7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 1/43
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
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 2/43
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. J ishnu 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.
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 3/43
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 urbanset 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 andFunctional. 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.
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 4/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
i
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
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 5/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
ii
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 37
ANNEXES ....................................................................................................................................... i
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 6/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
1
CHAPTER 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Disasters are situations or events which overwhelm local capacity, necessitating a request tonational 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, butrather to invite disasters.Those open spaces and circulation routes have been engulfed by built-
structures. 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 itsconsequences. There are many such buildings which lack proper structure that can withstand
earthquake shocks in urban set up. This depicts on the fact that“Earthquake 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.
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 7/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
2
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 earthquakeresistant 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 OBJ ECTIVES
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
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 8/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
3
• 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
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 9/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
4
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 withExisting 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
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 10/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
5
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,
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 11/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
6
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 techniquesused 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
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 12/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
7
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.
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 13/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
8
Fig.Steel J acketing
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
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 14/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
9
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 post-
earthquake 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:
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 15/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
10
Damage rank Architectural Institute of J apan RC buildings
Rank 0:No damageRank 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 instructural 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 concreteframe 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 differentcomponents
S.N.Category of
Damage Range of AverageDamgae
Structural
NonStructural
Services
Functional
damageindex Index
1
Minor to
ModerateDamage 0-0.2 0.1 0% 20% 0% 0%
2Moderate toheavy Damage 0.2-0.6 0.4 20% 60% 40% 40%
3 Major Damage 0.6-1 0.8 60% 100% 100% 100%
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 16/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
11
2.5. BENEFIT-COST ANAL YSIS (B/C Analysis):
Cost benefit analysis (CBA), sometimes calledbenefit–cost 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 )
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 17/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
12
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 1’5”
• 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 @ 6”c/c
Top bar 10 dia, @ 12”c/c and binder 8 dia.@ 9”c/c
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 18/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
13
S.N. OWNER
LOCATION
BUILT-UP AREA
PLINTHAREA
NO.OF
STRUCTURAL
NON-STRUCTURAL
SERVICE COST
AVERAGE
NAME (S.FT.) (S.FT.)STOREY
COST(RS/SQ.F T.) COST (RS) (RS) (RS)
1BHUSANGAUTAM
BALUWATAR 2420.56 915 2.5 1119.92 1280.70 389.37
2789.99
2ABHAYA YADAV
GAURIGHAT 2370.56 915 2.5 1207.74 2425.27 439.56
4072.57
3BHABANA THAPA NAXAL 3203 1291 2.5 1239.24 1143.08 357.35
2739.67
4SHYAMPAUDEL
DHUMBARAHI 3639 1072 3.5 1236.60 1400.00 398.46
3035.06
5NARAYANSAPKOTA
BALUWATAR 2706 1111 2.5 1318.55 1390.00 406.50
3115.06
6 ENGINEER
DHUMB
ARAHI 3000 810 3.5 1163.33 1206.67 233.33
2603.
33
AVERAGECOST 1214.23 1474.29 370.76
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 engineer’s
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
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 19/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
14
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 it’s 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 beRs 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.)
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 20/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
15
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 21/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
16
f ig. Typical Cross sections of existing structure
The detail of estimation and rate analysis is provided in the annex of the report.
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 22/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
17
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 @ 6”c/c
The information collected is summarized as below:
S.N. OWNER LOCATION
BUILT-UPAREA
PLINTHAREA NO. OF STRUCTURAL
NON-STRUCTURAL
SERVICECOST AVE
NAME (S.FT.) (S.FT.) STOREYCOST(RS/SQ.FT .) COST (RS) (RS)
1
RENUKA
DEVIPANDEY BALUWATAR 2638.00 858.00 3 791.51 1364.51 370.00 2526
2LAXMANSHRESTHA JORPATI 2800.00 1114.00 2.5 785.16 1364.51 370.00 2519
3
SHREEKANTAGHIMIRE KUPONDOLE 600.00 600.00 1 1146.28 1247.51 370.00 2763
4KESARISHRESTHA DHUMBARAI 2548.00 1019.00 2.5 765.13 1380.00 370.00 2515
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 23/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
18
5RAMESHSAPKOTA DHUMBARAI 2100.00 840.00 2.5 1020.59 1280.99 370.00 2671
AVERAGECOST 901.73 1327.50 370.00 2599
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 people’s 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 itemslike 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 9”X9” 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 Non-
MRT 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.
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 24/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
19
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
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 25/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
20
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 26/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
21
f ig. 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 Buildingsin Nepal” proposed by CoRD, UNDP and MRB.
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 27/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
22
Fig. Plan of building (reference building for column jacketing )
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 28/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
23
Fig. Typical Sections of Non –MRT and Jacketed Columns
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 29/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
24
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 15000
1 kitchen rack 10000
2 tables 6000
1 Refrigerators(owners only) 20000
1 Dining Table 20000
Kitchen Utensils 20000
Others 10,000
TOTAL 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:
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 30/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
25
S.N.BLDGNOS.
BUILT-UPAREA
FUNCTIONALCOST
COST PER UNITAREA
1 B1 2077.5 823000 396.15
2 B2 2285.1 763000 333.90
3 B3 2909.64 1642300 564.434 B4 1890 755000 399.47
5 B5 2500 3584750 1433.9
6 B6 2870 1422000 495.47
7 B7 2250 1164880 517.72
8 B8 2280 1135400 497.98
AVERAGE COST PER UNIT AREA 579.88/sq.ft.
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 RANGE
AVG.DAMAGE
STRUCTURAL NON
SERVICES
FUNCTIONAL
DAMAGEDAMAGEINDEX INDEX
STRUCTURAL
1Minor to ModerateDamage 0-0.2 0.1 0% 20% 0% 0%
2Moderate to heavyDamage 0.2-0.6 0.4 20% 60% 40% 40%
3 Major Damage 0.6-1 0.8 60% 100% 100% 100%
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 31/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
26
For Non-MRT Building:
Damage Grade Based on European Macroseismic Scale:
Percentage of Damage in different components
S.
N. CATEGORY OF RANGE
AVG.
DAMAGE
STRUCTUR
AL NON
SERVIC
ES
FUNCTION
AL
DAMAGEDAMAGEINDEX INDEX
STRUCTURAL
1Minor to ModerateDamage 0-0.2 0.1 20% 40% 40% 40%
2Moderate to heavyDamage 0.2-0.6 0.4 40% 60% 60% 60%
3 Major Damage 0.6-1 0.8 100% 100% 100% 100%
Based on these criteria analysis has shown following results:
DAMAGE GRADE ANALY SIS OF MRT BUILDINGS:1.Minor to Moderate Damage 2.Moderate to Heavy Damage 3. Major Damage
A.Structural Cost andDamage A. Structural Cost and Damage A. Structural Cost and Damage
% of Loss 0% % of Loss 20% % of Loss Per unit cost on average(5buildings average) 1214.23
Per unit cost on average(5buildings average) 1214.23
Per unit cost on average(5buildings average) 1
Loss per sq.ft. 0.00 Loss per sq.ft. 242.85 Loss per sq.ft. 7Built Up area (for 1 samplebuilding) 2970.00
Built Up area (for 1 samplebuilding) 2970.00
Built Up area (for 1 samplebuilding) 29
Loss Amount 0.00 Loss Amount 721253.81 Loss Amount21
B.Non Structural Cost andDamge B.
Non Structural Cost andDamge B.
Non Structural Cost andDamge
% of Loss 20% % of Loss 60% % of Loss Per unit cost on average 1474.29 Per unit cost on average 1474.29 Per unit cost on average 1
Loss per sq.ft. 294.86 Loss per sq.ft. 294.86 Loss per sq.ft. 1Built Up area (for 1 samplebuilding) 2970.00
Built Up area (for 1 samplebuilding) 2970.00
Built Up area (for 1 samplebuilding) 29
Loss Amount875728.2
6 Loss Amount 875728.26 Loss Amount43
C. Services Cost and Damage C. Services Cost and Damage C. Services Cost and Damage
% of Loss 0% % of Loss 40% % of Loss
Per unit cost on average 370.76 Per unit cost on average 370.76 Per unit cost on average 3
Loss per sq.ft. 0.00 Loss per sq.ft. 148.30 Loss per sq.ft. 3Built Up area (for 1 samplebuilding) 2970.00
Built Up area (for 1 samplebuilding) 2970.00
Built Up area (for 1 samplebuilding) 29
Loss Amount 0.00 Loss Amount 0.00 ` 11
D. Functional Cost and Damage D. Functional Cost and Damage D. Functional Cost and Damage
% of Loss 0% % of Loss 40% % of Loss
Per unit cost on average 548.65 Per unit cost on average 548.65 Per unit cost on average 5
Loss per sq.ft. 0.00 Loss per sq.ft. 219.46 Loss per sq.ft. 5
Built Up area 2970.00 Built Up area 2970.00 Built Up area 2
Loss Amount 0% Loss Amount 651796.20 Loss Amount16
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 32/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
27
Total Loss of all components875728.2
6 2248778.2748
Per sq. ft. cost 294.86 757.16 1
MRT BUILDING
CATEGORY OF STRUCTURAL NON- SERVICE FUNCTIONAL
DAMAGE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE DAMAGE
DAMAGE 1 0% 14% 0% 0%
DAMAGE 2 25% 14% 0% 29%
DAMAGE 3 75% 72% 100% 71%
Considering Structural Damage, in damage 1 category, there won’t 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
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 33/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
28
system won’t 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 2.Moderate to Heavy Damage 3. Major Damage
A.Structural Cost andDamage
A.
Structural Cost andDamage
A.
Structural Cost andDamage
% of Loss 20% % of Loss 40% % of Loss
Per unit cost onaverage(5 buildingsaverage) 901.73
Per unit cost onaverage(5 buildingsaverage) 901.73
Per unit cost onaverage(5 buildingsaverage)
901.73
Loss per sq.ft. 180.35 Loss per sq.ft. 360.69 Loss per sq.ft.901.7
3
Built Up area (for 1sample building)
2970.00
Built Up area (for 1sample building)
2970.00
Built Up area (for 1sample building)
2970.00
Loss Amount535629
.84 Loss Amount1071259.68 Loss Amount
2678149.21
B.Non Structural Costand Damge
B.
Non Structural Costand Damge
B.
Non Structural Costand Damge
% of Loss 40% % of Loss 60% % of Loss 100%
Per unit cost onaverage 1327.50 Per unit cost onaverage 1327.50 Per unit cost onaverage 1327.50
Loss per sq.ft. 531.00 Loss per sq.ft. 796.50 Loss per sq.ft.1327.50
Built Up area (for 1sample building)
2970.00
Built Up area (for 1sample building)
2970.00
Built Up area (for 1sample building)
2970.00
Loss Amount1577074.75 Loss Amount
2365605.00 Loss Amount
3942675.00
C.
Services Cost and
Damage
C
.
Services Cost and
Damage
C
.
Services Cost and
Damage
% of Loss 40% % of Loss 60% % of Loss 100%
Per unit cost onaverage 370.76
Per unit cost onaverage 370.76
Per unit cost onaverage
370.76
Loss per sq.ft. 148.30 Loss per sq.ft. 222.46 Loss per sq.ft.370.7
6
Built Up area (for 1sample building)
2970.00
Built Up area (for 1sample building)
2970.00
Built Up area (for 1sample building)
2970.00
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 34/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
29
Loss Amount440462
.88 Loss Amount660694
.32 Loss Amount1101157.20
D.Functional Cost andDamage
D.
Functional Cost andDamage
D.
Functional Cost andDamage
% of Loss 40% % of Loss 60% % of Loss 100%
Per unit cost onaverage 548.65
Per unit cost onaverage 548.65
Per unit cost onaverage
548.65
Loss per sq.ft. 219.46 Loss per sq.ft. 329.19 Loss per sq.ft.548.6
5
Built Up area (for1sample building)
2970.00
Built Up area (for 1sample building )
2970.00
Built Up area (for 1sample building)
2970.00
Loss Amount651796
.20 Loss Amount977694
.30 Loss Amount1629490.50
Total Loss of allcomponents
3204963.673
5075253.302
93514
71.906
Per Sqft 1079.11 1708.843148.6
4
NON-MRT BUILDING
CATEGORYOF
STRUCTURAL NON- SERVICE FUNCTIONAL
DAMAGE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE DAMAGE
DAMAGE 1 12% 20% 20% 20%
DAMAGE 2 25% 30% 30% 30%
DAMAGE 3 63% 50% 50% 50%
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 35/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
30
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
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 36/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
31
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.
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 37/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
32
CHAPTER 4
4.1 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 38/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
33
Benefit Cost Ratio Calculation (B/C Analysis):
A. MRT Buildings
Unit cost of construction(per/sq.ft) 3070 Benefit/Cost Ratio
1. Minor to ModerateDamage
Loss per sq.ft.(Rs) 294.86Benefit/CostRatio
Loss in Non MRT - Loss inMRT Buildings
Difference between MRT andNon MRT Cost
2.Moderate to HeavyDamage
1. Minor toModerate (1079.11-294.86)/ (3070-2600)
Loss per sq.ft.(Rs) 757.17
B/C Ratio 1.67
3. Major Damage (1708.84-757.17)/ (3070-2600)
Loss per Sq. ft.(Rs) 1647.952. Moderte toHeavy
B/C Ratio 2.02
B.Non-MRTBuildings
Unit cost of Construction 2600 (3148.65-1647.95)/ (3070-2600)
1. Minor to ModerateDamage
3. MajorDamage
Loss per sq.ft.(Rs) 1079.11 B/C Ratio 3.19
2.Moderate to HeavyDamage
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:
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 39/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
34
Building Categories Overall Cost Structural cost
Cost/sq.ft. Cost/Sqft
MRT 3070.00 1217.25
non-MRT 2600.00 901.73Difference 470.00 315.52
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:
BuildingCategories Damage Category
Minor Moderate Major
Cost/sq.ft. Cost/sq.ft. Cost/sq.ft.
MRT 294.86 757.16 1647.95
non-MRT 1079.11 1708.84 3148.65
Difference 784.25 951.68 1500.7
Furthermore, from the benefit-cost analysis following results has been found:
• For Minor to Moderate damage case: B/C ratio=1.67
• For Moderate to Heavy damage case: B/C ratio=2.02
• For Major Damage case: 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
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 40/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
35
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
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 41/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
36
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.
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 42/43
By:RamMani Ghimire, RamPrasad Neupane, Sweta Amatya
37
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.
7/30/2019 B/C analysis of Seismic resist Building to Non-Engineering building techniques with Retrofitting Cost
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bc-analysis-of-seismic-resist-building-to-non-engineering-building-techniques 43/43
ANNEXES
1. Detail Drawing Drafting (Architectural and Structural)
2. Detail Cost estimation
3. Rate Analysis