been analyzed in general. This has been enlisted in table below:
24

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

S.N. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

BLDG NOS. B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8

BUILT-UP AREA 2077.5 2285.1 2909.64 1890 2500 2870 2250 2280

FUNCTIONAL COST 823000 763000 1642300 755000 3584750 1422000 1164880 1135400

COST PER UNIT AREA 396.15 333.90 564.43 399.47 1433.9 495.47 517.72 497.98 579.88/sq.ft.

AVERAGE COST PER UNIT AREA

According to the survey carried out it has been found that there would be loss of Rs.579.88 per sq.ft. which will accounts into great loss at the time of earthquake.

3.5 DAMAGE GRADE ANALYSIS

For the damage grade analysis, rank has been considered as per European standard. Since effect of damage differs in MRT followed and non-MRT buildings so based on the ranking set by the standard, different percentage has been assigned in different components of respective building. They are assigned as given below: For MRT Building:
Damage Grade Based on European Macroseismic Scale: Percentage of Damage in different components
S. N. CATEGORY OF DAMAGE RANGE DAMAGE INDEX AVG. DAMAGE INDEX STRUCTUR AL NON STRUCTUR AL SERVIC ES FUNCTION AL

1 2 3

Minor to Moderate Damage Moderate Damage to heavy

0-0.2 0.2-0.6 0.6-1

0.1 0.4 0.8

0% 20% 60%

20% 60% 100%

0% 40% 100%

0% 40% 100%

Major Damage

25

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

For Non-MRT Building:

Damage Grade Based on European Macroseismic Scale: Percentage of Damage in different components
S. N. CATEGORY OF DAMAGE RANGE DAMAGE INDEX AVG. DAMAGE INDEX STRUCTUR AL NON STRUCTUR AL SERVIC ES FUNCTION AL

1 2 3

Minor to Moderate Damage Moderate Damage to heavy

0-0.2 0.2-0.6 0.6-1

0.1 0.4 0.8

20% 40% 100%

40% 60% 100%

40% 60% 100%

40% 60% 100%

Major Damage

Based on these criteria analysis has shown following results:

DAMAGE GRADE ANALYSIS OF MRT BUILDINGS: 2.Moderate to Heavy Damage A. Structural Cost and Damage % of Loss Per unit cost on average(5 buildings average) Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1 sample building) Loss Amount Non Structural Cost and Damge % of Loss Per unit cost on average Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1 sample building) Loss Amount C. 0% 370.76 0.00 2970.00 0.00 D. 0% 548.65 0.00 2970.00 0% Services Cost and Damage % of Loss Per unit cost on average Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1 sample building) Loss Amount Functional Cost and Damage % of Loss Per unit cost on average Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area Loss Amount A. 20% 1214.23 242.85 2970.00 721253.81

A.

1.Minor to Moderate Damage Structural Cost and Damage % of Loss 0% Per unit cost on average(5 buildings average) 1214.23 Loss per sq.ft. 0.00 Built Up area (for 1 sample building) 2970.00 Loss Amount Non Structural Cost and Damge % of Loss Per unit cost on average Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1 sample building) Loss Amount 0.00

3. Major Damage Structural Cost and Damage % of Loss Per unit cost on average(5 buildings average) Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1 sample building) Loss Amount Non Structural Cost and Damge % of Loss Per unit cost on average Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1 sample building) Loss Amount

60% 1214.23 728.54 2970.00 2163761.4 2

B.

B. 20% 1474.29 294.86 2970.00 875728.2 6

B. 60% 1474.29 294.86 2970.00 875728.26 C. 40% 370.76 148.30 2970.00 0.00 D. 40% 548.65 219.46 2970.00 651796.20

100% 1474.29 1474.29 2970.00 4378641.3 0

C.

Services Cost and Damage % of Loss Per unit cost on average Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1 sample building) Loss Amount

Services Cost and Damage % of Loss Per unit cost on average Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1 sample building) ` Functional Cost and Damage % of Loss Per unit cost on average Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area Loss Amount

100% 370.76 370.76 2970.00 1101157.2 0

D.

Functional Cost and Damage % of Loss Per unit cost on average Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area Loss Amount

100% 548.65 548.65 2970.00 1629490.5 0

26

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

Total Loss of all components Per sq. ft. cost

875728.2 6 294.86

2248778.27 757.16

4894409.1 2 1647.95

MRT BUILDING
CATEGORY OF DAMAGE DAMAGE 1 DAMAGE 2 DAMAGE 3 0% 25% 75% STRUCTURAL NONSTRUCTURAL 14% 14% 72% SERVICE DAMAGE 0% 0% 100% FUNCTIONAL DAMAGE 0% 29% 71%

Considering Structural Damage, in damage 1 category, there wont be any loss whereas damage 2 and 3 incur 25% and 75% loss respectively. Non-structural damage adds up 14% loss in damage 1 and 2 category whereas 72% loss is incurred in damage 3 category. Service of the building incorporates water supply lines as well as sanitary pipe lines. This

27

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

system wont get affected in damage 1 and 2 category whereas it gets affected by 100% in damage 3 category. Similarly, functional items of the building including all the furniture and electronic gazettes in terms of damage grade create loss of 29% and 71% in damage 2 and 3 category. On the other hand, non MRT building has shown following results:
DAMAGE GRADE ANALYSIS OF (CONVENTIONAL) NON MRT BUILDINGS: 1.Minor to Moderate Damage A. Structural Cost and Damage % of Loss Per unit average(5 average) cost on buildings 901.73 180.35 2970.0 0 535629 .84 20% 2.Moderate to Heavy Damage A Structural Cost and . Damage % of Loss Per unit average(5 average) cost on buildings 901.73 360.69 2970.0 0 107125 9.68 40% 3. Major Damage A Structural Cost and . Damage % of Loss Per unit average(5 average) cost on buildings 901.7 3 901.7 3 2970. 00 26781 49.21

Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1 sample building) Loss Amount

Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1 sample building) Loss Amount

Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1 sample building) Loss Amount

B.

Non Structural Cost and Damge % of Loss Per unit average cost on 40% 1327.5 0 531.00 2970.0 0 157707 4.75

B .

Non Structural Cost and Damge % of Loss Per unit average cost on 60% 1327.5 0 796.50 2970.0 0 236560 5.00

B .

Non Structural Cost and Damge % of Loss Per unit average cost on 100% 1327. 50 1327. 50 2970. 00 39426 75.00

Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1 sample building) Loss Amount

Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1 sample building) Loss Amount

Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1 sample building) Loss Amount

C.

Services Damage % of Loss Per unit average

Cost

and 40%

C Services . Damage % of Loss Per unit average

Cost

and 60%

C Services Cost and . Damage % of Loss Per unit average cost on 100% 370.7 6 370.7 6 2970. 00

cost

on 370.76 148.30 2970.0 0

cost

on 370.76 222.46 2970.0 0

Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1 sample building)

Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1 sample building)

Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1 sample building)

28

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

Loss Amount

440462 .88

Loss Amount

660694 .32

Loss Amount

11011 57.20

D.

Functional Cost and Damage % of Loss Per unit average cost on 548.65 219.46 2970.0 0 651796 .20 40%

D Functional Cost and . Damage % of Loss Per unit average cost on 548.65 329.19 2970.0 0 977694 .30 60%

D Functional Cost and . Damage % of Loss Per unit average cost on 100% 548.6 5 548.6 5 2970. 00 16294 90.50

Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1sample building) Loss Amount

Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1 sample building ) Loss Amount

Loss per sq.ft. Built Up area (for 1 sample building) Loss Amount

Total Loss components

of

all

320496 3.673

507525 3.302

93514 71.90 6

Per Sqft

1079.11

1708.84

3148.6 4

NON-MRT BUILDING
CATEGORY OF DAMAGE DAMAGE 1 DAMAGE 2 DAMAGE 3 12% 25% 63% STRUCTURA L NONSTRUCTURAL 20% 30% 50% SERVICE DAMAGE 20% 30% 50% FUNCTIONAL DAMAGE 20% 30% 50%

29

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

Considering Structural Damage, there will be 13%, 25% and 63% loss in damage 1, 2 and 3 categories respectively. Non-structural damage adds up 20% loss in damage 1, 30% loss in 2 categories whereas 50% loss is incurred in damage 3 category. Service of the building incorporates water supply lines as well as sanitary pipe lines. This system incurred loss of 20%, 30% and 50% respectively in 1, 2 and 3 damage category. Similarly, functional items of the building create loss of 20%, 30% and 50% in damage 1, 2 and 3 categories respectively. Hence, it has been found that the loss percentage of property in terms of cost differs in MRT followed and non-MRT followed buildings. This can be clearly illustrated by following figures

30

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

It has been felt that there is difference in loss in terms of cost in MRT followed buildings and non-MRT buildings in damage 1 and damage 2 categories. On the other hand, functional loss in both type of buildings seem to be similar. Therefore, in broader perspective it is better to invest in MRT building rather than non-MRT in damage grade perspective.

31

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

CHAPTER 4

4.1 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

32

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

Benefit Cost Ratio Calculation (B/C Analysis):

A. MRT Buildings
Unit cost of construction(per/sq.ft) 1. Minor to Moderate Damage Loss per sq.ft.(Rs) 294.86 Benefit/Cost Ratio Loss in Non MRT - Loss in MRT Buildings Difference between MRT and Non MRT Cost 2.Moderate to Heavy Damage Loss per sq.ft.(Rs) 757.17 B/C Ratio 3. Major Damage Loss per Sq. ft.(Rs) 1647.95 2. Moderte to Heavy B/C Ratio 2.02 1.67 (1708.84-757.17)/ (3070-2600) 1. Minor Moderate to (1079.11-294.86)/ (3070-2600) 3070 Benefit/Cost Ratio

B.Non-MRT Buildings
1. Minor to Moderate Damage

Unit cost Construction

of 2600 3. Major Damage (3148.65-1647.95)/ (3070-2600)

Loss per sq.ft.(Rs)

1079.11

B/C Ratio

3.19

2.Moderate to Heavy Damage Loss per sq.ft.(Rs) 1708.84

3. Major Damage Loss per sq.ft.(Rs) 3148.65

From the study it has been found that initial cost required for MRT construction is more than that of non-MRT cost. And following difference has been observed in investment:

33

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

Building Categories MRT non-MRT Difference

Overall Cost Cost/sq.ft. 3070.00 2600.00 470.00

Structural cost Cost/Sqft 1217.25 901.73 315.52

Considering only the investment cost, it seems that it is beneficial to invest in non-MRT building and this perspective is prominent in general public view and they prefer to practice this construction. But in terms of loss caused by earthquake, scenario is found to be different. Study showed that MRT followed buildings incurs less loss in terms of damage caused by earthquake than non-MRT buildings. Following data obtained from the study support the scenario: Building Categories

Damage Category Minor Cost/sq.ft. Moderate Cost/sq.ft. 757.16 1708.84 951.68 Major Cost/sq.ft. 1647.95 3148.65 1500.7

MRT non-MRT Difference

294.86 1079.11 784.25

Furthermore, from the benefit-cost analysis following results has been found: For Minor to Moderate damage case: For Moderate to Heavy damage case: For Major Damage case: B/C ratio= 1.67 B/C ratio=2.02

B/C ratio= 3.19

Results suggest that,

1. B/C ratio greater than 1 suggests that the MRT building construction is beneficial to Non MRT building techniques 2. Since B/C ratio is increasing with respect to damage grade scale, the importance of MRT building increases with the damage grade scale

34

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

3. Performance level of MRT followed building is high which save high amount of property in terms of damage and loss. Hence it can be said that it is essential to promote building code for proper construction which not only gives proper shape to urbanscape rather it enhance building performance that reduce the losses created by earthquake impact. There is no doubt that MRT followed buildings are essential but it is the fact that there exists some non-MRT buildings on the ground which are still vulnerable. So, it is essential to strengthen such building also. For this purpose, retrofit could be one of the best options. According to the study, it has been found that cost required for retrofit building is Rs.497.3/s.ft. which will again be wise step to invest to reduce the impact or loss caused by earthquake.

4.2 CONCLUSION
In the present context of Nepal an urban environment is with high degree of proneness and the level of preparedness is nearly negligible to earthquake. It has become a great challenge for the mankind to reduce the impacts on lives and properties due to their occurrences. For stepping forward to the context and with the long range view of making disaster resilient Kathmandu we have carried out the project work. The project work was focused on collecting the information on cost incurred for RCC residential buildings (less than 3 storey) made with conventional technology (not following MRT standard), Earthquake Resistant technology (MRT followed buildings) and the Retrofit technology. The total cost was composed up of the major components like Structural, Non Structural, Service and Functional. Each component were separately analyzed and compared to have an idea on what amount of extra investment is necessary to follow MRT technology and retrofit technology. With the basis of damage grade analysis for different level of earthquake damage and loss amount in unit terms were calculated which clearly envisioned the economic analysis i.e. B/C analysis. B/C analysis was a better proof for the urban

35

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

dwellers why to invest on safe and resilient techniques of construction to raise their level of safety.

From the study it can be concluded that MRT followed buildings which has been explained by NBC 201 is beneficial in long term vision especially in the country like Nepal which lies in 11th position in earthquake .B/C ratio greater than 1 for all damage case was a proof to inspire people to follow building codes. In addition to it Building Codes are meant for people and its essence should be explained properly to them. Furthermore, existing non-MRT buildings must be strengthened through retrofit technology which could act as strength to the building. Henceforth, it can be concluded that building code should be strongly implemented and importance to MRT building must be focused because it is always better to prevent than to cure later.

36

By:Ram Mani Ghimire, Ram Prasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya

REFERENCES
Seismic Retrofitting Guidelines of building in Nepal (UNDP, CoRD and MRB & Associates Proposed Draft report) NBC-201 (Mandatory Rule of Thumb-MRT) European Macro-seismic Scale (EMS-98) www.moha.gov.np Documents from Department of Urban Development and Building construction.

37

ANNEXES

1. Detail Drawing Drafting (Architectural and Structural) 2. Detail Cost estimation 3. Rate Analysis