Figures

- F 1 -

Figure 1.4.2 Comparison of Several Attenuation Formula

1988 Udayapur Eq. Mw=6.8, Firm Soil condition

1

10

100

1000

1 10 100 1000

Distance (km)

PG

A (ga

l)estimated from SRRJain et al.(2000)

Questionnair(Maximum) Fujiwara et al.(1989)

Questionnair(Average) Fujiwara et al.(1989)

Liquefaction AnalysisFujiwara et al.(1989)

Abrahamson &Silva(1997)

Boore et al.(1997)

Campbell(1997)

Kawashima(1983)Class 2

1988 Udayapur Eq. Mw=6.8, Other Ground condition

1

10

100

1000

1 10 100 1000

Distance (km)

PG

A (ga

l)

Jain et al.(2000) for1988.8.20 UdayapurEq.

Sharma(2000)

Joyner &Boore(1981)

Campbell(1981)

Abrahamson &Litehiser(1989)

Kawashima(1983) Class1

Kawashima(1983)Class3

Fukushima &Tanaka(1990)

- F 2 -

Figure 1.4.5 Peak Ground Acceleration Distribution (1/2)

- F 3 -

Figure 1.4.6 Peak Ground Acceleration Distribution (2/2)

- F 4 -

Figure 1.4.8 Seismic Intensity Distribution (1/2)

- F 5 -

Figure 1.4.9 Seismic Intensity Distribution (2/2)

- F 6 -

Figure 1.5.3 Liquefaction Potential Distribution (1/2)

- F 7 -

Figure 1.5.4 Liquefaction Potential Distribution (2/2)

- F 8 -

Figure 1.6.1 Slope Stability

- F 9 -

Figure 1.8.7 Heavily Damaged Building Number Distribution (1/2)

- F 10 -

Figure 1.8.8 Heavily Damaged Building Number Distribution (2/2)

- F 11 -

Figure 1.8.9 Heavily Damaged Building Ratio Distribution (1/2)

- F 12 -

Figure 1.8.10 Heavily Damaged Building Ratio Distribution (2/2)

- F 13 -

Figure 1.10.3 Death Toll Density Distribution (1/2)

- F 14 -

Figure 1.10.4 Death Toll Density Distribution (2/2)

- F 15 -

Figure 1.10.5 Total Casualty Density Distribution (1/2)

- F 16 -

Figure 1.10.6 Total Casualty Density Distribution (2/2)

- F 17 -

Figure 1.10.7 Death Toll Distribution (1/2)

- F 18 -

Figure 1.10.8 Death Toll Distribution (2/2)

- F 19 -

Figure 1.10.9 Relationship between Building Damages and Human Casualty

(retouched to Coburn & Spence, 1992)

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000

Number of Buildings Heavily Damaged

Num

ber

of

Peo

ple

Kill

ed

Timber Frame,Japan

Weak Masonry

Brick Masonry

Timber with Heavy Infill

Deaths caused Primarily incollapse of RC structures

Kathmandu Scenario Eq.

NewcastleAustralia 1989

LomaPrieta,USA1989

ElAsnam,Algeria 1980

MexicoCity,1985

Armenia,USSR 1986

Luzon,Phillippines 1990

Kalamata,Greece,1986

Manjil, Iran 1990

Kobe,Japan 1995

ChiChi, Taiwan 1999

Gujarat,India 2001

Tangshan, China 1976

Kocaeli,Turkey 1999

Bihar-Nepal, 1934

Udayapur,Nepal,1988

Haicheng, China 1975

North Bagmati Eq.

KV Local Eq.

Mid Nepal Eq.

1934 Eq. In Present

- F 20 -

Figure 1.11.1 Location of Bridges

- F 21 -

Figure 1.11.2 Bridge Damage Distribution -Mid Nepal Earthquake-

- F 22 -

Figure 1.11.3 Road Network

- F 23 -

Figure 1.11.4 Hazardous Points of Roads

- F 24 -

Figure 1.11.5 Accessibility of Roads -Mid Nepal Earthquake-

- F 25 -

Figure 1.12.1 Water Supply Network

- F 26 -

Figure 1.12.3 Damage of Water Supply Pipelines

- F 27 -

Figure 1.12.4 Sewerage Network

- F 28 -

Figure 1.12.5 Damage of Sewerage Pipelines

- F 29 -

Figure 1.12.6 Electric Power Supply Network

- F 30 -

Figure 1.12.8 Damage of Electric Power Supply Lines

- F 31 -

Figure 1.12.9 Telecommunication Network

- F 32 -

Figure 1.12.10 Damage of Telecommunication Lines

- F 33 -

Figure 1.13.2 Fire Outbreak Rank by Petrol/ Gas Station

- F 34 -

Figure 2.2.1 Design of the System

Kathmandu Earthquake Risk Mitigation Tool (KERMIT)

new scenario earthquakes

TopographySlope gradientGeologyGroundwaterRiversGeomorphology/ LandslideFaults and lineamentsEpicetral distribution

Administrative boundary/ Locality classificationPopulation / Population densityLand use/ Land system/ Land capabilityBuilding distributionPublic facilities distribution (fire station, public school, hospital, hazardous facility)Infrastructure (road/ bridge/ water supply/ sewerage/ electricity/telecommunication)

Borehole locationGround model for seismic analysisSource fault model for scenario earthquakePeak ground acceleration (PGA) distributionSeismic intensity distributionLiquefaction potentialSlope stability

Heavily damaged building distributionCasualty distributionDamages of each infrastructure (road/ bridge/ water supply/ sewerage/ electricity/ telecommunication)Fire outbreak rank

Statistics of past disasterMeteorological features (rainfall, temperature, etc.)Social survey/ Land development sites/ Newar settlementBuilding inventoryBlueprint for the Kathmandu Valley earthquake disaster mitigation

New SimulationExisting conditions

(sensitive study varyingearthquake paramaters)

Database

Bibliography

Function

View/ Query

Natural conditions

Video

Demonstration

Seismic Damage Analysis

Miscellaneous

End

Social conditions

Seismic Hazard Analysis

Hazard & Damage Maps

- F 35 -

Figure 2.3.1 Mesh Configuration (1/2)

- F 36 -

Figure 2.3.2 Mesh Configuration (2/2)