Investigation and Analysis of Building Structures Damaged in Nepal M8.1 Earthquake in 2015


Abstract eng:
On April 25th, 2015, the M s 8.1earthquake occurred in Nepal. This earthquake caused a lot of casualties. As the neighboring country, some Chinese persons also had been hurt by this earthquake. After the earthquake, the site investigation has been carried out. As we know, the building structures collapsed in earthquake is the main reason of casualties. Compared the differences of the building structures in the disaster areas between two countries, and the damage characteristics and shortages in design and construction of building structures have been pointed out. Finally, some conclusions have been given to improve the seismic performance of building structure in the further. Some conclusions have been drawn out: (1) In the disaster area, the proportion of buildings with poor seismic performance is bigger. (2) Most of the buildings are selfbuilt by the residents without adequate seismic design. (3) The influence of ground and foundation is an important cause of building damage. (4) The structure design can also cause the deficiency of the seismic vulnerability, such as the effects of short column, the lack of structural measures, small size of beam and column, high stiffness of filled wall, etc... (5) There are many old houses existing in the city, includes some historical buildings. Due to the poor seismic capacity, most of them damaged seriously. (6) Comparison has been done with the damage of buildings in Tibet China. It is important to increase input for improving seismic capacity of buildings.

Conference Title:
Conference Title:
16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Conference Venue:
Santiago (CL)
Conference Dates:
2017-01-09 / 2017-01-13
Rights:
Text je chráněný podle autorského zákona č. 121/2000 Sb.



Record appears in:



 Record created 2017-01-18, last modified 2017-01-18


Original version of the author's contribution as presented on USB, paper 1398.:
Download fulltext
PDF

Rate this document:

Rate this document:
1
2
3
 
(Not yet reviewed)