Erakv 3rd Newsletter

CONTENTS1.Introduction and Project Components2.Project Summary3. Activities of WGs4.Joint Working Group and JCC Meetings5.Result of the Seismic Hazard Assessment6. Result of the Seismic Risk Assessment7.CBDRRM Activities8.Counterpart Training in Japan9.Further Schedule

April 2017

JICA ERAKV NEWS No. 3THE PROJECT FOR ASSESSMENT OF

EARTHQUAKE DISASTER RISK FOR THE KATHMANDU VALLEY IN NEPAL

Contents

1. Introduction and Project Components

2. Project Summary

3. Activities of WGs

4. JCC, Joint Working Group Meetings and Seminar

5. Result of the Seismic Hazard Assessment

6. Progress of the Seismic Risk Assessment

7. CBDRRM Activities

8. Counterpart Training in Japan

9. Further Schedule

INTRODUCTION

Katsu KATO

Masato AKASHI

Makoto IKEDA

Junya UMEMURA

Ryoji TAKAHASHIRajendra Prasad KHANAL

Deependra Nath SHARMA

Kenpei KOJIKASuman SALIKEDr. Ramesh Prasad SINGH

Fumio KANEKODil Kumar TAMANG

Purushottam SUBEDIRudra Singh TAMANG

Jun MATSUO

Krishna Bahadur RAUT

Toshio DOI

Koichi HASEGAWA

Shukyo SEGAWA

Michio MORINO

Team Leader /

DM AdministrationDirector General

Department of Mines

and Geology

Secretary

Ministry of Urban

Development

Deputy Team Leader/

DM Administration/

Risk Assessment/

DRR Planning

S. D. E./ Project Manager

Ministy of Urban Development

Joint Secretary / Project Director Ministy of Urban Development

Seismic Hazard

Assessment

(Earthquake)

Under Secretary

Ministry of Home Affairs

Under Secretary

Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development

Joint Secretary Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development

Seismic Hazard

Assessment

(Ground Modelling)

Joint Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs

Soil Survey

Seismic Hazard

Assessment

(Ground motion)

Seismic Hazard

Assessment

(Ground motion)

Seismic Hazard

Assessment

(Topography)

Regional DM Planning

1/ Reconstruction

Planning

Regional DM Planning 2

Emergency response

Planning

Urban Design

and Planning

PROJECT MEMBERGOVERNMENT COUNTERPARTS TEAM MEMBERS

The project “The study on Earthquake Disaster Mitigation”, conducted by JICA in 2002, estimated the damage with several scenario earthquakes. More than ten years have passed since the project, and,population and the number of buildings have increased without enough countermeasures against the earthquake disaster. In this circumstance, the Government of Nepal (GoN) requested the assistance from the Government of Japan, and this project was formulated.On April 25, 2015, just before the commencement of the project, the Gorkha Earthquake of Mw 7.8 (USGS) occurred. The experts from this project urgently visited Kathmandu from 6th May. During the visit, the team investigated the damage of buildings, the needs from the GoN for recovery and reconstruction, and had series of discussions with the counterparts.Though the Gorkha Earthquake caused heavy damages both in and out of Kathmandu Valley, the damage was relatively small compared with other earthquakes having similar magnitude. It was recognized by both JICA and GoN that the quick recovery and reconstruction with the concept of Build Back Better (BBB) is an urgent issue and, in the meantime, it is necessary to promote the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) for the future earthquake. This project modified its contents as shown in the next page so as to achieve above concept, and has been proceeding.

1

2

3

Originally, this project was planned for Seismic Hazard Assessment, Seismic Risk Assessment and DRRM plan based on the Risk Assessment. However, in order to correspond to the needs after the Gorkha Earthquake, following activities were added in the 1st Joint Coordinating Committee (JCC) meeting held on 18th June, 2015.

Kanako IUCHI

Akira INOUE

Akio HAYASHI

Hiroshi IMAIZUMI

Miki KODAMA

Akihiro FURUTA

Abilash POKHREL

Toshikazu HIWAKI

Land Use Planning

Earthquake Disaster

Risk Assessment

(Building)

Earthquake Disaster

Risk Assessment (Infra-

structure)

Earthquake Disaster

Risk Assessment

(Economic and

Social Analysis)

Community Based Dis-

aster Risk Management

GIS and Mapping

Damage Survey

Organization Coordi-

nation

Project Coordinator /

Associate Regional

DM Planning

Hisila MANANDHAR

Apil K.C.

Civil Engineer

Local Consultant

Standard Operation

Procedure

Local Consultant

CBDRRM Activities

Deepak Raj PAGENI

Subhechha SHARMA Sangita ADHIKARI

GIS Engineer

Interpreter /

Civil Engineer

Secretary

Naresh SHRESTHA

PROJECT COMPONENTS

4

1. 3rd Counterpart Training in Japan at JICA2. Discussion at MoUD

3. Technology Transfer in DUDBC 4. 1st JCC Meeting

1contents

-Caption of Photos-

Overall Goal

To reduce the earthquake disaster risk through effective and sustainable measures to be taken

based on the disaster risk assessment.

Project Purpose

To implement the earthquake risk assessment for future scenario earthquakes considering the

earthquake environment after the Gorkha Earthquake, and to develop the DRRM plan for concrete

and effective promotion of disaster risk management for future earthquakes.

Project Output

• Output 1

Seismic hazard assessment based on scenario earthquakes utilizing the latest knowledge and

creation of detailed ground model for Kathmandu Valley.

• Output 2

Seismic risk assessment based on the results of seismic hazard assessment (Output 1), and

summarize as damage estimation by considering several occurrence scenes (time, date, etc.) for

buildings and infrastructure damage, and human and economic loss.

• Output 3

Enhancement of technical skills for updating risk assessment results in accordance with the social

environment change in the future.

• Output 4

To formulate BBB recovery and reconstruction plan utilizing the results of hazard assessment, and

DRRM plan based on the results of seismic risk assessment for the pilot municipalities.

Implementing Agencies

MoUD, MoHA, MoFALD, and DMG

Pilot Municipalities

1) Lalitpur Metropolitan City

2) Bhaktapur Municipality

3) Budhanilkantha Municipality

Duration

Approx. 3 Years

( from May 2015 to April 2018)

PROJECT SUMMARY

2contents

ACTIVITIES OF 3 WGs

WG1 Seismic Hazard

Assessment

WG2 Seismic Risk Assessment

WG3 Pilot Activities

1st Meeting on 7th Aug 2015

1st Meeting on 27th July 2015

1st Meeting on 5th Aug 2015

Outline and Framework of the activities were discussed and progress of microtremor measurement was introduced.

Outline and Framework for the activities were explained to the participants.

Outline and Framework of the Recovery and Reconstruction Plan was explained. The schedule, image of plan was discussed.

2nd Meeting on 9th Nov 2015

2nd Meeting on 8th Feb 2016

2nd Meeting on 1st Mar 2016

Progress including Scenario Earthquake and Soil Modelling, including the importance of technical transfer was shared.

The progress of Data collection for Buildings, Infrastructures, Lifelines, Social Economic situation was explained. The necessity of more detail data was shared.

(Draft) BBB Recovery and Reconstruction Plan was introduced. The implementation method and budget were recognized as the main issue to be further discussed.

3rd Meeting on 11 Sep 2016

3rd Meeting on 4th Aug 2016

3rd Meeting on 6th May 2016

Review of project and hazard assessment was made and result of liquefaction and slope failure was explained.

The risk assessment approaches forbuilding and infrastructure damage and human and economic loss was discussed.

Building damage in 2016 and 2030, damage of infrastructure and l i fel ines, human casualty and economic loss was shared. Risk assessment results were discussed and confirmed.

The contents of BBB Recovery and Recon-struction Plan was discussed.

The outline of Local Disaster Risk Management Plan (LDRMP) guideline anong with structure and contents of DRRM Plan and Standard Operation Procedure were presented and confirmed.

4th Meeting on 23rd Feb 2017

4th Meeting on 19th December 2016

3contents

JCC, Joint Working Group Meetings and Seminar1st JCC Meeting on 18 June 2015

The Project Component was modified (Content 1) and 3 Pilot Municipalities were determined.

1st JWG Meeting on 6 December 2015 1st Joint Working Group (JWG) meeting was organized to share the works of each working group before the 2nd JCC

meeting and the comprehensive ideas including the themes of 3 WGs were discussed.

2nd JCC Meeting on 16 December 2015 The activities of the three WGs were presented by Nepali representative of each WG. Scenario Earthquakes were

determined. The framework for Recovery and Reconstruction Plan was confirmed.

2nd JWG Meeting on 11 April 2016Progress of Seismic Hazard Assessment, calculation of PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration) for the Scenario Earthquakes and

importance of PGA for Risk Assessment and Disaster Management was shared.

3rd JCC Meeting on 10 May 2016Results of Hazard assessemnt (the Scenario Earthquakes and Seismic Motion) and Finalization of the Recovery and

Reconstruction Plans in Pilot Municipalities were discussed and confirmed.

4th JCC Meeting on 14 September 2016Result of hazard assessment, coverage items for risk assessment, methodology for risk assessment, disaster occurrence scenes, target scenarios for full scale risk assessment and activities at pilot municipalites in phase 2 were discussed and

confirmed.

Results of Seismic Hazard Assessment and Result of formulation of BBB Recovery and Reconstruction Plans were made open to the public. Also presentation on Fragility Curves for the building related to 2015 Gorkha Earthquake and

implementation of disaster reduction measures to build disaster resilient KV were made.

Confirmed commencement of risk assessment and output image of results of risk assessment. Indicators of Global Targets of the Sendai Framework and contribution by the project was discussed.

Seismic Risk Assessment Results of building damage in 2016 and 2030, Damage of Infrastructure and lifeline, Human Casualty and Economic Loss was discussed and confirmed. Target levels of scenario earthquake ground motion were

discussed and confirmed.

1st Seminar on 16 September 2016

5th JCC on 12 December 2016

6th JCC on 06 April 2017

4contents

Result of the Seismic Hazard AssessmentAs the resource information for reducing the damage due to future earthquakes to the Kathmandu Valley, “Seismic Hazard Assessment” has been conducted. Firstly, the scenario earthquakes were set. Secondly, the seismic motions due to the scenario earthquakes were calculated by considering the propagation of the seismic waves from the epicentre to the bottom rock of the Valley. Then, the change of earthquake motions within the sub-surface soil ground of the Valley was analysed. Finally, the earthquake shaking at the ground surface and collateral hazards like liquefaction and slope failure were investigated.

Scenario Earthquake

Amplification of Seismic Motion

The possible earthquakes affecting the Kathmandu valley were investigated in order to prepare for future earthquakes. They were derived from the following information: active faults, crustal move-ment, historical earthquakes and current seismic activity. During the process, the opinions of national and international ex-perts including that of DMG were taken into account. As a result, the following 3 scenario earthquakes were set: 1) Far- Mid Western Nepal Scenario Eq., 2)

Western Nepal Scenario Eq., and 3) Central Nepal South Scenario Eq. In addition, the information of the past earthquakes is effective for verification. Therefore, the information due to the 1934 Nepal-Bihar Earthquake, as well as the main shock and the largest aftershock of the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake were used.

SCENARIO EARTHQUAKE

GROUND SHAKING LEVEL

Western Nepal Scenario Earthquake

(M = 7.8)

Normal Attenuation (WN)

Central Nepal South Scenario Earthquake

(M = 7.8)

Normal Attenuation * 1/3 (CNS-1)



Kathmandu Valley shows complicated features, as the sub-surface ground is covered by the strata deposited at the time of the Paleo-Kathmandu Lake, and river and terrace deposits. Features of the amplification and the predominant period calculated from the ground models greatly influence ground motion distribution. Depending on the level of the input ground motion, a nature of nonlinearity of soil appears.

Amplification of Sub-surface GroundEstimated Predominant Period of the Ground 5contents

Scenario Earthquake Ground Motion for Risk Assessment

MMI Distribution of Kathmandu Valley

Using the ground models for sub-surface of the Kathmandu Valley, the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) by 3 scenario earthquakes and verification earthquakes were calculated by equivalent linear soil dynamic response analysis. PGAs of the sediment area of the valley are mainly ranged in 150-200 gal for Gorkha earthquake and Western Nepal Scenario earthquake, 200-400 gal for CNS-1 and increased to 250-600 gal and 300-800 gal for CNS-2 and CNS-3 respectively.

Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)

Western Nepal 2015 Gorkha Earthquake (Estimated for Verification)

Central Nepal South-1 Central Nepal South-2 Central Nepal South-3

Western Nepal 2015 Gorkha Earthquake (Estimated for Verification)

Central Nepal South-1 Central Nepal South-2 Central Nepal South-3

Seismic intensity is the most popular index of earthquake motion. Among several intensity scales in the world, the Modified Mercali Intensity Scale (MMI) is most popularly used in many countries. This scale, composed of increasing levels of intensity that range from imperceptible shaking to catastrophic destruction, is designated by Roman numerals.

150-200 gal

200-400 gal

150-200 gal

250-600 gal 300-800 gal

Result of the Seismic Risk AssessmentSeismic Risk Assessment is based on the results of seismic hazard assessment and diverse information. The major targets of the assessment are buildings, road network, bridges, water supply and sewage pipelines, electricity system and telecommunication system. The results have been summarized in tables and maps by each sector such as building, infrastructure, lifelines, human damage and economic losses.

Contents of Risk Assessment

Earthquake Occurrence Scenes

Category Items of Risk Assessment

Building

Damage of General Building

Damage of School Building Damage of Health Facility BuildingDamage of Governmental Building

Infra-structure

Road

Hazardous Points due to Slope Failure and LiquefactionRoad Link Blockage by Collapsed Building

Bridge Damage Degree of Bridge

Lifeline

Water Supply Damage Points of Pipeline Network

Sewage Length of Pipeline DamagePower

Distribution Network

Damage of Utility Pole

Household Power Outage

Telecom Network Damage of Mobile BTS Tower

Human Casualty Death, Injured and Evacuee

Economic Loss

Direct Damage (Building, Infrastruc-ture and Lifeline)Indirect Damage ( Tourism Revenue and Others)

The Project has conducted the earthquake risk assessment with a quantitative method. Earthquake risk is estimated by the results of hazard analysis and the vulnerability of buildings and infrastructures. In reality, the damage of structures will be estimated by the ground acceleration or velocity of each 250m x 250 m grid, used in hazard analysis, and the number and characteristics of the structures in the same grid. The results of the assessment are plotted in GIS format and a series of risk maps are prepared. The maps include the items explained in the right handside table and the scale of the map is the entire Kathmandu Valley.The boundaries such as district boundary, municipality boundary and ward boundary set by the government has been used while preparing the map.The basic principle for risk assessment is to consider the real vulnerability of the structure of Nepal. Method for risk assessment has been referred to that used by the local governnment of Japan, but necessary modifications have been made to reflect the characteristics of structures of Nepal.

Risk assessment of this project has been conducted for two cases: (1) the risk of 2016 and (2) 2030 to match with target year for Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. The purpose of risk assessment for 2030 is to see how the risk could be reduced through strengthening building seismic performance, comparing with that the simple extrapolation of current situation.The risk assessment for 2016 considers different earthquake occurrence scenes (occurrence time) based on the damage situation of Nepal and available data. With the above investigation effects of daytime, night, weekday, weekend and season and the data availability, the earthquake occurrence scene for the project is shown.

6contents

Building Damage Function and Structure Type

Estimation of Building Distribution

Building Damage AssessmentA deterministic approach is taken for the Risk Assessment of buildings. Risk Assessment for general buildings is expressed by sum total of product of number of buildings of each structure category at each grid (250 m x 250 m), PGA by scenario earthquake and building damage function.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 200 400 600 800

Peak ground acceleration (PGA: cm/sec2, gal)

Dam

age

Gra

de4+

5

1 2 3 4 5 6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 200 400 600 800Peak ground acceleration (PGA: cm/sec2, gal)

Dam

age

Gra

de4+

5

1 2 3 4 5 6

Category Structural type1 Masonry 1 Adobe

2 Masonry 2 Brick masonry with mud mortar,flex roof & 20 years and more

Stone with mud mortar

3 Masonry 3 Brick masonry with mud mortar, rigidroof, & flex roof within 1~20 years

4 Masonry 4 Brick masonry with cement mortar Stone with cement mortar, 8. Others

5 RC 1 RC non-engineered

6 RC 2 RC engineered with low to mid-rise

The revision of building damage function of the 2002 JICA Study including the classification of buildings has been done based on the building inventory and damage survey of the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake. Using the Strong motion records of the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake, acceleration response spectrum of the building was prepared. The response spectrum and its amplification per each grid or each predominant period of the ground were calculated based on the calculated PGA of the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake with correction factor of 0.2. Also, the seismic

assessment of typical buildings was carried out. These data were utilized for the development of building damage function through the engineering judgement and comprehensive apporach.

Building Damage Function-Center Area of the Valley Building Damage Function- Perimeter Area of the Valley

Due to the lack of exact building data, the building distribution in the entire Kathmandu Valley in 2015 Gorkha Earthquake was estimated as a pre-verificaiton for the projection of building distribution in 2016 and 2030. Based on 3 thematic maps namely urbanization pattern, the land use pattern and building density from building foot print data and classifying the entire Kathmandu Valley in multiple areas and estimating building number by 250m x 250m, finally, building component ratio was estimated for 2015.The estimation of building distribution for 2016 and 2030 was done according to the flow chart on the right.

Estimation of Building Inventory in 2015(number and structure type)

Estimation of Building Inventory in 2016(Heavy damage buildings due to Gorkha EQ were replaced by

new buildings)

Estimation of Building Inventory in 2030 with Building Component Ratio Being the Same as 2016

(Case-0)

Estimation of Building Inventory in 2030 with Assuming Different Building Component Ratio for 5

Cases (Case-1 to 5)

Result of Area Classification Result of Building Number Distribution

Damage Estimation in 2016

Building Damage at the time of 2016 was estimated based on the building inventory and the damage function develop by the project, which combined the damage of Gorkha earthquake and the building seismic capacity by response analysis. The damage was estimated for heavy damage, equivalent to EMS damage level 4 and 5, which need to be demolished and rebuild after the quake and is directly related to the human casualty of both death and injury, and the moderate damage, EMS damage level 3, for the estimation of people who need shelter for a certain time after the earthquake because the repair is considered necessary.

The total affected building for CNS-1 could account for 40% of the total building and reach as high as 76% for CNS-3. The building damage is more concentrated on the central (within ring road) area because of the high building density and the existence of old vulnerable buildings, while the building damage ratio is relatively higher at the southern part of the valley, which may partly attribute to the higher ground shaking intensity at this area, closing to the scenario earthquake source.

Building Damage Number Distribution (CNS-2)

Building Damage Ratio Distribution (CNS-2)

Total Affected Buildings by Different Scenario Earthquake Ground Motions

Case 0: MAK=46%

RCNE=47% RCE= 7%

Structure

Component Ratio constant to 2016

C

ase

2:

EB: M

AK=

BMC

RC

NE=

No

Cha

nge

RC

E=N

o C

hang

e

NB:

sam

e as

Cas

e 1

Case 4:

EB: 50% MAK= RCE

30%RCNE=RCE

RCE=No Change

NB: 50%BMC=RCE

Case 1:

EB: No Change

NB: BMC=46%

R

CE =54%

Case 3: EB: MAK= BMC

RCNE = RCE NB: same as Case 1

Case 5:

EB: 70% MAK= RCE

50%RCNE=RCE

RCE=No Change

NB: 100%BMC=RCE

Existing Building in 2016(Total 444,554)

New Building by 2030(Total 161,952)

Masonry (all kind)RC Non EngineerdRC Engineered

46.00%47.00%7.00%

Brick Masonry in CementRC Engineered

Building Distribution and Damage Estimation by 2030

Note: EB= Existing Building in 2016 NB=New Building by 2030 MAK=Masonry All Kind BMC=Brick Masonry in Cement RCNE= Reinforced Concrete Non-Engineered RCE=Reinforced Concrete Engineered

Building Distribution by 2030

School , Health and Government Building Damage Estimation

Scenario Earthquake

Damage LevelTotal (5,731)

DL2 DL3 DL 4 & 5

WN 568 253 237 1,058 18.5%

CNS-1 916 539 737 2,192 38.2%

CNS-2 1,057 810 1,654 3,521 61.4%

CNS-3 960 875 2,486 4,321 75.4%

Scenario Earthquake

Damage LevelTotal (584)

DL2 DL3 DL 4 & 5

WN 51 24 20 95 16.3%

CNS-1 85 55 64 204 34.9%

CNS-2 105 83 153 341 58.4%

CNS-3 97 94 235 426 72.9%

Scenario Earthquake

Damage LevelTotal (478)

DL2 DL3 DL 4 & 5

WN 44 20 20 84 17.6%

CNS-1 71 44 59 174 36.4%

CNS-2 85 66 126 277 57.9%

CNS-3 80 73 186 339 70.9%

In addition to general buildings, risk assessment of school, health and government building was carried out and the results are as follows.

School Building Health Building Government Building

Damage due to scenario Earthquakes

Damage according to structure type

Damage Estimation Map (CNS-2)Damage Estimation Map (CNS-2) Damage Estimation Map (CNS-2)

Damage according to structure type Damage according to structure type

Damage due to scenario Earthquakes Damage due to scenario Earthquakes

Bridge Damage Estimation

Road Link Blockage

There is a risk of road blockage due to the debris of collapsed buildings in the relatively narrow road. The target of assessement of roadlink blockage is to estimate the risk of traffic disturbance after the earthquake due to the collapse of adjacent buildings. Thus, road link blockage was evaluated by using the relation between road width and building damage rate for each grid.

The purpose of the bridge risk assessment is to have an overview of the damage that will be caused by the scenario earthquakes. For the bridge risk assessment, bridge inventory of total 145 bridges was prepared using information from DoR database (62 bridges) and Field Survey (83 bridges). Bridge survey was carried out for information about exterior shape of the bridge, and evaluating a parameter designated “Response Ductility Factor” from earthquake motion and idealized skeleton curve “Yield Seismic Intensity” as discussed in “Technical note of National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management No. 71 (ISSN1346-7328)”. Multi Span Bridges with Reinforced Concrete Pier (45 Bridges) were evaluated for “flexural failure of the pier” according to above mentioned technical note.

Road Link Blockage (CNS-2) Road Link Blockage in Emergency Transport Road Network (CNS-2)

Road Damage Estimation

Hazardous Road Segment of Road NetworkRisk Assessment of Road Network was done by estimation of hazardous road segment and road link blockage.

Traffic disturbance can be caused by debris due to landslide or subsidence of the ground and fluctuation of road structures due to liquefaction. So, hazardous road segment of road network is identified by spatially superimposing, comparing and analysing the potential sites of slope failure and liquefaction.

Damage Estimation due to Slope Failure (CNS-2) Damage Estimation due to Liquefaction(CNS-2)

98.5 km1.7%

274.9 km4.7%

Water Supply Network Damage EstimationThe standard damage rate of water supply pipeline is a function of Peak Ground Velocity (PGV) rather than PGA as PGV represents the strain of the ground whereas PGA represents the inertial force. Along with PGV, in the damage estimation, liquefaction potential, micro-terrain, pipe type, joint type and pipe diameter were taken into account. As Kathmandu Valley has existing water supply pipeline and planned network, risk assessment for both network has been carried out.

Damage Estimation of Existing Water Supply Network (CNS-2)

Damage Estimation of Planned Water Supply Network (CNS-2)

Sewage Network Damage Estimation

Damage Estimation of Sewage Network (CNS-2)

It is known that sewage pipelines and manholes tend to lift up when the ground is liquified as their cross section is almost empty and the transport system is natural flow i.e. without any pressure.

Damage WN CNS-1 CNS-2 CNS-3spot 982 1,921 3,496 5,161 spot/km 0.84 1.65 3.00 4.42

Damage WN CNS-1 CNS-2 CNS-3spot 124 255 460 676 spot/km 0.18 0.36 0.66 0.97

Damage WN CNS-1 CNS-2 CNS-3km 4.81 8.15 11.94 18.21Ratio 0.4% 0.7% 1.0% 1.5%

Bridge Inventory Damage Estimation of Bridges (CNS-2)

Damage WN CNS-1 CNS-2 CNS-3Heavy 0 1 12 32Moderate 2 21 27 11Slight 18 17 6 2

Power Distribution Network Damage Estimation

Telecommunication Network (BTS) Damage Estimation

Risk assessment of electricity is generally carried out by estimating the damage to the distribution network. In this project, utility pole breakage rate has been evaluated considering the intensity of ground motion (PGA). Moreover the damage to the utility pole can also be due to the damaged building leaning against the pole. For Kathmandu Valley estimated number of total utility poles is 190,851.

Telecommunication forms are divided into mobile phone and landline. About 94% of the telephone contact line number is mobile phone in Nepal. The facilites that relay the transmission and reception of mobiles phone are Base Transceiver Station (BTS). Many BTSs are installed in building rooftops, so the damage of a building on which BTS is installed is an effective indicator to estimate dysfunction of mobile phone under earthquake disaster period. Building fragility function has been applied for building damage and building damage ratio (DG 4+5) has been calculated by applying building type and PGA given to the grid of each relevant grid. The effect of vulnerability of BTS antenna itself has been evaluated and a combined fragility function of building and BTS antenna was developed and whether or not BTS antenna will function was evaluated. 1,043 numbers of BTS antenna are estimated inside Kathmandu Valley.

Damage Estimation of Utility Power Pole (CNS-2)

Damage Estimation of BTS Antenna (CNS-2)

Estimation of Number of Death

Damage WN CNS-1 CNS-2 CNS-3No. of pole 1,327 3,991 9,156 13,992

Ratio 0.7% 2.1% 4.8% 7.3%

Damage WN CNS-1 CNS-2 CNS-3No. of BTS 43 143 372 601

Ratio 4.1% 13.7% 35.7% 57.6%

Human Casualty Estimation

Human casualty caused by Earthquake is mainly due to the severe damage or collapse of buildings. As human casualty due to secondary disaster like spreading fire and landslide is rare in Kathmandu Valley, the human casualty caused by building damage has been considered in the project.For the Human casualty, estimation of death toll, injured and evacuees were made for the scenario earthquakes considering different earthquake occurrence scenes and building structure types.

2,123

6,393

15,526

25,008

2,784

8,282

19,959

31,956

3,034

9,133

22,179

35,726

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

WN CNS-1 CNS-2 CNS-3

Dea

th

Scenario Earthquake Ground Motion

Weekend Daytime (18:00)

Weekday Daytime (12:00)

Night (Weekday and Weekend)

Economic Loss

Remarks

8,316

25,036

60,803

97,940

10,905

32,435

78,168

125,152

11,880

35,766

86,861

139,914

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000


Inju

red




Night (Weekday and Weekend)

279,942

645,483

1,202,734

1,624,032

285,850

652,798

1,206,530

1,619,792

279,031

642,743

1,196,080

1,613,314

0

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

1,250,000

1,500,000

1,750,000

2,000,000


Evac

uee




Economic loss due to earthquakes is composed of “direct loss” by the physical damage of property and “indirect damage” ,i.e., “Reduction of GDP”, brought about by retarded production activities due to an earthquake.

Indirect Loss

Direct Loss

Quantitative evaluation of indirect loss is difficult because the correlation of indirect loss cannot be evaluated definitely, thus indirect loss is principally conducted by qualitative evaluation. As the tourism sector is an important source of foreign exchange earnings, the decreased amount of production in tourism sector due to the retarded production activities from earthquake damage is evaluated quantitatively.

Decline of Foreign Exchange Earning Unit: Million $

Unit:Billion NPRImpact on GDP

Unit: Million NPR

Unit: Million NPR

Direct Loss due to Building Damage

Direct Loss due to Infrastructure and Lifeline Damage

Note: This impact for foreign exchange earning and GDP does not include the impact due to other industry except for tourism industry , therefore actual impact for GDP is estimated bigger than this estimation

Estimation of Number of Injured Estimation of Number of Evacuees

1. Scenario Earthquakes are not the prediction of next earthquake.

2. Based on the scenario earthquakes, hazard and risk are assessed for Kathmandu Valley to utilize

for the purpose of policy making and planning , and others for effective disaster risk reduction and

management efforts.

3. Risk assessment was carried out based on the available data at present.

As a part of pilot activity, with the aim of enhancing people’s awareness and understanding on the result of the earthquake risk assessment, and utilizing the result for the improvement of community disaster risk reduction and management (CBDRRM), a series of pilot CBDRRM activities are being conducted as a part of implementation of recovery and reconstruction planning and local DRRM planning.

Progress: CBDRRM Training for Municipality Officers and Stakeholders

Way Forward: CBDRRM Activities in the Selected Pilot Wards (one ward in each pilot municipality)

The first ERAKV CBDRRM Activities was conducted on 20-22 February, 2017 at Bhangeri Durbar Resort, Nagarkot, in participation of municipality officers and stakeholders from the three pilot municipalities: Lalitpur, Bhaktapur and Budhanilkantha. 30 participants including engineers, administration officials, health officers, security officers and ward officials actively participated in the 3-day training which included different sessions of lectures and workshops. Program was generously attended by CEOs of all municipalities along with Joint Secretary and Under Secretary of MoFALD. The program concluded with the commitment and sharing of lessons, which is believed to promote community DRRM activities in coming days and have official and moral support for the initiatives.

The next CBDRRM Activities are just started in the selected pilot wards of pilot municipalities from April in collaboration with the pilot municipalities. MoFALD and JICA Project team will support the activities in cooperation with ENPHO, a local NGO. The basic flow and contents of the activities are as shown in the figure on the left. The detailed activities and schedule will be adjusted based on the current DRRM system in each pilot ward.

1st Workshop (2 day)Learning Risk and DRRM

System in Community1) Learning Earthquake Hazard and Risks 2) Learning Basics of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management3) Review and Discussion on Community's Current Situation of DRRM and HVCA Assessment

+Follow-up Activities ** (Apr-Jun) (Documentations, etc.)

2nd Workshop (2 days)Formulation of Community-

based DRRM Map1) DRRM Town Watching (Field Survey by Community)2) Community DRRM Mapping3) Discussion on Evacuation Plan

+Follow-up Activities (Jul-Aug) (Finalization of Map, Documentations, etc.)

3rd Workshop (1 day)Formulation of Action Plan/ DRRM Plan for Community

1) Disaster Response Plan for Community (Information Dissemination/ ResponseTeams/ Equipment and Stocks)2) Discussion on Action Plans for Improving DRRM System and Conditions in Community3) Ward-level DM Planning+Follow-up Activities (Sep-Oct)(Finalization of Plans, Approval procedure, etc.)

9 MCs: No. 2 & 3 9 MCs: No. 3, 4 & 9 9 MCs: No. 5, 6, 7 & 8

Risk Assessment Hazard & Risk Maps Local DRRM Plans

Pre-Coordination:Coordination for Designation of the Participants(CDMC Members + @)

9 MCs*: No. 1

Basic Information Feed

back

April June-July August- September

March

A Community Activity based on Action Plan (each pilot ward)

Pilot Activities: Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (CBDRRM) Activities

7contents

1. ERAKV Project Introduction

5. Practical Session

2. Disaster Terminology/ Definition

6. Information Sharing

3. Lecture on DRRM Planning

7. Sharing of Learning from Counterpart

Training in Japan

4.Lecture on CBDRRM

8. Closing and Certificate Distribution

1

5 6 7 8

2 3 4

Lectures and Activities conducted in the Training

8contents

1st Counterpart Training

(24 Oct 2015 - 8 Nov 2015)

BBB Recovery and Reconstruction and Disaster Management System

2nd Counterpart Training

(15 Mar 2016 - 27 Mar 2016)

Seismic Hazard and Risk Assessment

3rd Counterpart Training

(23 Jan 2017 - 02 Feb 2017)

Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Planning

Counterpart training in Japan had been scheduled to be held three times

and all the counterpart training has been completed as shown below.

11 participants from MoUD, MoFALD includ-ing 2 participants from Pilot

municipalities, MoHA and DUDBC

12 participants from MoUD, MoFALD, MoHA, DMG and DUDBC

12 participants from MoUD, MoFALD, MoHA, DUDBC, KVDA including 3

participants from Pilot Municipalities

Counterpart Trainingin Japan

<Objectives>

1) To understand and to be able to propose measures for formulation and

nationwide dissemination of ”DRRM Plan” based on the Hazard and Risk

assessment in KV and Nepal.

2)To understand and to be able to propose measures for establishment of

”Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) System” for future disasters in

KV and Nepal.

3)To increase knowledge on “Comprehensive DRRM”, and be able to propose

measures for utilizing the result of Seismic risk assessment into the BBB

reconstruction from the Gorkha Earthquake and DRRM

3 42

1

1. Tokyo Rinkai Disaster Prevention Park

Observation of Facilities

2. Tokyo Metropolitan Government

Operation of CCTV

3. Mashiki Town, Kumamoto Prefecture, Site Visit of

Disaster Stricken Area

4. Kashinodai Elementary School, Kobe, Hyogo

Prefecture, Experiment of Earthquake Simulation

Vehicle

Further ScheduleResult of Seismic Hazard Assessment

(Contents 5)

Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (CBDRRM) Activities

(Dec 2016 - Dec 2017)

Standard Operation Procedure (Dec 2016 - Sep 2017 )

Seismic Risk Assessment for Buildings, Infrastructure

Lifeline, and Social and Economic Impact

(Contents 6)

Formulation of Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (Dec 2016 - Dec 2017 )

Concept for Formulation of LDRMP with Guideline

Contents and Template of Technical Guideline (Draft)

Work Plan

Flow of the Activities Details of the Activities

9contents

https://www.facebook.com/JICA-Earthquake-Risk-Assessment-PJ-in-KV-Nepal-Community-690728411055174/

The Project for Assessment of

EARTHQUAKE DISASTER RISK

for the Kathmandu Valley in Nepal

Engineering

Erakv 3rd Newsletter