EQ damage assessment report

REPORT ON DUDBC RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY OF THE EARTHQUAKEOF SEPTEMBER 18, 2011

The officials from the Department of Urban Development & BuildingConstruction (DUDBC) and its division offices of Kathmandu,representatives of Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) and twostudents of Pulchowk Campus, undertook a reconnaissance surveyfor the damage assessment of the earthquake (2068/06/01 TaplejungEarthquake) affected regions during October 20 to October 25,2011 and visited worst affected major towns and VDCs in Ilam,Panchthar, Taplejung, Dhankuta and Tehrathum districts.

EARTHQUAKE AND ITS SEISMOLOGICAL SETTINGSThe M6.9 Nepal earthquake of September 18, 2011 struck at18:25:48 NST, lasted for about 30 to 40 seconds with itsepicenter located at 27.72°N, 88.06°E in KanchanjungaConservation Area of Nepal, near Nepal-India border region, at ashallow focal depth of 19.7 km. Kathmandu experienced towaftershocks of M4.8 while Sikkim experienced three aftershocks ofmagnitude 5.7, 5.1 and 4.6 within 30 minutes of the initialearthquake. This region has experienced relatively moderateseismicity, with 18 earthquakes of M5 or greater over the past 35years within 100 km of the epicenter of the September 18, 2011event. The affected region lies in the high risk seismic zone of0.9 to 1.0 of Nepal National Building Code. Also, as per theIndian Code, the region lies on zone IV of Indian seismic codeIS: 1893 with the expected shaking intensity of VIII (on MSKscale).

Figure 1 Location map of Epicenter(Source: Google map)

At least 111 people were killed in the earthquake. Most of thedeaths occurred in Sikkim, with reports of fatalities in and nearSingtam in the East Sikkim district. In Kathmandu, damage from the earthquake was comparativelylimited. Three people were killed when a wall at the BritishEmbassy collapsed, and many others suffered injuries. The shakingeffects were more severe in eastern Nepal, which is closer to theepicenter. There, hundreds of homes sustained significant damage,and due to saturated soil from preceding heavy rains widespreadmudslides impacted the region. Sunsari experienced power andtelephone communication outages. Two people were killed in Dharanand One died in Sankhuwasabha. Overall, 6 people died due to theearthquake. Elsewhere, structural damage occurred in Bangladesh,Bhutan, and China (Tibet).

TECTONIC SUMMARYThe September 18, 2011 India-Nepal border region earthquakeoccurred near the boundary between the India and Eurasia plates,in the Kanchanjunga Conservation Area of Nepal, near Nepal-Indiaborder region. Initial analyses suggest the earthquake wascomplex, likely a result of two events occurring close together

in time at depths of approximately 20 km beneath the Earth'ssurface. The region is known to be seismically active, located in theAlpine-Himalayan seismic belt characterized by two major faultsystems (MBT and MCT) associated with the collision of the Indianand Eurasian plates. The event was located north of MBT in theeastern Nepal-Sikkim Himalayas, which has been a region ofseismic activity in recent times. Maximum shaking was experiencedin India’s north-eastern state of Sikkim, followed by Tibet,Nepal, the Indian states of Bengal, Assam, Bihar, and Meghalaya,together with Bhutan and Bangladesh. The maximum shakingintensity attributed to this earthquake is VIII in the NorthSikkim district in the regions of Chungthang and Lachung.

STUDY TEAM & OBJECTIVE OF STUDYFor the purpose of damage assessment due to September 18, 2011Taplejung Earthquake, Department of Urban Development & BuildingConstruction formed two separate teams comprising of 6 members ineach team. These teams visited the worst affected districts. Theteam members are:Team 1 (Dhankuta & Terhathum District)Er. Sagar Krishna Joshi Senior Divisional Engineer

DUDBCEr. Nabin Malakar Engineer DUDBCEr. Ram Chandra Thapa Engineer DUDBCMr. GovindaThapa Engineer DUDBCMs. Maiya Kandel Section Officer MoHAEr. Bishow Kumar Shrestha Student PulchowkCampus

Team 2 (Ilam, Panchthat& Taplejung District)

Er.Binay Charan Shrestha Senior Divisional EngineerDUDBC

Er. Mahesh Singh Engineer DUDBCEr. Himal K.C. Engineer DUDBCEr. Parikshit Kadariya Engineer DUDBCMr. Bhim Paudel Section Officer MoHAEr. Binod Shrestha Student PulchowkCampus

The major task assigned to the teams were• To access the damage induced by the 2068/06/01 Taplejung

Earthquake. • To evaluate the overall approximate cost of repair,

reconstruction and retrofit for the damage caused by theEarthquake.

• To study about the damage patterns for the formulation ofthe trainings concerning Earthquake Resistant Constructionof Buildings.

• To suggest the action plan for the rehabilitation andreconstruction of the damaged structures.

METHODOLOGY• Secondary data was taken from Ministry of Home Affairs and

the respective District Administration Offices. • Field Visits were conducted with co-ordination from the

respective DUDBC division office, DAO, Municipality, VDC's,Police, Red Cross and other NGOs and local people.

• Buildings were selected in such a way that it covered allthe Damage Grades according to the data provided by theMinistry of Home Affairs.

Rapid Evaluation as well as Detailed Evaluation Form from theMoPPW publication “Seismic Vulnerability Evaluation Guideline forPrivate and Public Buildings” was used for the collection offield data. As per the guideline the damage was graded into 5

grades; from Grade 1: Negligible to little damage to Grade5 :Destruction.

• The data of Home Ministry was correlated with the damagegrades as follows:

Home Ministry Damage Grade

Minor Damage DG-1

Partial Damage DG-2 & DG-3

Total Damage (Collapse) DG-4 & DG-5

FINDINGSTotal numbers of 109 buildings were surveyed by the two teams inaforementioned districts. These buildings were categorized fromdamage grade 1 (DG1) to damage grade 5 (DG5). Out of the surveyedbuildings the vast majority of buildings fall under the categoryDG3 which is categorized by MoHA as partial damage. Quite a fewnumbers of buildings also fall under category of DG2 and DG4,especially in Tehrathum district. The district-wise buildingssurveyed and their damage grade are shown in the table and chartbelow:

No. of Sample Buildings District Wise

Ilam Panchthar Taplejung Dhankuta Terhathum DG1 2 0 2 4 3DG2 7 0 0 5 8DG3 11 8 10 5 10DG4 3 1 4 3 14DG5 0 0 5 3 1Total 23 9 21 20 36

Damage grade

Ilam Panchthar Taplejung Dhankuta Terhathum Total05101520253035404550

DG1DG2DG3DG4DG5

Figure2: District Wise Damage of BuildingsThe surveyed buildings were also categorized into damage grade 1to 5 as per the construction typology. Six different constructiontypologies were identified of which stone masonry in mud mortaris the prevalent type. The buildings as per construction typologyand number of building surveyed by the two survey group arelisted below:

RC Frame Others TotalG1 0 1 3 0 0 0 4G2 5 0 1 0 1 0 7G3 25 1 2 0 0 1 29G4 7 0 0 0 0 1 8G5 5 0 0 0 0 0 5Total 42 2 6 0 1 2 53

No. of Sample Buildings (Construction Type Wise ) in Ilam, Panchthar & Taplejung

Damage grade

Stone in Mud

Stone in Cement

Brick in Mud

Brick in Cement

No. of Sample Buildings (Construction Type Wise ) in Dhankuta & Terhathum

RC Frame Others TotalG1 4 1 1 0 1 0 7G2 10 1 1 0 0 1 13G3 14 0 1 0 0 0 15G4 16 0 0 0 1 0 17G5 0 2 0 1 0 1 4Total 44 4 3 1 2 2 56

Damage grade

Stone in Mud

Stone in Cement

Brick in Mud

Brick in Cement

No. of Sample Buildings (Construction Type Wise ) Total

RC Frame OthersG1 4 2 4 0 1 0G2 15 1 2 0 1 1G3 39 1 3 0 0 1G4 23 0 0 0 1 1G5 5 2 0 1 0 1Total 86 6 9 1 3 4

Damage grade

Stone in Mud

Stone in Cement

Brick in Mud

Brick in Cement

Stone in Mud

RC Frame Stone in Cement

Brick in Mud

Brick in Cement

Others0510152025303540

G1G2G3G4G5

Figure3: Construction Type Wise Damage of Buildings

Similarly, the surveyed buildings were categorized into damagegrade 1 to 5 as per the occupancy type i.e., as per use. Sixdifferent occupancy types were identified of which residentialuse is the prevalent type. The buildings as per occupancy typeand number of building surveyed by the two survey group arelisted below:

No. of Sample Buildings Occupancy-wise in Ilam, Panchthar & Taplejung

Residential Educational Others G1 1 0 3 0 0 0G2 3 2 1 1 0 0G3 9 18 2 0 0 0G4 5 3 0 0 0 0G5 3 1 0 0 1 0Total 21 24 6 1 1 0

Damage grade

Office Building

Police Station

Community Building

No. of Sample Buildings Occupancy-wise in Dhankuta & Terhathum

Damage grade Residential Educational Police Station OthersG1 2 1 2 1 0 1G2 9 2 0 1 0 1G3 12 0 2 0 0 1G4 12 2 1 1 0 1G5 2 1 0 0 0 1Total 37 6 5 3 0 5

Office Building

Community Building

No. of Sample Buildings Occupancy Wise (Total)

Residential Educational OthersG1 3 1 5 1 0 1G2 12 4 1 2 0 1G3 21 18 4 0 0 1G4 17 5 1 1 0 1G5 5 2 0 0 1 1Total 58 30 11 4 1 5

Damage grade

Office Building

Police Station

Community Building

Residential

Educational

Office Building

Police Station

Community Building

Others

0

5

10

15

20

25

G1G2G3G4G5

Figure4: Occupancy Wise Damage of BuildingsThe major damage patterns observed in the buildings surveyed arelisted below:

– Corner Failures/Cracks– Shear Failures and Diagonal Cracks. – Cracks at Openings. – Gable fall down and cracks. – De-lamination of wall– Bulging / Falling of unsupported long walls. – Damage / Falling of Free Standing Walls. – Improper Load Path– Soft Story Problems. – Torsion– Complete Collapse– Rocking Failure– Floor Separation– Out of Plane Failure

– Settlement / Slope Failure– Floor Drift/ Slide –

The most common problem observed in the surveyed buildings was offollowing types:

• Lack of Through Stones• Lack of Bands(Sill, Lintel and Gable)and Stitches• Slenderness Ratio Exceeded• Improper Opening Positions and Sizes.• Lack of Better Bonding between Masonry units.• Irregular Configuration• Improper Site Selection • Wrong Load Path• Lack of Integrity between Ground Floor and First Floor• Lack of Vertical Reinforcement at Junction

PERFORMANCE OF STRUCTUREThe wrath of this earthquake was witnessed by both urban andrural communities but much of the damage was observed in therural areas. The major building typologies prevalent in the areaare masonry buildings, traditional houses and to some extent RCframe buildings. Major towns like Ilam Municipality, where alarge inventory of RC buildings has been added since 1998 Udaypurearthquake, was not much affected. It was rather disappointing to discover that a great majority ofboth government and private RC-frame as well as masonry buildingsseriously lacked earthquake-resistant features which are soessential for a satisfactory seismic performance in the designlevel shaking. Many unique and inherently poor constructionfeatures such as weak and very slender walls in rubble masonry,extended floor plans in upper stories supported on wooden postand beams, construction on sloped ground, unstable slopes, weakretaining walls, poor construction material etc., significantlyadded to the seismic vulnerability of structures.

Extensive damage to school buildings reported in the regionexposed the seismic vulnerability of these important structures.The earthquake damage to life-line structures in the visitedareas was limited. The area has a number of highway andpedestrian bridges over rivers and rivulets. However, no seriousdamage to any of the highway bridges was noticed in the areasvisited. Also, the road network in the area visited was notdisrupted. However, there have been reported cases of landslideand damage to some bridges in remote part of Taplejung district.In summary, despite the available knowledge-base, the communitiesare not adequately prepared due to lack of implementation ofearthquake-resistant building technology. However, with adherenceto seismic codes and recommended construction practices, it ispossible to mitigate such large-scale disaster in the regions ofhigh seismic activity.

RECOVERY MEASURESAfter carefully analyzing the construction typology, difficultterrain, availability of skilled labor; types of rehabilitation,recovery and reconstruction measures are recommended fordifferent grade of damage level. These are:

Damage Grade Suggested Recovery MeasuresDG-2 Repair + RetrofitDG-3 Repair, Retrofit + Partial

Demolish.DG-4 & DG-5 Demolish

For DG-1 and other unaffected buildings, it is suggested toretrofit them to cope with the future Earthquakes.Two types of retrofitting viz. wooden band and RC band arestudied. Considering the cost, availability of constructionmaterials, geographical condition, availability of skilled labor,the wooden band retrofitting method is recommended for the remoteareas. The preliminary drawings and cost estimate for both types

of retrofitting techniques are presented in the annex of thisreport. (However, any other suggested methods as per the specificsite condition for retrofitting works would be entertained andencouraged to be brought forward by other interested engineers.)Tentative cost for the retrofitting, rehabilitation andreconstruction for private buildings have been worked out basedon the MoHA data of the damaged buildings and presented in theannex. Similar cost for government buildings such as offices,health posts, hospitals as well as school buildings has to beworked out in detail.The study team strongly recommends that the reconstruction andrehabilitation of the affected area has to be done by extensivesensitization and training program. Similarly, separategovernment level office in collaboration with local bodies has tobe formed for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of theaffected area. The preliminary cost, time frame for sensitizationand training works, reconstruction and rehabilitation works areworked out and given in the annex of this report.

COST ESTIMATESThe cost of repair, retrofit and reconstruction is3,47,9438,674.00. The cost of retrofitting is considered as perthe retrofitting technologies as described. The cost ofreconstruction is determined by averaging the approximate cost ofsimilar type of new buildings being constructed at thelocalities. The cost of trainings, rehabilitation and reconstruction projectoffice is 1,07,38,9,000.00. The detail breakdown of the cost estimate is attached in annex.

IMPLICATION FOR FUTURE ACTIONRough terrain, complex topography and remote locations poseserious challenge for sound and quality construction in hillyareas. Lack of awareness in the general public about the seismicvulnerability of the area have led to haphazard planning of townsand construction on sites prone to landslides and groundsettlement. Unavailability of raw building materials and the

expensive transportation cost have caused use of various sub-standard construction materials. It is critical to promote good concrete and masonry constructionpractice and suitable material for light or strong partitionwalls. For low rise buildings, new building typologies of provenearthquake performance, such as confined masonry need to beintroduced.All stakeholders including builders, contractors, engineers,private owners, government officials and public at large must beeducated about importance of earthquake resistant constructionand its role in mitigating future risk due to seismic activities.Locally available materials (such as bamboo and other sustainabletimber alternatives) and traditional technologies should bereinstated and integrated with modern construction practices tohave an appropriate design for strong and safe housing.Important historic structure and the cultural heritage of thecountry should be considered for retrofitting as well. Importantstructures such as schools and hospitals which are vital in thepost-earthquake relief and rescue efforts must be builtearthquake-resistant on a high-priority. It has been observedthat ad-hoc repairing and retrofitting practices of questionableperformances are implemented after an earthquake.Nepal, located in high seismic zone, is prone to much largerearthquake than the present event; hence compliance to seismiccodes cannot be ignored. The adherence to Nepal National BuildingCodes should be strictly implemented and its importance should becommunicated to the public through various sensitizationprograms. For seismic evaluation and strengthening of existingbuildings, Recovery Principles and Guidelines (MPPW, May 2011),Seismic Vulnerability Evaluation Guideline for Private and PublicBuildings (MPPW, May 2011), and other relevant FEMA guidelinesare recommended.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

We express our sincere gratitude to officials of the DUDBCdivision Office Ilam and Dhankuta, respective CDOs of Taplejung,Dhankuta and Tehrathum, Assistant CDOs of Ilam & Dhankuta, RedCross, Police and numerous individuals for their invaluableassistance during the field study.

Retrofitting drawings

Option1. Retrofitting with Concrete Bands

4000

450

900

450

760

4000

LVL + 0.45MLVL + 0M

LVL + 0.45MLVL + 0M

450

150

450

150

150 450 150

150

150

450

450

150 150150150

450

150760760 900 760

450760 900

150

450

150

150450150

450

760

760

760

760 760

760450

760

1360 655 900 1970 328 900

760

328 1970 1040

1800

9450

4000

450

1580

760

450

760

450

150

450

150

150 450 150150

150

450

450

150 150150150

450

150760760 900 760

450760 900

150

450

150

150450150

450

760

760

760

760 760

760450

760

1360 655 900 1970328

900 328 1970 1040

1800

9450

150

450

760

1580

760

450

150

680

75

200

200

Option2. Retrofitting with Wooden Bands

4000

450

900

450

760

LVL + 0.45MLVL + 0M

LVL + 0.45MLVL + 0M

450450

450

450450

450

760760 900 760450

760 900

450

450

450

760

760

760

760 760

760450

760

1360 655 900 1970 328 900

760

328 1970 1040

1800

9450

1360 655 900 1970 328 900 328 1970 1040

150

450

760

1580

760

450

150

680

760

4000

450

900

450

760

450

450

450

450

450

760760 900 760450

760 900

450

450

760

760

760

760 760

760450

760

760

1800

9450

150

450

760

1580

760

450

150

680

760

450

Retrofitting costRetrofitting and Repair Cost for Different Methods

Amount in Rs.

Retrofitting with wood members 63,226

Retrofitting with Concrete members

2,89,693.20

Repair of cracked wall per meter length

997.60

Cost of new construction 5,00,000

Cost of new construction with using usable existing materials( 60% of New Construction Cost)

3,00,000

Total Cost of Repair, Retrofitting and Reconstruction

Damage Grade

Total House No.

Unit Cost in Rs. Total Cost

G1 1111 997*20=19,940 = 2,21,53,340

G2 & G3 9749 63226+19940=83,166

=81,07,85,334

G4 & G5 5293 5,00,000 =2,64,65,00,000

Total =3,47,94,38,674

(Note: Only wooden retrofitting is considered. The total number of buildings is as per the data provided by MoHA.

Cost for Trainings and Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Office

Cost Analysis for Training of Trainer's ( ToT)

Organizer: DUDBCVenue: Kathmandu

S No Description Unit Quantity Rate1 Trainer's Fee Days 15.00 6000.002 Lunch and other Refreshments Nos 700.00 150.003 Stationary and other Miscellaneous Expenses LS 1.00 60000.00

Cost Analysis for Hiring of Personnel For Sensitization Program

S No Description Unit Quantity Rate Amount1 Personnel Hiring No 1.001a Salary Days 90.00 1500.00 135000.00

1b Days 30.00 250.00 7500.00

1c LS 1.00 10000.00 10000.00

Travelling Expenses for ProgramsTravelling Expenses from Kathmandu ( 2 way air tickets)

Venue: Kathm andu12 affected DistrictsTotal No of Training 500

S No Description Unit Quantity Rate Am ount Rem arks

1 Num ber of participation in each training No 30.002 No of days in each training Days 3.002a Lunch and Refreshm ent Nos 90.00 50.00 4500.00

2bStationary and other M iscellaneous Expenses Nos. 90.00 200.00 18000.00

22500.00Total cost of training and sensitization program = 15000 x 500

Cost Analysis for District W ise M ason Training and Sensitization ProgramOrganizer: ToT Trainers

Cost for 1 training

11250000

Total number of District office 11cost of office per month for 11 officesS No Description Unit Quantity Rate Amount

1 Office Rent mth 11.00 5000.00 55000.002 Office Expenses mth 11.00 7000.00 77000.003 Hiring of Engineer mth 57.00 45000.00 2565000.00

4 mth 11.00 30000.00 330000.00

5 mth 11.00 9000.00 99000.00

6 mth 11.00 15000.00 165000.003291000.00

Total Project Period = 24 monthsTotal Operating Cost 78984000……………………………..A

Initial office setup costs for each officesCost of laptop computer, printe 150000No of offices 11Total Initial Cost for Office se 1650000 …………………..BTotal expenses for District office of EQ Rehab and Reconstruction Unit= A+B

Cost Analysis for District office of EQ Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Unit

Hiring of Administrative staffHiring of Office AssistantCommunication and stationary cost

Summary of Cost

S No Description Amount1 Cost of ToT Training in Kathmandu 255000.002 Hiring of Personnel for sensitization program 15250000.003 Cost of Mason Training and sensirization program 11250000.00

4 80634000.00Grand Total 107389000.00

Cost of District Office for EQ Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Unit

TOT Training Flow Chart

Selection of Participants(130 Numbers of Engineers)

Training of Trainers Programs OnBuilding Code of Nepal

30 Participants from RelatedDUDBCofficesM unicipalities/VDCs,DDC, DTO

100 Participants fromEngineering Colleges,Private Sectors, Free-Lancer

Execution of5 Days TOT Training

Program s At Central Level

Appointment of 100participants for 3 months

For the Job of training NBC

Generation of 50 Nos. ofGroups( Each group with 2

engineers)

Conduct 3 DaysSensitization & M asontraining Program @ VDCLevel by each Group

Assignment: At Least 10 VDCs @ 3 M onths By

One Group

W ith Support of DUDBCDivision

Office,M unicipality/VDC

W ith Support of M oLD, DDC& DTO

W ith Support of Local NGO &INGO W ith Support of Clubs, Social

Organizations and Societies

Target = 500 VDCs from 11Districts @ 3 M onths

Governm ent of Nepal

Earthquake Rehabilitation andReconstruction Project

M inistry of PhysicalPlanning and W orks

M inistry of LocalDevelopm ent

Department of UrbanD evelopm ent and Building

Construction

Central EarthquakeRehabilitation &

Reconstruction ProjectCoordination Office

Division Office DhankutaD ivision Office O khalghunga Division Office Ilam

Earthquake Rehabilitation &Reconstruction Project,

Khotang District

Earthquake Rehabilitation &Reconstruction Project,Okhaldhunga District


Solukhumbu District


Bhojpur District

Earthquake Rehabilitation &Reconstruction Project,D hankuta District

Earthquake Rehabilitation &Reconstruction Project,Sankhuwasobha District

Earthquake Rehabilitation &Reconstruction Project,Terhathum District


Jhapa District


Ilam District

Earthquake Rehabilitation &Reconstruction Project,Panchthar District

Earthquake Rehabilitation &Reconstruction Project,Taplejung District

VDC=39 Nos. VDC=51 Nos. V DC=35 Nos. VDC=64 Nos. V DC=39 Nos. VDC=35 Nos. VDC=32 Nos. V DC=51 Nos. VDC=52 Nos. V DC=46 Nos. VDC=50 Nos.

Human Resources:Engineer= 4

A dm inistration =1O ffice assistant = 1

Hum an Resources:Engineer= 6

Adm inistration =1O ffice assistant = 1


Adm inistration =1Office assistant = 1

Hum an Resources:Engineer=7



A dm inistration =1O ffice assistant = 1


Administration =1Office assistant = 1

H um an Resources:Engineer= 4



A dm inistration =1Office assistant = 1


Administration =1Office assistant = 1





DDC/DTO/M unicipality/VDC Local NGO, SocialO rganization , Societies,

Clubs

SupportAt Central & Execution

Level

UNDP/DFID/Other ING Os

M oHAb}jL k|sf]k Joj:yfkg ;ldlt

Earthquake Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Project Office

Photographs

Corner Failure (Manglabare Pashu Sewa Kendra)

Shear Failure and Diagonal Cracks (Taplejung, Sinam, Private Building)

Zone Wise Selection of District1. Sagarmatha Zone

Khotang District ( Diktel )(VDC=39)

Okhaldhunga District (Okhaldhunga)(VDC=51)

Saptari District (Rajbiraj)Siraha District (Siraha)Solukhumbu District ( Salleri )(VDC=35)

Udayapur District (Gaighat)

2. Koshi Zone Bhojpur District ( Bhojpur )(VDC=64)

Dhankuta District ( Dhankuta )(VDC=39)

Morang District (Biratnagar)Sankhuwasabha District ( Khandbari )(VDC=35)

Sunsari District (Inaruwa)Terhathum District ( Myanglung )(VDC=32)

3. Mechi Zone Ilam District ( Ilam )(VDC=51)

Jhapa District ( Chandragadhi )(VDC=52)

Panchthar District ( Phidim )(VDC=46)

Taplejung District ( Taplejung )(VDC=50)

Ilam Division(Jhapa, Ilam,Panchthar, Taplejung)

OkhaldhungaDivision(Okhaldhunga,Khotang,Solukhumbhu)

Dhankuta Division(Bhojpur,Dhankuta,Sankhuwasabha,Terhathum)

First Phase of Program will be lunched for 500 VDCs from Ilam,Jhapa, Panchthar, Taplejung, Terhathum , Sankhuwasabha, Dhankuta,Bhojpur, Solukhumbu, Okhalgunga and Khotang Districts.Abstract of Cost for Retrofitting

Retrofitting option -1- Wooden structure

SN DescriptionUnit

Quantity Rate Total

Remarks

1Earth work in Excavation in ordinary soil

ft³ 73.5 8.16 599.76

2 Local Hard woodft³ 45.5 650 29575

3 Tor steel rod kg 3088.1

4 2644.2

4Nut bolt and threading in the 12 mm dia rod - 2' long all complete no 40 100 4000

5PCC work in (1:1½:3), concreting packing works

ft³ 45

268.78

12095.1

6Re adjusting the stone masonry work in mud mortar

ft³ 110

84.66 9312.6

7 Overall Clearacne all complete LS LS 5000 5000Total

63226.66

In Word: Sixty three thousand Two hnudred Twenty six Rupees and Paisasixty six only

Retrofitting Option-2- RCC( Reinforced Cement Concrete)

SN DescriptionUnit

Quantity Rate Total

Remarks

1Earth work in Excavation in ordinary soil

ft³ 73.5 8.16 599.76

2 Joint Cleaning works No 25 500 12500

3 Tor steel rod kg871.1

988.1

476786.6

9

5PCC work in (1:1½:3), concreting works

ft³ 642

268.78

172556.76

620mm thick1:4 cement plaster works

ft³ 1000

24.25 24250

7 Overall Clearacne all complete LS LS 3000 3000Total

289693.21

In words: Two lakh Eighty Nine thousand Six Hundred Ninty ThreeThousand and Paisa Twenty

one only.

Repair works- stitching works- Per 1 meter length

SN DescriptionUnit

Quantity Rate Total Remarks

1

Taking out all the mud plaster/Cleaning of joints/Providing the 1:1 cement slurry all complete. MD 1 500 500

3Tor steel rod of 8 mm dia clamp kg 2 88.14 176.28

5PCC work in (1:1½:3) - Cement:Sand:Chips

ft³ 0.75

268.78

201.585

6 Chicken wire meshft² 3.22 6.13

19.7386

7 Overall Clearacne all complete LS LS 100 100Total 997.60

In Word: Eighty Three thousand Eight Hundred Twenty four Rupees andPaisa Thirty only

EQ damage assessment report

Documents

Transcript of EQ damage assessment report