Illam Karfok

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Qualitative Detailed Damage Assessment, Seismic Vulnerability Assessment & Retrofit Design of “Shree
Karfok Vidhya Mandir, Karfok, Illam” has been assessed by DIGICON-IDEAL JV in January 2018. This
assessment of the building is done based on the best engineering judgment arrived from the site visit. The
Damage Assessment has been carried out by visualization and identification of damages to different
components of the building due to Gorkha earthquake 2015. Seismic Vulnerability assessment to future
earthquakes involves the use of set of checklists and identification of potential weakness in the buildings.
The assessed building is single story rubble stone masonry building. The detailed damage assessment
shows that the building has suffered a damage of Grade-1, as per EMS-98 scale. Furthermore, seismic
vulnerability assessment shows that the building is likely to suffer damage grade five (DG5) at MMI IX
intensity of earthquake which indicates total collapse of the building.
Both side RC jacketing with 4.75mm diameter TMT bar of diameter 150mm c/c is designed to address the
seismic vulnerabilities of the present stone in mud masonry building. The cost of retrofitting the building
is estimated to be Rs. 22,95,195.
1
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Background of Building ............................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Background of Project ................................................................................................................. 5
2 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Desk Study & Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) ............................................................................. 7
2.2 Field Visit for detail data acquisition ........................................................................................... 7
2.3 Preliminary Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 7
2.4 Detailed Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.4.1 Determination of Shear Strength of Masonry ...................................................................... 7
2.4.2 Determination of Compression Strength and Modulus of Elasticity of Masonry ................ 8
2.5 Retrofitting Design....................................................................................................................... 8
3 DAMAGE ASSESSMENT.................................................................................................................. 9
3.1 Findings of the Assessment.......................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Expected Damage in the Building due to 25th April, 2015, Gorkha Earthquake ...................... 11
3.2.1 Vulnerability Class of the Building.................................................................................... 11
3.2.2 Intensity of 2015 Earthquake at the Site ............................................................................ 11
3.2.3 Expected Damage due to the Earthquake at the site .......................................................... 12
4 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................. 13
4.1 Vulnerability of the Building against Design Earthquake ......................................................... 13
4.2 Qualitative Detailed Vulnerability Assessment ......................................................................... 13
4.3 Detailed Vulnerability Assessment ............................................................................................ 13
4.3.1 Numerical Model of the Building ...................................................................................... 13
4.3.2 Shear Strength Check ......................................................................................................... 15
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ............. 17
6 RETROFIT OF THE BUILDING ..................................................................................................... 17
6.1 Methodology Adopted ............................................................................................................... 17
6.2 Calculation of Base Shear .......................................................................................................... 17
6.3 Retrofit Design against In-plane Tensile Forces ........................................................................ 18
6.4 Retrofit design against out of plane bending forces ................................................................... 21
6.5 Design against Shear .................................................................................................................. 23
7 DESIGN SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 24
8 DESIGN CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................................. 25
References .................................................................................................................................................. 25
2
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Building

Qualitative Detailed Damage Assessment, Seismic Vulnerability Assessment & Retrofit Design of Shree
Karfok Vidhya Mandir (building). The school is located in Karfok of Illam District. The building has been
assessed by DIGICON-IDEAL JV in January 2018.
It is a single story rubble stone in mud masonry building constructed in 2040 B.S. It is a simple structure
with no seismic resistant elements. It is being used as a classroom block.
Figure 1: Google Earth (R) Image of the building
Figure 2: Location Map of the Building
3
Salient Features of the Building
Building Typology: Field Stone Masonry with mud mortar joint
Shape of the Building: Rectangular
Plinth Area of the Building: 149.55 m2
No. of Stories: 1
Roof Type: Flexible Diaphragm
Age of the Building: 34 years
Use Type: Classroom
Vulnerability Class of the Building (EMS 98): CLASS A
Figure 3: Front View of the Buildingi
Figure 4: Front Elevation
4
1
2
3
19200
13000 5768
587 507
530 900 900 1163 900 697 900 933 900 900 953 900 2611 900 1452
3252 900
X
900 903 900 500

A D1 D1
D1 A
W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1
W1
7400
7800
1203
7800
7400
ROOM ROOM
7000x12600 5372x7000
500 900 900 900
W1
W1
W1 W1 W1 W1 W1
D1 D1 D1 D1
B B
1000 900 940 900 903 900 950 900 960 900 953 900 770 900 900 1522 900
13000 5769
19172
X 685
1
2
3
Figure 5: Ground Floor Plan
Figure 6: Side Elevations
Figure 7: Back Elevation
1.2 Background of Project

On 25th of April, 2015 at around 11:56 in the afternoon, an earthquake of magnitude 7.8 rocked Nepal
causing massive destruction in at least 14 district in Nepal. With the second big earthquake of 12 May,
many more 600,000 houses are reported damaged.
The objectives of the assignment are to assess in detail the damage and earthquake vulnerability of above
selected school to prepare design and drawing for the retrofitting of the building in order to make them
disaster resilient.
The project consists of “Detailed vulnerability assessment, retrofit design and cost estimate of 34 school
buildings in different districts of Nepal” that is funded by the Government of Nepal and implemented by
itself for strengthening the buildings so as to minimize the loss causing from such devastating natural
calamities.
5
The basic principle of the reconstruction in recovery process after disaster is to build better and also as
possible to make community and infrastructures disaster resilient to create resilient societies. For this, the
existing building need to be assessed whether it can be retrofitted or not. The objective of the assignment
is to assess in detail the damage and earthquake vulnerability of existing school building and to prepare
detailed design and drawings for retrofitting of the buildings in order to make them disaster resilient.
2 METHODOLOGY
Evaluation Process
Desk Study & RVS;

Literature Review,
Historical significance of the building
Site Visit to determine;

Structural System of the building
Damages in the building
Region of Seismicity
Target performance Level
Preliminary Evaluation to determine;

Vulnerabilities in the building using
checklist,
Damage Grade of the building
Detail Evaluation;
Linear Static /Linear Dynamic Analysis
Yes Retrofit Design,

Deficiency ? Drawing and Cost
Estimation
No
Make Report
Figure 8: Methodology Flow Chart
For the detail retrofitting design of building, series of tasks are needed to be done in a sequential order. The
methodology to be adopted is given below.
6
2.1 Desk Study & Rapid Visual Screening (RVS)
In this phase the literatures shall be reviewed for identifying the importance of building and its background.
The historical use pattern and structural makeup of the building and other data (if available) is extracted
from the literatures. Site visit for Rapid Visual survey is done. This is to identify the basic structural system
of the building, basic condition and damages in the building.
2.2 Field Visit for detail data acquisition

During this phase, detail field study of the building is made. Inventory of the existing situation of the
building such as architectural details, material condition and deterioration, connection details (Floor to wall
connection and between floor/roof elements) as well as sanitary and electrical condition. Inventory of the
damages shall be prepared. Reason for the damages shall be identified. Detail measurement of the building
and verification of the existing drawings shall be done. Tests for calculation of Mechanical properties of
the building structural elements such as compressive strength of masonry, shear strength of masonry shall
be performed. Brick lay pattern, material condition and deterioration, connection detail etc. shall be
identified.
2.3 Preliminary Evaluation

This phase is the preliminary evaluation phase dependent completely on the data from field visit and data
acquired. Based on the national and international guidelines and checklist, the vulnerability of the building
shall be evaluated. Also, the detail damage evaluation of the building shall also be performed. The global
damage of the building shall be classified as per the EMS-98 scaling system (also adopted by Nepal
national guidelines).
2.4 Detailed Evaluation

The shortcomings of preliminary evaluation is completed in this phase of evaluation. This specially consists
of detail calculations of the demand forces and the capacity of the building. The capacity of the building
shall be calculated for pre-earthquake condition of the building. In other words, it is assumed that, in any
case the building shall be restored back to a safety level before the earthquake. The linear static or linear
dynamic analysis shall be performed on the numerical model of the building using ETABS 2016 or
equivalent codes. Using the analytical models weakness of the building such as inadequate tensile strength,
shear strength, compressive strength, shall be determined.
After detailed evaluation, the recommendation shall be made for preservation and retrofitting of the
building.
2.4.1 Determination of Shear Strength of Masonry

Expected shear strength of URM components can be inferred from in situ measurements of bed-joint shear
strength using the in-place shear test. This test procedure as recommended by ASCE 41-13/FEMA
274/MSJC following the ASTM guidelines is used, for the determination of shear strength of the masonry.
The nondestructive test measures the in situ shear strength between a clay masonry unit and the mortar bed
joints above and below the unit. A small hydraulic jack is placed in a void left by removal of a masonry
unit immediately adjacent to the test unit. The head joint on the opposite face of the test unit is removed to
isolate the test unit so that it may be displaced horizontally when pushed.
A horizontal force is applied to the test unit until it starts to slide. Shear strength is then inferred as the
measured force divided by the area of the bed joints above and below the masonry unit. The estimated
vertical compressive stress at the test location is subtracted from this value to give the bed joint shear stress,
7
vto, assuming a coefficient of friction equal to 1.0. Because expected values of wall shear strength are to
be used, the 50th percentile value, vt, is used as the index value. (Reference FEMA 274)
Individual bed-joint shear strength test values, vto, shall be determined in accordance with undermentioned
equation,
Where, V test = test load at first movement of a masonry unit;

A b = sum of net mortared area of bed joints located directly above and below the test unit; and
P D + L = gravity compressive stress at the test location considering actual un-factored dead plus live loads
in place at the time of testing.
According to, FEMA 310, Clause 4.2.6.4.2,

The shear wall strength shall be calculated in accordance with Equation,
Where:
D = In-plane width dimension of masonry,
t = Thickness of wall,
vme = expected masonry shear strength given by Equation below,
Where:
vte = Average bed-joint shear strength and not to exceed 0.68 MPa;
PCE = Expected gravity compressive force applied to a wall or pier component stress;
An = Area of net mortared/grouted section.
The shear strength of the building for which in-situ shear test could not be carried out, shear strength lower
bond value, as recommended by FEMA 356, is adopted for design calculation and retrofitting purpose.
2.4.2 Determination of Compression Strength and Modulus of Elasticity of Masonry
The compressive strength of the building masonry system is adopted as per the recommendation of FEMA
356. The design values are adopted on the basis of visual inspection of the building masonry system.
S.No. Masonry Quality fm (MPa) Em (MPa)

1 Good 2.36 1652
2 Fair 1.4 980
3 Poor 1 700
2.5 Retrofitting Design

As per the approved retrofitting method, the retrofitting design of the building shall be performed. The
demand force based retrofitting design shall be performed. Special treatment for the joints and other local
8
weakness shall be performed. Drawings and detailing shall be prepared. The cost estimation of the retrofit
shall be prepared and submitted with the retrofit design report.
3 DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
3.1 Findings of the Assessment

The overall building condition is medium. None of the building parts have been heavily damaged but the
cracks can be observed all over the structure. The doors and window frames need further maintenance.
The types of damages found are;
 Corrosion of CGI sheet.
 No connection between joist.
 Floor patches and damages.
The crack pattern found in the building was compared with the crack pattern of the EMS-98 scales. This
resulted in the designation of the Damage Grade 1 of the building.
The quantity describing the damage is defined by following scale guidelines for grading is given in next
figure.
9
Figure 9: EMS-98 Damage Grading
Few important photographs depicting the damages in the building are given below.
Figure 10: Corrosion of CGI Sheet
10
3.2 Expected Damage in the Building due to 25th April, 2015, Gorkha Earthquake
3.2.1 Vulnerability Class of the Building
According to EMS-98, the building falls under Vulnerability Class A.
Figure 11: EMS-98 Building Vulnerability Types
3.2.2 Intensity of 2015 Earthquake at the Site

According to USGS, the building site which falls in Illam district of Nepal, faced an earthquake of Intensity
VI on 25th April, 2015.
11
Figure 12: Intensity Map of April 25, 2015 Earthquake (Source: USGS)
3.2.3 Expected Damage due to the Earthquake at the site

According to EMS-98, the probable damage at the site due to earthquake of intensity VI is as follows:
 Damage of grade 1 is sustained by many buildings of vulnerability class A and B
 A few of class A and B may suffer damage of grade 2
 A few of class C may suffer damage of grade 1.
As the assessed building falls under Vulnerability Class A, current Damage of Grade 1 is justified.
12
4 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
4.1 Vulnerability of the Building against Design Earthquake

According to IS 1893:2016, most part of Nepal falls under seismic zone 5. For this zone, the design
earthquake is 0.36g as per the same code. This value is comparable to earthquake of intensity IX on EMS-
98 scale.
According to EMS-98, the expected damage of the building at earthquake of Intensity IX is as follows:
 Many monuments and columns fall or are twisted. Waves are seen on soft ground.
 Many buildings of vulnerability class A sustain damage of grade 5.
 Many buildings of vulnerability class B suffer damage of grade 4; a few of grade 5.
 Many buildings of vulnerability class C suffer damage of grade 3; a few of grade 4.
 Many buildings of vulnerability class D suffer damage of grade 2; a few of grade 3.
 A few buildings of vulnerability class E sustain damage of grade 2.
As the assessed building falls under Vulnerability Class A, it is likely to suffer grade 5 damage at the
earthquake of intensity IX. Damage grade 5 refers to total collapse which is not desired. Hence, the building
needs retrofitting.
4.2 Qualitative Detailed Vulnerability Assessment

The detailed vulnerability form has been filled as per DUDBC guideline. As per this guideline following
vulnerabilities were to be seen:
 Storey height greater than 3m
 Height of wall and unsupported lengths greater than 12 times thickness
 Absence of horizontal band and corner stitches
The form is attached at annex part of this report.
4.3 Detailed Vulnerability Assessment

The detailed vulnerability assessment section of this report comprises the global checks of all the stories
of the building against shear and out of plane bending failure of the walls. The deficiency check of each
pier of the building is performed and retrofitted simultaneously in Retrofit Design part of this report.
4.3.1 Numerical Model of the Building
ETABS 2016 is used for numerical modelling of the building. The finite element model is used as a tool
for calculation of demand forces in the building.
The walls and floors of the building are modelled as shell elements. Both the members are assumed to be
homogeneous material. The properties of these materials are mentioned here under. The floors and roof are
considered to be flexible with inherit properties of wood.
Material Properties
Based on the total thickness of the component and its effective structural system, the material properties
are calculated/ modified to comply with the specific component. The properties are based on the national
standards and site specific test data.
Unit weight of wall = 20.6 KN/m3 (depending upon the thickness of finishing plaster, this unit wt. is
increased by a factor)
Unit weight of floor = 12.3 KN/m3 (this is the unit wt. of the composite wooden floor of 200mm thick)
13
Unit weight of roof = 12.3 KN/m3
Modulus of Elasticity of wall = 700 MPa
Modulus of Elasticity of floor = 12000 MPa
Modulus of Elasticity of roof = 12000 MPa
The compressive strength of the building masonry system is adopted as per the recommendation of FEMA
356. The design values are adopted on the basis of visual inspection of the building masonry system.
S.No. Masonry Quality fm (MPa) Em (MPa)

1 Good 2.36 1652
2 Fair 1.4 980
3 Poor 1 700
Loads
The loads are taken from Indian Standards and the load factors recommended by FEMA 310 are adopted.
Floor Live = 3 KN/m2 at rooms
Floor Live = 4 KN/m2 at corridors and balconies
Roof Live = 1.5 KN/m2
Floor finish = 1 KN/m2
Seismic Load = as per IS 1893-2016 draft code
i.e. Z=0.36, R= 1.5, I=1.5, Sa/g =2.5
Time Period Calculation
h= 3.7 m
d= 7.35 m along short span
Ta =0.09*h/ d 0.5
= 0.20 sec.
Building Weight and Base Shear

TABLE: Auto Seismic - IS 1893:2002
Load User Top Bottom Z Soil I R Period Coeff Weight Base
Pattern T Story Story Type Used Used Used Shear
0.2 Story2 Base 0.36 II 1.5 1.5 0.2 0.45 1527.67 687.45
EQx
EQy 0.2 Story2 Base 0.36 II 1.5 1.5 0.2 0.45 1527.67 687.45
Figure 13: Render View

14
Figure 14: Deformed View
4.3.2 Shear Strength Check

Shear Strength of Masonry
The shear strength of the building for which in-situ shear test could not be carried out, shear strength lower
bond value, as recommended by FEMA 356, is adopted for design calculation and retrofitting purpose.
Good, Fair and Poor joint condition is adopted on the basis of visual inspection of the building masonry
system and the surveyor subjective judgment. Preliminary tests like hammering and chiseling is used for
identification of hardness and weathering grade of joint mortar to assist in judgment procedure.
S.No. Joint Condition Masonry Unit Value Unit
1 Good Joint condition Brick/Dressed stone 0.19 Mpa
2 Fair Joint condition Brick/Dressed stone 0.14 MPa
3 Poor Joint condition Brick/Dressed stone 0.09 MPa
4 Good Joint condition Rubble stone 0.075 Mpa
5 Fair Joint condition Rubble stone 0.055 MPa
6 Poor Joint condition Rubble stone 0.035 MPa
7 Clayey Joint Brick/Stone 0.015 MPa
The guideline also recommends to increase the value by 1.3 times to get expected strength from lower
bound value. However, adopting a bit conservative approach, the designer has not increased the value by
this amount. The shear capacity of a masonry wall increases with compressive force on the wall. So the
shear strength values are increased by PCE /1.5An .
Shear strength adopted for the building is shown in table below.
Story Dead load at the top of wall of a story Wall area vme
ID KN sq. m Mpa
I 1577.05 17.94 0.050
Then shear capacities of various stories of the building as per FEMA 310 cl. 4.2.6, are given below.
Story vme An along X An along Y Va along X Va along Y
Mpa m2 m2 KN KN
15
I 0.050 9.60 8.30 318.89 275.71
Shear forces in the Building
Figure 15: Chart showing story shear forces in EQX-direction
Figure 16: Chart showing story shear forces in EQY-direction
Demand Capacity Ratio Check

The ratio of storey shear forces in the building to the strength of all the walls piers in the direction of
loading is the demand capacity ratio of the building.
Story Story Shear Vj Va along X Va along Y DCR along X DCR along Y Remark
No. KN KN KN
I 687.45 318.89 275.71 2.160 2.490 Not OK
16
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF VULNERABILITY
ASSESSMENT
 The building has suffered Damage Grade-1: Negligible to slight damage as per (EMS-98) in the
Gorkha, 2015, Earthquake. (Reference: Section 3.1)
 The CGI sheet of the building is corroded.
 The floor of the building is rough.
 The building is likely to suffer Grade-5 damage (Destruction) at design level earthquake.
(Reference: Section 4.1)
 The building is unsafe in shear and weak in tension and out of plane forces. (Reference: Section
4.3.2)
 Floor and roof stiffeners should be added.
 Treatment for wood used should be done by painting weather coat paint/enamel paint.
 The building needs retrofitting.
6 RETROFIT OF THE BUILDING
6.1 Methodology Adopted

After completion of the first phase detail damage and seismic vulnerability assessment, the second phase
detail design work for the retrofitting of the building is carried out. Linear static procedure is adopted for
the analysis and design of the buildings. ETABS 2016.2.0 is used for the analysis of the structure. Design
calculations are done manually.
As per the recommendation from the Vulnerability Assessment, both side RC jacketing with TMT bar of
diameter 150mm c/c is designed to address the seismic vulnerabilities of the present stone in mud masonry
building. The required size and capacity of retrofitting element is assessed from the force diagram of the
building Numerical Model. The capacity of unit size of the retrofitting element is calculated as shown in
the sample calculation below.
Before preparation of the Numerical Model for the retrofit design, all the possible building irregularities,
considering lighting criteria and minimal disturbance, are fixed. The retrofit design calculations are made
for this corrected/modified building.
6.2 Calculation of Base Shear

Calculation Using IS 1893: 2002
Equivalent lateral seismic coefficient method
The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear (V B) is determined using seismic coefficient
method:
The design horizontal seismic coefficient, Ah = (ZI/2R)*(Sa /g)
Where,
Z= Zone factor
I = Importance factor
R = Response reduction factor
Sa /g = Average response acceleration coefficient
The approximate fundamental natural period of vibration (Ta) in seconds, may be estimated by the
empirical expression:
Ta = 0.09h/d0.5
Where,
17
h = Height of the building in meter and
d = Base dimension of building at plinth level in meter, along the considered direction of lateral force.
Now,
h= 3.7 m
d= 7.35 m along short span
Ta =0.09*h/ d 0.5
= 0.20 sec.
(Sa/g) = 2.5
Z= 0.36 (Zone V)
I= 1.5 (Public building)
R= 2.25 for Reinforced with horizontal RC bands and vertical bars at
corners of rooms and jams of openings
Hence, Ah = 0.3
Therefore, the base shear coefficient is taken as 0.3
TABLE: Auto Seismic - IS 1893:2002

Load User Top Bottom Soil Period Coeff Weight Base
Pattern T Story Story Z Type I R Used Used Used Shear
EQx 0.2 Story2 Base 0.36 II 1.5 2.25 0.2 0.3 1551.1 465.31
EQy 0.2 Story2 Base 0.36 II 1.5 2.25 0.2 0.3 1551.1 465.31
6.3 Retrofit Design against In-plane Tensile Forces

In-plane bending and rocking in piers lead to development of tension force in one edge of pier and
compression in other edge. The masonry is capable of taking compressive load up to the allowable limit,
but it is very weak in tension. Assuming, the masonry has negligible tensile strength, steel wire mesh or
steel bars are adopted for taking the tensile forces. In Nepal, steel wire mesh is expensive than steel
reinforcement bars, so steel retrofitting using rebar is used.
Figure 17: Building plan showing the position of grids

18
Vertical Tensile or Compressive Stress, S22, 0.7D+EQX Loading
Wall along B-B
Pier 2
Pier 1
Pier 1 Pier 2
Maximum tensile stress due to pier action (N/mm2) : 0.21 0.15
Length of tensile stress zone in pier (mm) : 940 330
Therefore, average tensile stress (N/mm2) : 0.11 0.08
Thickness of wall (mm) : 400 400
Total Tensile force (N) : 41360 10560
For tensile load, adopted bar diameter (mm) : 4.75 4.75
For Fe 500, allowable stress (N/mm2) : 275 275
Nos of bar required, F/(As*Sall) : 8.487323104 2.166976112
Applying band on both faces of pier, Adopt : 5 - 4.75 mm bars 2 - 4.75 mm bars
@ 150 mm @ 150 mm spacing
spacing
Wall along A-A
Pier 1 Pier 2
Pier 1 Pier 2
2
Maximum tensile stress due to pier action (N/mm ) : 0.16 0.19
Applying band on both faces of pier, Adopt : 2 - 4.75 mm bars 3 - 4.75 mm bars @
@ 150 mm 150 mm spacing
spacing
19
Vertical Tensile or Compressive Stress, S22, 0.7D+EQY Loading
Wall along 1-1
Pier 2
Pier 1
Pier 1 Pier 2
2
Maximum tensile stress due to pier action (N/mm ) : 0.21 0.12
Applying band on both faces of pier, Adopt : 5 - 4.75 mm bars 6 - 4.75 mm bars
@ 150 mm @ 150 mm spacing
spacing
Wall along 3-3
Pier 1
Pier 1
2
Maximum tensile stress due to pier action (N/mm ) : 0.03
Length of tensile stress zone in pier (mm) : 7350
Therefore, average tensile stress (N/mm2) : 0.02
Thickness of wall (mm) : 400
20
Total Tensile force (N) : 58800
For tensile load, adopted bar diameter (mm) : 4.75
For Fe 500, allowable stress (N/mm2) : 275
Nos of bar required, F/(As*Sall) : 12.06611699
Applying band on both faces of pier, Adopt : 7 - 4.75 mm bars @
150 mm spacing
6.4 Retrofit design against out of plane bending forces

Out of plane Bending Moment distribution due to 0.7DL+EQy Loading, Horizontal strip
Wall along B-B
Maximum bending moment intensity in wall = 15.88 KN-m/m

Distance between maximum and minimum moment intensity = 1.6 m
Average bending moment = 0.5*15.88*1.6 = 12.71 KN-m
For tensile load, adopted Bar diameter = 4.75 mm

For Fe 500, allowable stress = 275 Mpa
Thickness of wall 400 mm
Thickness of jacketing layer 40 mm
Overall depth= 480 mm
Effective depth= 460 mm
Applying condition for equilibrium;
Depth of Neutral axis for Fe500 = 188.6 mm
Lever arm = 330.788 mm
Capacity of a bar in bending = 1.61 KN-m
No. of bars required = 7.89
Applying band on both face of the wall, Adopt 8-4.75 mm bars.
Wall along A-A
21

Off plane Bending Moment distribution due to 0.7DL+EQx Loading, Horizontal strip
Wall along 1-1


Wall along 3-3

22

6.5 Design against Shear

The strength of wall piers and the additional vertical provided shall act against the shear forces. The shear
checks of all the wall piers are provided below.
Wall along Grid B-B

Total shear force along the grid = -70.22 KN
Total length of wall pier = 10.64 m
Thickness of wall = 400 mm
Minimum expected shear strength of masonry = 0.015 Mpa
Total shear strength of the wall masonry system= 42.7728 KN
Shear Strength of jacketing per meter strip = 47.1352 KN
Total shear strength of the elements along the grid= 544.2913 KN
Factor of Safety = 7.75 >1, OK
Wall along Grid A-A
23
Wall along Grid 1-1

Wall along Grid 3-3

7 DESIGN SUMMARY
The summary of the retrofit design of the building is shown in table below.
Wall Vertical Horizontal Jacketing

ID/Grid Band Band
Wall AA RC jacketing on both sides with 4.75mm TMT bar @ 150mm
c/c.
Wall BB RC jacketing on both sides with 4.75mm TMT bar @ 150mm

c/c
Wall 22 RC jacketing on both sides with 4.75mm TMT bar @ 150mm
c/c
Wall 33 RC jacketing on both sides with 4.75mm TMT bar @ 150mm

c/c
All other walls/piers should also be retrofitted accordingly. The retrofit detail is provided in drawing part
of the report.
24
8 DESIGN CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
1. Both side RC jacketing with TMT bar of diameter 150mm c/c is designed to address the seismic
vulnerabilities of the present stone in mud masonry building.
2. Individual components are also strengthening as well as braced against local failures under design
level earthquake.
3. Replacement of CGI sheet is required in this building.
4. Roof and floor bracing, anchorage between diaphragm and wall, floor finish, replacement of rusted
roof covering etc., should be performed.
5. Connections for rafter and wall, rafter and beam are required.
6. Chipping, re-plastering and finishing should be done.
7. Treatment for seepage should be done.
8. Painting of truss should be done with enamel.
9. Treatment for woods used is required and can be done by painting with weather coat paint or
enamel paint.
10. Replace the windows with wall and add buttress. (Refer drawing for details)
11. The estimated cost of retrofitting the building is Rs. 22,95,195 which is 31% of reconstruction cost
for the building.
References
[1] EMS-98, European Macroseismic Scale 1998
[2] IS 1893 part 1, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures 2016
[3] IS 875, Code of Practice for Design Loads for Buildings and Structures 1987
[4] FEMA 310, Handbook for Seismic Evaluation of Buildings
25

Illam Karfok

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Illam Karfok

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Background of Building

Figure 1: Google Earth (R) Image of the building

Figure 2: Location Map of the Building

Figure 3: Front View of the Buildingi

Figure 4: Front Elevation

900 903 900 500

Figure 5: Ground Floor Plan

Figure 6: Side Elevations

Figure 7: Back Elevation

1.2 Background of Project

Desk Study & RVS;

Site Visit to determine;

Preliminary Evaluation to determine;

Yes Retrofit Design,

Figure 8: Methodology Flow Chart

2.2 Field Visit for detail data acquisition

2.3 Preliminary Evaluation

2.4 Detailed Evaluation

2.4.1 Determination of Shear Strength of Masonry

Where, V test = test load at first movement of a masonry unit;

According to, FEMA 310, Clause 4.2.6.4.2,

S.No. Masonry Quality fm (MPa) Em (MPa)

2.5 Retrofitting Design

3.1 Findings of the Assessment

Figure 10: Corrosion of CGI Sheet

Figure 11: EMS-98 Building Vulnerability Types

3.2.2 Intensity of 2015 Earthquake at the Site

3.2.3 Expected Damage due to the Earthquake at the site

4.1 Vulnerability of the Building against Design Earthquake

4.2 Qualitative Detailed Vulnerability Assessment

4.3 Detailed Vulnerability Assessment

S.No. Masonry Quality fm (MPa) Em (MPa)

Building Weight and Base Shear

Figure 13: Render View

4.3.2 Shear Strength Check

Shear forces in the Building

Figure 15: Chart showing story shear forces in EQX-direction

Figure 16: Chart showing story shear forces in EQY-direction

Demand Capacity Ratio Check

6 RETROFIT OF THE BUILDING

6.1 Methodology Adopted

6.2 Calculation of Base Shear

TABLE: Auto Seismic - IS 1893:2002

6.3 Retrofit Design against In-plane Tensile Forces

Figure 17: Building plan showing the position of grids

Wall along A-A

Wall along 3-3

6.4 Retrofit design against out of plane bending forces

Maximum bending moment intensity in wall = 15.88 KN-m/m

For tensile load, adopted Bar diameter = 4.75 mm

Wall along A-A

For tensile load, adopted Bar diameter = 4.75 mm

Maximum bending moment intensity in wall = 9.85 KN-m/m

For tensile load, adopted Bar diameter = 4.75 mm

Wall along 3-3

For tensile load, adopted Bar diameter = 4.75 mm

6.5 Design against Shear

Wall along Grid B-B

Wall along Grid 1-1

Wall along Grid 3-3

Wall Vertical Horizontal Jacketing

Wall BB RC jacketing on both sides with 4.75mm TMT bar @ 150mm