Springer Transactions in Civil

and Environmental Engineering

Bal Krishna Rastogi

Nepal
Earthquake
of 2015
Springer Transactions in Civil
and Environmental Engineering

Editor-in-Chief
T. G. Sitharam, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India
Springer Transactions in Civil and Environmental Engineering (STICEE) publishes
the latest developments in Civil and Environmental Engineering. The intent is to
cover all the main branches of Civil and Environmental Engineering, both theoret-
ical and applied, including, but not limited to: Structural Mechanics, Steel Struc-
tures, Concrete Structures, Reinforced Cement Concrete, Civil Engineering Mate-
rials, Soil Mechanics, Ground Improvement, Geotechnical Engineering, Founda-
tion Engineering, Earthquake Engineering, Structural Health and Monitoring, Water
Resources Engineering, Engineering Hydrology, Solid Waste Engineering, Environ-
mental Engineering, Wastewater Management, Transportation Engineering, Sustain-
able Civil Infrastructure, Fluid Mechanics, Pavement Engineering, Soil Dynamics,
Rock Mechanics, Timber Engineering, Hazardous Waste Disposal Instrumenta-
tion and Monitoring, Construction Management, Civil Engineering Construction,
Surveying and GIS Strength of Materials (Mechanics of Materials), Environmental
Geotechnics, Concrete Engineering, Timber Structures.
Within the scopes of the series are monographs, professional books, graduate
and undergraduate textbooks, edited volumes and handbooks devoted to the above
subject areas.
The proposal for each volume is reviewed by the main editor and/or the advisory
board. The chapters in each volume are individually reviewed single blind by expert
reviewers (at least four reviews per chapter) and the main editor.
Bal Krishna Rastogi

Nepal Earthquake of 2015

Bal Krishna Rastogi
Institute of Seismological Research
Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India

ISSN 2363-7633 ISSN 2363-7641 (electronic)

Springer Transactions in Civil and Environmental Engineering
ISBN 978-981-97-4683-5 ISBN 978-981-97-4684-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4684-2

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Singapore Pte Ltd. 2024

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore

If disposing of this product, please recycle the paper.

Foreword

Great Himalayan earthquakes cause severe damage in India. Four great earthquakes
in Himalaya occurred in a close span of 53 years. These included the Shillong
(1897), Kangra (1905), Bihar-Nepal (1934), and the Assam (1950) earthquakes.
Among these, the Bihar-Nepal earthquake of 1934 had been devastating claiming
~20000 human lives and causing widespread damage to structures. It created an
almost 300 km long slump belt, where soil liquefaction caused a lot of damage
to property. Hence, it is of interest to Indian Seismologists to know about the 2015
Nepal earthquake. India has also a long tradition of detailed treatises on great regional
earthquakes.
In the later part of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century,
outstanding investigations were carried out on the field study of devastating earth-
quakes, and a few landmark discoveries were made. R. D. Oldham (1858–1936) of
the Geological Survey of India carried out pioneering studies on the 1897 Shillong
earthquake (R. D. Oldham 1899). From these studies, he wrote on active faulting
and seismic wave propagation with inferences on Earth’s interior (R. D. Oldham
1906). Later he published a monumental report on the Kutch earthquake of 1819
(R. D. Oldham, 1928). T. A. Oldham (son of R. D. Oldham) published “Catalogue
of Indian earthquakes from the earliest time to the end of A. D. 1869”. Oldham and
Oldham (1882) published a report on the Cachar earthquake of 1869. Later, Middle-
miss (1910) worked on the great Kangra earthquake of 1905 and Dunn et al. (1939)
on the Bihar-Nepal earthquake of 1934.
For the earthquakes after India’s independence, the Geological Survey of India,
India Meteorological Department, and Geological Society of India published detailed
reports about large to moderate earthquakes like those of 1950 Assam, 1956 Anjar,
1967 Bhadrachalam, 1967 Koyna, 1988 Bihar-Nepal earthquake, 2001 Bhuj, 1993
Latur (Killari), 1997 Jabalpur, 1991 Uttarkashi, 1999 Chamoli, etc. Dr. A. N. Tandon
of IMD did pioneering work regarding field investigations and establishing the Indian
network of seismograph stations. Dr. B. K. Rastogi carried out field investigations
for several damaging earthquakes that occurred in India from 1967 to 2001.
The present book by B. K. Rastogi is a concise report on several aspects of
the 2015 Nepal earthquake. Some aspects like aftershock studies and geotechnical

v
vi Foreword

assessment of soil amplification are the research of the author himself. Chapter 1
gives an introduction to the book and the interest of Indian seismologists in earth-
quakes in Nepal and other countries in the Himalayan region. Chapter 2 describes the
different seismic parameters of the 2015 earthquake like epicentral distribution of
the mainshock and aftershocks, rupture zone, intensity, and strong motion. Chapter 3
describes the geology and geodesy of Nepal and nearby regions. Chapter 4 deals with
geotechnical aspects like ground amplification of the Kathmandu Basin, engineering
aspects of the damage caused by the earthquake, and the liquefaction effect. Chapter 5
describes the damage caused by the earthquake. Chapter 6 mentions the results of
aftershock studies. Chapter 7 highlights the relief, rescue, and rehabilitation efforts.
I believe that the book, Nepal Earthquake of 2015 will be a valuable reference for
all concerned with the study of earthquakes.

Prof. Harsh Gupta

Fellow, International Science Council
Member, Atomic Energy Regulatory
Board
President, Geological Society of India
Immediate Past President, International
Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Geophysical Research
Institute
Hyderabad, India
Preface

At about noon time on April 25, 2015, when I was out of my office on a holiday, my
cell phone started ringing with tens of calls from the media. They had initial infor-
mation that a big earthquake had struck Bihar and Nepal. As Director General of the
Institute of Seismological Research (ISR) at Gandhinagar, Gujarat, I was supposed to
inform them of the earthquake epicenter, magnitude, focal depth, extent of possible
damage, extent of affected area, aftershocks and the possibility of further large earth-
quakes. The telephone lines to the ISR data center were all jammed. Somehow, I could
find information about the epicenter and magnitude and started explaining things to
the media. Within an hour, the crews of several television channels reached my data
center and wanted to interview me. I rushed back to my office and started explaining
that the major earthquake was at a shallow depth in Nepal where thousands of deaths
and the collapse of houses will be there. In the Bihar state of India adjoining Nepal,
there will be several deaths and collapse of houses. People wanted to know whether
a great earthquake is soon expected in the same area. From the knowledge that the
aftershocks are occurring in an area of 150 km x 50 km which is usually involved
in a great earthquake in Himalaya and aftershocks are not spreading, I inferred that
most part of the stored energy in this part of Himalaya might have been released for
the time being. I explained that though earthquake prediction is not possible, chances
of a great earthquake occurring soon in the area are less, though, major aftershocks
are possible. As numerous aftershocks were getting experienced, people wanted to
know how long these will continue. I explained that large ones may continue for a
month or so, but smaller ones will continue for some years.
Any large earthquake in Nepal severely affects India also. During the 1934 Great
Bihar-Nepal earthquake, some 20000 people died (official figure 16,000). Hence, any
earthquake in Nepal, and also anywhere in Himalayas is of major concern to Indians.
The extreme anxiety shown by the media and public after the 2015 Nepal earthquake
clearly shows that the people of the Indian region are concerned about the large earth-
quakes in the Himalayas. In view of this, I started collecting all possible data and its
research. Some research is by me also. As all this data and some years of research
will be of tremendous benefit to students, researchers, administrators, and planners
engaged in earthquake risk reduction, I thought of compiling all this in a book form.

vii
viii Preface

The book documents the experience and the lessons learned to institutionalize them
for transferring the knowledge to the rest of the world to brace up for future earth-
quakes and also to transfer the knowledge to the future generation. The points covered
herein are of immense importance and may need further discussions to develop a
national consensus on optimal approaches and strategies for risk reduction. This will
also lead to better disaster risk management at the level of both urban and rural
municipalities.
The book deals with several aspects as mentioned above and also about aftershock
behavior, earthquake mechanism, geodetic deformation, past seismicity, geology, and
strong ground motion. Aspects of rescue efforts and rehabilitation are also covered.

Gandhinagar, India Bal Krishna Rastogi

Acknowledgements

I am thankful to Prof. T. G. Sitharam for motivating me to write books on seismology

and approving the publication of this book. This book summarizes the work of several
earth scientists from India and abroad. I thank them all and feel proud of interacting
with some of them. I am thankful to my mentor Dr. Harsh K. Gupta. Guidance by the
late Dr. Hari Narain, Prof. Pradeep Talwani, Prof. K. S. Valdiya, Dr. S. K. Biswas,
and Prof. S. Duda has been valuable. I have learned many things through interactions
with Dr. Walter Mooney, Prof. Freidemann Wenzel, Prof. G. Panza, Prof. Antonella
Peresan, Dr. Roger Bilham, Dr. E. R. Engdahl, Dr. Susan Hough, Dr. Peter Suhadolc,
Prof. David Gubbins, Mr. Fumio Kaneko, Prof. A. S. Arya, Dr. J. R. Kayal, Dr.
V. P. Dimri, Prof. S. K. Singh, Dr. S. K. Guha, Dr. O. P. Mishra, Dr. Ashok K.
Singhvi, and Dr. Paramesh Banerjee. I am thankful to my colleagues/students Mr.
Indra Mohan, Dr. R. K. Chadha, Dr. Prantik Mandal, Dr. H. V. S. Sayanarayana, Dr.
Sumer Chopra, Dr. R. K. Jaiswal, Dr. Kapil Mohan, Dr. Pallabee Choudhury, Dr.
Falguni Bhattacharya, Dr. B. Sairam, Dr. K. M. Rao, Dr. A. P. Singh, Dr. Rakesh
Dumka, Prof. Vikram M. Patel, and several others.
Dr. G. C. Kothyari, Mr. Arjav Shukla, Dr. Raj Sunil Kandregula, Mr. Tony, and
Miss Sneha Mishra have drawn some figures. Support from my family, brothers,
sisters, and relatives provided great strength. I dedicate this book to my father Kedar
Nath Rastogi who instilled in me the important values of life like hard work, compas-
sion, and respect for others, and also to my wife (Kanchan), daughters (Rinky and
Swati), Son-in-laws (Shalabh and Jameel), and grandchildren (Aishna, Anika, and
Ronit).

ix
Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Seismic Parameters of the 2015 MW 7.8 Gorkha Nepal
Earthquake in Eastern Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 Earthquake Location and Short Description of Damage,
Aftershocks, Rupture Process and Strong Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Aftershocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Estimation of Rupture Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4 Rupture Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5 Geodetic Deformation for 2015 Earthquake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.6 Slip Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.6.1 Slip Modeling from Teleseismic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.7 Strong Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.8 Damage and MM Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3 Geology, Seismotectonics, and Geodetic Deformation of Nepal . . . . . . . 17
3.1 Brief Geology of Himalaya Including Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1.1 Geology of Kathmandu Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.2 Past Significant Earthquakes in Himalaya and Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2.1 Bihar-Nepal Earthquake of January 15, 1934 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2.2 August 20, 1988 Udaipur Nepal Earthquake
of Magnitude 6.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.3 Rupture Lengths and Areas of Large Earthquakes in Nepal
and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.4 Seismotectonics of Himalaya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.5 Geodetic Deformation in Himalaya and Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

xi
xii Contents

4 Geotechnical and Other Engineering Aspects of the 2015 Nepal

Earthquake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.1 The Geological Setup of the Kathmandu Valley
from a Geotechnical Point of View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.2 Recorded Strong Motion of April 25 Earthquake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.3 Possible Modifications of Strong Motion Due to Geotechnical
Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.4 Geotechnical and Other Engineering Aspects of the Earthquake . . . . 39
4.4.1 Mass Movements, Landslides, Slope Failures, and Rock
Fall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.4.2 Liquefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.5 Geotechnical and Other Engineering Aspects of Damages . . . . . . . . . 41
4.5.1 Damage to Heritage Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.5.2 Damage to Engineered and Non-Engineered Buildings . . . . . 43
4.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5 Damage Due to Gorkha Nepal Earthquake of 2015 and Its
Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.2 Isoseismal Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.3 Intensity with Distance of Magnitude 7.8 Nepal Earthquake
of 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.4 Damages in Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.4.1 Damages to Heritage Structures in Intensity IX, VIII,
and VII Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.4.2 Damage in Intensity IX Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.4.3 Damage in Intensity VIII Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.5 Ground Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.6 Landslides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.7 Damages in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.8 Damage and Felt Reports from Tibet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.9 Comparison of Damage Due to Earthquakes of 1934 and 2015 . . . . . 60
5.9.1 Concluding Remarks About Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6 Behavior of Aftershocks of Gorkha Nepal Earthquake of 2015 . . . . . . . 63
6.1 Space Distribution of Aftershocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.2 Time Distribution of Aftershocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.3 Magnitude Distribution of Aftershocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.4 The b-Value: Slope of the Relation Between Magnitude
and Number of Earthquakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.5 Rate of Decay of Aftershocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.6 Results and Discussion About the Aftershocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Contents xiii

7 The Gorkha (Nepal) Earthquake of April 25, 2015: Rescue

and Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
7.1 Overall Search, Rescue, and Relief Operations by Nepal
and Other Countries as Well as Agencies like UN and Red Cross . . . 71
7.2 Difficulties in Search and Rescue During the Initial Days . . . . . . . . . . 72
7.3 Some Specific Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
7.4 Opening of Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
7.5 Relief Work by NGOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
7.6 Search, Rescue, and Relief by International Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
7.7 Search, Rescue, and Relief by India (Source Government
of India and Media Reports) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
7.8 Rehabilitation Plan for Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
About the Author

Prof. Bal Krishna Rastogi is the former director

general of the Institute of Seismological Research,
Gandhinagar, and former head of Seismology at India’s
National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad.
He is the founder and president of the Indian Society of
Earthquake Science (ISES). He has been instrumental in
developing several strong Seismology groups in India.
His areas of research in seismology include probabilistic
and deterministic seismic hazard assessment; seismic
microzonation; earthquake hazard assessment for crit-
ical structures, like nuclear power plants, LNG termi-
nals and dams; induced seismicity, source-mechanism of
earthquakes, and earthquake prediction; plate tectonics,
microearthquake surveys, and homogenization of earth-
quake catalogues and seismotectonics.

xv
Chapter 1
Introduction

Abstract This chapter mentions about need of a book on different seismological

aspects of the devastating Nepal earthquake of 2015 for Nepal, India and other
earthquake-prone countries of the World. It informs that how India has been affected
by large earthquakes in Nepal, hence, knowledge about the Nepal 2015 earthquake
is of great interest to India. It is also important for all the developing countries where
buildings are mostly not designed for earthquake resistance. A new understanding has
come out of amplification of low as well as high frequencies over a deep basin like that
of Kathmandu. The knowledge of very high acceleration recorded for low frequen-
cies, not hitherto considered would be useful for designing sky scrapers world-wide.
This chapter introduces the contents of different chapters of the book.

Himalaya, including Nepal and the northern part of India is one of the seismi-
cally most active belts due to continent-continent collision where once every five
decades or so a great earthquake is expected. India ranks 10th among the countries
ravaged by earthquakes, with over 100,000 deaths attributed to earthquakes. A good
knowledge of seismicity of Himalaya as well as the behavior of earthquakes occurring
in the region is essential for forecasting future earthquakes and hazard assessment.
Each earthquake offers new lessons. The 2015 Nepal earthquake generated a large
proportion of low-frequency energy as compared to the high-frequency energy. This
indicated a higher risk to sky scrapers than that accounted for in the current design
practices worldwide. There was an amplification of low as well as high-frequency
waves due to the presence of deep Kathmandu Basin and its geotechnical conditions.
Hence, detailed documentation of the knowledge acquired about the 2015 earthquake
is useful for posterity and the present book is for that purpose.
Assessment of seismic hazard especially for the developing countries like India
where destruction and deaths due to earthquakes are several orders higher due to
rapidly increasing population and shoddy constructions. The risk has increased
several times in the developing countries while it has decreased in the developed
countries by adopting sound engineering practices. A good comparison is provided
by magnitude 7.0 Loma Prieta Californian earthquake of 1989 that caused $6 billion

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license 1
to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2024
B. K. Rastogi, Nepal Earthquake of 2015, Springer Transactions in Civil
and Environmental Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4684-2_1
2 1 Introduction

economic loss but only 42 deaths while magnitude 6.2 Killari earthquake of 1993
caused 8,000 deaths. For Himalaya the hazard mitigation has become essential as
several large dams and developmental activities are coming up.
Pressure of the increasing urbanization forces people to inhabit unsafe areas.
Moreover, the moving population is unaware of the traditional (local) and safe
construction practices, for example, the laborers who moved from Bihar to Assam
constructed mud-cake houses with which they were familiar and not the Assam-type
houses. As a result, some 30 laborers from Bihar died in an M5.4 Cachar earthquake
of 1984. In Uttarkashi and Chamoli it was observed that due to ignorance the people
are following the suicidal construction practices by way of constructing single or
even double story rubble masonry houses with mud mortar that collapse even in a
moderate earthquake. If such houses are plastered with cement, people think that
such houses are pakka. Such houses are prevalent in many parts of India and were
destroyed in moderate earthquakes of Latur, Uttarkashi, Chamoli, Bhuj, Anjar and
Morbi. Until 1950 or so people were living mostly in thatched houses but now living
in rubble masonry adobe houses which are highly vulnerable. Hence, M6 earthquakes
can cause devastation in a 50 km radius and M8 earthquake in a 300–400 km radius.
The strain rate in Himalaya is about 10–6 . GPS measurements in Kumaon, Nepal
and Ladakh indicate about 20 mm/yr of convergence (Bilham et al. 2001). This means
that a 2 m strain can accumulate every 100 years or 4 m every 200 years that are
capable of causing great earthquakes. Hence, these thrusts can create every 200 years
or so a series of Great earthquakes that would sequentially cover the entire 2400 km
long arc by 200–300 km long ruptures. Hence about 10 or so great earthquakes can
occur every 200 years.
In Nepal, the first recorded earthquake is of 1255 AD that killed one-third of
the population of Kathmandu Valley and its King, Abhay Malla, and the country is
experiencing a major earthquake every few generations. The last great earthquake
(of magnitude 8.4) in 1934 AD resulted in more than 20,000 deaths. The 2015 major
earthquake has occurred after 80 years. Recent smaller earthquakes in 1980, 1988,
and 2011 have caused some human and physical losses.
Considerable destruction has been caused in India by earthquakes of Kutch
(magnitude 7.8, 1819), Kashmir (M8, 1885), Shillong (M8.7, 1897), Kangra (M8.0,
1905), Dhubri (M7.1, 1930), Bihar-Nepal (Mw 8.1, 1934), Assam (M8.5, 1950),
Koyna (Mw 6.3, 1967), Bihar-Nepal (M6.8, 1988), Uttarkashi (Mw 6.6, 1991), Latur
(Mw 6.2, 1993), Bhuj (Mw 7.7, 2001), and, Muzaffarabad, Kashmir (Mw 7.6, 2005)
earthquakes and moderate losses by Jabalpur (Mw 6, 1997), Chamoli (Mw 6.4, 1999)
and Sikkim (Mw 6.9, 2011) earthquakes.
More than 600 earthquakes of magnitude 5 or more have been recorded/felt in
the Himalayan region. There were more than 100 major earthquakes of magnitude
≥ 7.0 or intensity ≥ VIII on Modified Mercalli (MM) scale, i.e., which have caused
the collapse of houses. There were four great earthquakes in a span of 53 years from
1897 to 1950. But there is a hiatus since then indicating that a great earthquake is
due in Himalaya. The two zones that have not ruptured in the last 200 years are the
Western Himalaya and Western Nepal-India border region and are likely locales of
great earthquakes. The southern portions of these regions are found to be locked,
1 Introduction 3

i.e., even moderate earthquakes are not occurring. This fact makes these areas more
vulnerable. Presently, seismic activity is taking place along the Lesser Himalaya.
The foothills region is locked as indicated by the absence of earthquakes and low
convergence rate of 2–8 mm/y indicated by GPS measurements.
Earthquake risk (hazard multiplied by vulnerability) is growing in India. The
danger of a great earthquake is looming large in Himalayas. The pressure of
increasing population and the non-engineered fragile structures greatly enhance the
earthquake risk. The population has increased up to 10 times as compared to the
times of past great earthquakes. The deaths and damage are also feared to go up to
10 times. Added to this is the newly imposed vulnerability of the poorly designed
high-rise buildings up to a distance of a few hundred kilometers from the epicenter.
About 100 million people living in the Ganges Plains are at risk. Arya (1992) esti-
mated that depending upon the time of occurrence of the earthquake, 0.2–0.3 Million
people may perish in a great earthquake.
Non-implementation of the building codes and not accounting for the poor
strength of soil and amplification of strong motion in soil-covered areas are the
main reasons responsible for the poor performance of many multistory as well as
smaller buildings during the recent earthquakes. It is necessary to take the following
steps to reduce the damage potential: (i) preparation of district level risk maps,
(ii) implementation of building codes for all new constructions, (iii) retrofitting
of important buildings situated in zones IV and V of the seismic zoning map,
(iv) popularization of simple, inexpensive methods to strengthen old buildings,
(v) avoidance of construction on reclaimed lands, and (vi) installation of early-
warning systems for critical structures and the multistory buildings that can be
designed in such a way that people can come out to safer places in few tens of
seconds.
Introduction of Different Chapters of the Book
The book deals with several aspects of the 2015 Nepal earthquake including seis-
mological data and its research, geodetic deformation, slip model, rupture zone,
strong ground motion and summary of aftershocks distribution as well as damage
(Chap. 2), geology of the region, the regional geodetic deformation and past seis-
micity (Chap. 3), geotechnical aspects (Chap. 4), detailed description of the damage
caused (Chap. 5), and aftershock behavior (Chap. 6). Aspects of earthquake risk
management including Search, Rescue, and Relief operation as well as Rehabilitation
are also covered (Chap. 7).
Chapter 2
Seismic Parameters of the 2015 MW 7.8
Gorkha Nepal Earthquake in Eastern
Nepal

Abstract This chapter gives seismic parameters of Mw 7.8 April 25, 2015 Gorkha,
Nepal earthquake. The salient aspects of tectonics, slip modeling, geodetic defor-
mation, rupture process, aftershocks, strong ground motion and damage caused are
highlighted.
Nepal has varied topography from low lands (EL 60 m) in the south to high
mountains in the north including the World’s highest peak Mt. Everest (Fig. 2.1).
It is in the center of the concave Himalayan belt with about 870 km in WNW-ESE
direction and 130–260 km in N-S direction lying between latitudes 26.5°–32° N and
longitudes 80°–88° E. Nepal occupies one-third of the active Himalayan belt having
high seismicity in its northern part. Nepal has numerous active faults in three major
tectonic zones of Main Central Thrust (MCT), Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) and
Main Himalayan (Frontal) Thrust (MFT). On April 25, 2015, an earthquake occurred
near the Main Central Thrust. The Global Seismic Hazard Map (GSHAP) depicts that
the Nepal region has a seismic hazard level of the order of 0.25 g for 10% probability
in 50 years (Bhatia et al. 1999). Maximum hazard is in and around the MCT and the
entire country has a hazard range of 0.1–0.3 g. The probabilistic seismic hazard map
prepared by the National Seismological Center, Nepal shows a hazard of 0.1–0.4 g
for a 500-year period at bedrock (Wijeyewickrema et al. 2015). Damage is severe
because of non-compliance of codes except for some modern buildings. Houses in
villages and ancient towns of Kathmandu Valley are of brick or stone masonry with
mud mortar, having little resistance to seismic loads.

2.1 Earthquake Location and Short Description of Damage,

Aftershocks, Rupture Process and Strong Motion

Seismological parameters are compiled for the Mw magnitude 7.8 April 25, 2015
Gorkha, Nepal destructive earthquake that occurred 77 km WNW of Kathmandu in
Eastern Nepal (Fig. 2.1) (28.15°N 84.71°E, 11:56 AM, 06:11 UTC) at depth 8.2 km
(USGS), MMI IX (Rastogi 2016). A damaging aftershock of Mw 7.3 occurred on
May 12, 2015 near NE corner of the rupture area. Confirmed 8789 people died

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license 5
to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2024
B. K. Rastogi, Nepal Earthquake of 2015, Springer Transactions in Civil
and Environmental Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4684-2_2
6 2 Seismic Parameters of the 2015 MW 7.8 Gorkha Nepal Earthquake …

Fig. 2.1 Geographical map of Nepal

and 22,309 were injured in Nepal. Kathmandu city suffered heavy damage. Many
villages were flattened. There were numerous landslides. The earthquake triggered
an avalanche on Mount Everest, killing about 30 mountaineers, and another huge
avalanche in Langtang Valley burying 250 people. Centuries-old buildings were
destroyed at UNESCO World Heritage sites. A total of 800,000 houses were partially
or fully damaged. In Kathmandu Valley, 67,871 buildings were fully damaged and
73,624 partially (Shakya and Kawan 2017). Some casualties were also reported from
India, China, and Bangladesh.
As there were networks of seismographs, accelerographs and GPS stations over the
rupture zone and there is the availability of InSAR as well as teleseismic broadband
seismograph data, some workers could study details of rupture process that has given
new insights about strong ground motion generation. Rupture zone is 150 × 55 km
and rupture duration is 80 s making an overall very low rupture propagation velocity
of 2 km/s. However, a major part of the rupture propagated at a normal velocity of
3 km/s (IRIS, Galetzka et al. 2015; Avouac et al. 2015). Rupture propagated eastward
and southward. It has been suggested that the rupture was initiated at the locked part of
the MHT at a depth of 10–15 km near Nepal-Tibet border; it propagated southward
along the MHT and ended just north of the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT). The
rupture did not break the surface.
Focal mechanism for both Apr and May earthquakes was thrusting on a WNW-
ESE trending north-dipping shallow (5°–7°) fault (Galetzka et al. 2015). The
maximum ground acceleration recorded was 0.15–0.19 g in Kathmandu. Slow
seismic moment release has generated lesser high-frequency acceleration (pga). The
long duration of seismic moment release at the end generated strong acceleration in
the period range 3–6 s. Buildings have been relatively less damaged than may be
2.2 Aftershocks 7

caused by the Mw 7.8 earthquake due to the low pga of 0.19 g. The short-period accel-
eration of around the 1.0 s period has caused the collapse of ~27 m tall Dharahara
tower and some high-rise buildings. Large acceleration for long periods was of no
consequence to Nepal in the absence of tall structures. However, it has caused World-
wide worry for tall structures in active zones which are not designed for that high
acceleration. The rupture stopped halfway at the Main Boundary fault as compared
to the rupture for the 1934 Mw 8.4 earthquake which reached south up to the starting
line of the mountains called Main Himalayan Thrust. Due to the rupture zone being
at a distance and low pga the damage in India is much less.

2.2 Aftershocks

As per the EMSC the aftershock sequence of the 2015 earthquake had one stress
triggered Mw 7.3 aftershock (with its own rupture zone adjacent to that of the main-
shock), total three aftershocks of Mw 6.5 to 6.7, 27 of Mw 5–5.9, and 308 of Mw
4–4.9, making a total of 339 of M ≥ 4 until September 9, 2015. The April earthquake
had 222 aftershocks and the May earthquake had 116 aftershocks of Mw ≥ 4.0 till
September 9, 2015, which were confined to their rupture zones (Rastogi and Mittal
2016).
April 2015 and May 2015 earthquakes occurred close to the northern edge of the
locked zone and their aftershocks and rupture zones extend south (Fig. 2.2). The
April 25 main shock is located at the NW end of the rupture zone and the May 12
earthquake is near to its NE end. Epicenter of the main shock is located in Lesser
Himalaya just south of Main Central Thrust (MCT). However, a major part of the
rupture zone and the epicenter of the May 2015 largest aftershock fall in the Higher
Himalaya, north of MCT (Fig. 2.2). The epicenter of the main shock is 77 km WNW
of Kathmandu while epicenter of the 12th May largest aftershock is 120 km NE of
Kathmandu. The aftershocks of the May 12 event occurred east of the rupture zone
of the April 2015 earthquake. Epicenter of Mw 7.8 April 25, 2015 main earthquake
occurred near Gorkha and its rupture extended to east and south in the area of 150
× 55 km. One Mw 6.6 aftershock occurred within half an hour, near the main shock
and the other of Mw 6.7 occurred 25 h later 130 km away in the ENE direction.
Aftershocks of Mw 4 or greater continued for 5 months within its rupture zone.
The May 12, Mw 7.3 largest aftershock (27.89° N 86.17° E, focal depth 8–15 km)
occurred near Dolakha, Kodari, and Sindhupalchowk, 175 km east of the mainshock
and outside the northeastern end of the rupture zone (Fig. 2.2). From the concentrated
locations of aftershocks of the May 12 earthquake its 50× 50 km rupture zone is
inferred in between the rupture zones of the April 2015 and January 1934 (Mw 8.4)
earthquakes.
8 2 Seismic Parameters of the 2015 MW 7.8 Gorkha Nepal Earthquake …

Fig. 2.2 Figure shows the major thrusts and epicenters of the major earthquakes around Kathmandu
since 1833. Possible rupture zones inferred for three earthquakes of 1934 (Mw 8.2), April 2015 (Mw
7.8), and May 2015 (Mw 7.3) are also shown. The epicenter estimated by Seeber and Armbruster
for the 1934 earthquake is also shown besides the epicenter given by USGS. Aftershocks of Apr and
May 2015 earthquakes till August 2015 are also shown. Longitude 86.0° E is roughly the boundary
between the aftershocks of the April 25 and May 2015 earthquakes

2.3 Estimation of Rupture Zones

Repeated destructive earthquakes have occurred in the past in 1255, 1344, 1408,
1681, 1833, and 1934 that affected Kathmandu with MM intensity X. These have
occurred in different locations. The 2015 Nepal earthquake of MM intensity IX had
ruptured a part of the locked detachment plane, along which the Himalayas thrust
over the Indian plate at a convergence rate of 17–21 mm/y (Ader et al. 2012). Past
large earthquakes are believed to have occurred by thrusting on the detachment plane.
Rupture area of the Apr 2015 main shock was 150 × 55 km and that of the stress
triggered May 12 earthquake was 50 × 50 km adjacent to the NE side of the Apr
rupture as indicated by the seismic moment, aftershocks, GPS, InSAR measurement,
slip modeling and seismotectonic considerations. Rupture zone of the 1833 earth-
quake is likely to be of similar size as the May 12 earthquake and located west of
the May 12 rupture zone.
Possible rupture zones of 1934 (Mw 8.4), April 2015 (Mw 7.8) and May 2015 (Mw
7.3) earthquakes are shown in Fig. 2.2. The rupture area by 3D rupture modeling for
Apr 2015 earthquake (Polet and USGS website reports) matches with the aftershock
distribution. Longitude 86.0° E is roughly the boundary between the aftershocks of
April 25 and May 12 earthquakes.
The 1934 rupture inferred by Sapkota et al. (2013) covers most of the Intensity
VIII area in a near-pear shape extending from the USGS epicenter near the Main
Himalayan Thrust in the north to Main Frontal Thrust near the India border. The
longitude range is 86.1° E–87.5° E. As the rupture zones and aftershock zones for
the April and May 2015 earthquakes are near rectangular, we define rupture zone of
2.5 Geodetic Deformation for 2015 Earthquake 9

1934 earthquake in the form of two adjoining rectangles in the longitude range 85.8°
E–87.5° E. We extended the rupture more toward the west of the USGS epicenter
as most damaged areas were westward in Nepal around Kathmandu and Bihar in
India. However to avoid overlapping with the May 2015 rupture and also there was
not much damage also in that area, the 1934 rupture is taken as extending south of
that area. Rupture length is taken as 200 km from the relation M = 5.08 + 1.16log
(L) by Wells and Coppersmith (1994). Width is taken as 100 km; with the northern
limit around the epicenter and the southern limit up to MFT (Fig. 2.2) as per the
seismotectonic model proposed by Bilham et al. (2001).

2.4 Rupture Duration

The main shock rupture propagation was slow in the beginning and at the end but
for a large part of the duration was normal with a velocity of 3 km/s. IRIS (Fig. 2.3a)
estimated duration 60 s with peak moment release between 25 and 40 s. A large
energy released the 20 s after the start, and as the rupture propagated eastward the
large slip occurred at about 60 km east of the epicenter, i.e., near Kathmandu. On the
other hand, Galetzka et al. (2015, Fig. 2.3b) estimated slightly larger rupture duration
of 70 s and Avouac et al. (2015, Fig. 2.3c) 80 s.

2.5 Geodetic Deformation for 2015 Earthquake

It’s the first time that rupture of a major earthquake has occurred in a region having a
dense GPS network. Additionally, data from InSAR, strong motion accelerographs,
and teleseismic seismographs was available to researchers to model the kinematics
of the sourcing process of the 2015 earthquake. A slip pulse of ~20 km width, ~6 s
duration, and a sliding velocity of 1.1 m/s was modeled (Galetzka et al. 2015). A
large ~5 m slip-weakening distance was inferred from the smooth onset of source-
time function indicating lower fault friction resulting in moderate ground shaking
(~0.16 g) at high frequencies and limited damage to houses. One GPS station on the
rupture plane showed 2 m southward co-seismic movement with a rise time of 6 s.
Post-seismic deformation was negligible.
10 2 Seismic Parameters of the 2015 MW 7.8 Gorkha Nepal Earthquake …

Fig. 2.3 Seismic moment rate for the Nepal earthquake of April 25, 2015 (orthogonal to fault
strike) indicates a rupture duration of a minute (after IRIS/Michigan). Best-fit focal depth = 13 km,
seismic moment for 57 s duration = 8 × 1020 Nm (Mw = 7.9), Moment Tensor Principal Axes
P, N and T (units of1020 Nm): Value, Plunge, Azm = −8.1, 0.2, 7.9; 39, 2, 51; 193, 101, 8. Focal
Mechanism: Strike, Dip and Rake = 299, 7, 108; 100, 84, 88. b rupture duration 65 s by Galetzka
et al. c 80 s by Avouac et al.

2.6 Slip Modeling

It has been suggested that the rupture was initiated at the locked part of the MHT at a
depth ~10 km near Nepal-Tibet border; it propagated southward and eastward along
the MHT and ended at some depth north of the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT). The
rupture did not break the surface.

2.6.1 Slip Modeling from Teleseismic Data

Yagi (Fig. 2.4) indicates up to 7.5 m slip near Kathmandu from modeling of the
teleseismic broadband velocity data. The mechanism parameters are as follows:
2.6 Slip Modeling 11

Fig. 2.4 Yagi (modified web site fig.) indicates up to 7.5 m slip near Kathmandu from modeling
of the teleseismic broadband velocity data. There are two branches of MCT in the area. One runs
just north of MBT, takes a hairpin bend west of Kathmandu, at 84.75°E longitude, runs west to east
for short distance and then again takes a wide bend to run E to W along the Apr 2015 mainshock
epicenter shown by a star. The other is on the eastern side of the figure with its own two branches
running 30 km and 70 km north of MBT, the northern branch running E-W around 27.8°N latitude
and in between 85.7 to 87°E longitudes

Seismic Moment = 0.91 × 10^21 Nm (Mw 7.9);

Source duration T ~ 60 s;
(strike, dip, rake) = (285, 10, 95)
The slip modeled from teleseismic waveforms by J. Polet (website) is similar to
that of Yagi and showed that the main shock of April 25, 2015 (Mw 7.8) resulted up to
northward 7 m slip north of Kathmandu. The USGS source model using teleseismic
data has the maximum slip of 3.11 m (north of Kathmandu, 1.29 m near the April
mainshock epicenter and 1 m near the May 12 major aftershock epicenter.
Slip Model from InSAR Data
Synthetic Aperture Radar Interferometry (InSAR) from European Sentinal-1a satel-
lite by comparing the imagery before and after the earthquake showed post-
earthquake ground motions around the area (COMET website of John Elliott, Center
for Observation and Modeling of Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Tectonics of the
Natural Environment Research Council, University of Oxford). Each color contour
on the interferogram shows 2.8 cm of ground movement. The interferometry fringes
are concentric in nearly oval shape having a short axis in the N-S direction and a
much larger axis in the E-W direction. The outer rings are of lower values than
the inner ones. The area covered is roughly the entire rupture zone through 27.0°–
28.5° N 83.75°–85.75° E, from Gorkha in the west and Kathmandu nearly at the
center. It covers the entire Kathmandu Valley and the mountain area up to the Tibet
border. A belt about 120 km by 50 km north and northeast of Kathmandu showed
maximum uplift of 1 m. As the thrust fault ruptured, the hanging-wall tilted with
12 2 Seismic Parameters of the 2015 MW 7.8 Gorkha Nepal Earthquake …

rocks immediately above uplifting and the surface to the north actually subsided.
This is to be expected from thrust faulting earthquakes. Part of southern Tibet in the
north showed a little subsidence. The Mt. Everest, located about 200 km ENE of
Kathmandu, subsided by 2.5 cm.
Slip Model Using Remote Sensing Satellite Data
Wenhao et al. (2017) modeled the rupture from ALOS-2 data assuming fault strike
295° and dip 11°. They estimated fault dimension 210 × 160 km, most slip concen-
tration in the depth range 11–19 km, with maximum slip 4.7 m at 16 km depth,
seismic moment 6.02 × 1020 Nm ≈Mw 7.82. They opined that the smooth onset of
Source-Time function, the low stress drop, and low degree of stress heterogeneity
are contributing factors for low level of high-frequency ground motion.

2.7 Strong Motion

An accelerometer installed by the USGS in the US Embassy in Kathmandu recorded

PGA 190 cm/s2 (Fig. 2.5). The strong motion is dominated by low-frequency (periods
3 to 6 s) ground shaking. Spectral acceleration of up to 600 cm/s2 is estimated for
natural periods of 0.1–0.5 which may be corresponding to 1–5 storey buildings and
for periods of 3–6 s which may be corresponding to tall structures of 30–60 stories.
Fortunately, tall buildings are not in Nepal, but most tall buildings worldwide are
designed for the horizontal base yield strength of less than 15%, we can expect that
190 cm/s2 PGA will cause yielding in them. Acceleration, converted velocity, and
displacement spectra are also depicted in Fig. 2.6. The strong PGV of 107 cm/s
and PGD of 139 cm indicate very strong shaking for long-period structures which
may cause a collapse of most (or all) of the world’s tall buildings. One of the GPS
stations has shown strong oscillations of 3–4 s period for 20 s duration (besides
high-frequency oscillations) giving a surface velocity of 70 cm/s (Galetzka et al.
2015).
The accelerograph at Kathmandu maintained by Directorate of Geology and
Mining of Nepal recorded PGA of 164 cm/s2 for the April earthquake (Fig. 2.6).
Two large peaks of response spectra are present at vibration periods around 0.2–0.6 s
(N–S component only) and around 4.0–6.0 s (both N–S and E–W components). Sa
up to 600 cm/s2 for 0.5 s is more in the N-S component while Sa for 1 and 5 s are
more in the E-W component being a maximum of 250 and 400 cm/s2 . Sa is again
up to 600 cm/s2 for 7–8 s. The peak of Sa shifts toward a higher period in the N-S
component orthogonal to the fault/rupture propagation direction as S-wave is likely
more predominant in the orthogonal direction.
The recorded PGA of 169–190 cm/s2 is relatively mild as compared to the earth-
quake magnitude. The USGS preliminary estimation of the expected maximum
ground acceleration (PGA) was about 350 cm/s2 at Kathmandu. Destruction was
also relatively less. The 1934 Nepal Mw 8.4 earthquake, at a distance of 150 km
caused the destruction of 20% of buildings in Kathmandu as compared to <5% by
the 2015 earthquake.
2.7 Strong Motion 13

Fig. 2.5 Max. Acceleration ~186 cm/s2 for bottom trace (V), 158 and 164 cm/s2 two H), ground
velocity (~107 cm/s), displacement (139 cm) and spectral acceleration (max 600 cm/s2 at 0.1 s
in vertical component and 700 cm/s2 at 0.5 s in horizontal component) at Kantipath, Kathmandu
(epicentral distance 60 km) for 2015 Nepal earthquake. Large strong motion at higher periods is
called “Fling effect” which is caused by the propagation of rupture over the rupture zone that causes
heavy damage. It is seen at Kathmandu station by the large phase after the P-arrival
14 2 Seismic Parameters of the 2015 MW 7.8 Gorkha Nepal Earthquake …

Fig. 2.6 a Recorded accelerograms at KATNP for the Mw 7.8 mainshock. b Recorded accelero-
grams at KATNP for the May 12 Mw 7.3 aftershock. c 5%-damped spectral accelerations (SA)
of the recorded accelerograms at KATNP for the Mw 7.8 mainshock and the Mw 7.3 aftershock.
d Polar plots of the PGA and spectral accelerations at 0.5, 1.0, and 5.0 s of the rotated accelerograms
at KATNP for the Mw 7.8 mainshock

The earthquake was on a thrust fault with several meters of slip directly beneath
Kathmandu that moved the city by meters in response. A slow rupture process of
a major earthquake with a 150 kmfault length will cause the generation of low
frequencies. As the recorded acceleration is the amplified one the generated low-
frequency ground motion may have been still milder. The high-frequency amplifi-
cation is caused by near-surface soil layers while the low-frequency (period 3 to
6 s) ground amplification is caused by 250–650 m deep Kathmandu Basin of soft
sediments. More details are given in a later chapter. The attenuation of strong motion
together with observed and inferred data from the collapsed or toppled structures are
roughly consistent with available empirical relations proposed by various researchers.

2.8 Damage and MM Intensity

The two major 2015 Nepal earthquakes took 9000 human lives, injury to 17, 866,
collapse of 500,717 houses, and severe damage to 269,190 houses. In India, 79
people died, mostly in Bihar, some in Uttar Pradesh, and stray incidences were in
West Bengal, Jharkhand, and Odisha. In China, 25 people died. The irreparable loss
2.9 Conclusions 15

was the collapse of most of the heritage structures. The economic loss was estimated
to be more than US$ 5 billion and reconstruction cost $20 billion.
Rupture zone is assigned intensity VIII within which a 75 × 15 km east-west
trending belt through Kathmandu is assigned Modified Mercalli (MM) intensity IX
where RC structures have collapsed. Intensity VII is up to India border. Intensity
VI is assigned in northern Bihar and UP, up to 170 km from the epicenter, where
some shoddy houses have collapsed. Further east, a building collapsed in Siliguri at
300 km distance. Intensity IV extends up to Delhi as the earthquake has been strongly
felt. Intensity III extends to 1500 km distance in Gujarat in the west, to Odisha and
West Bengal in the east, and some parts of Andhra Pradesh in the southeast from the
epicenter.
Numerous landslides some large and some small occurred throughout the rupture
zone. Rock falls blocked several roads and some ice-rock avalanches occurred at
elevations ≥3500 m. The 12th May earthquake caused landslides and the collapse of
several hundred houses and buildings including some RC structures in the Dolakha-
Sindhupalchowk-Kodari area. The death toll due to this earthquake was about 1000
in Nepal.

2.9 Conclusions

The Mw 7.8 April 25, 2015 earthquake and its major Mw 7.3 aftershock of May
12, 2015 have taken 9000 human lives and collapsed or severely damaged 800,000
houses. The fault has not come up to the surface. A mild PGA of 0.16–0.19 g
caused relatively less damage. Long-period strong motion at 3–6 s might have been
much amplified over a deep basin (650 m); giving caution for the tall buildings over
deep basins in active areas to be designed appropriately. The rupture of the 2015
Gorkha earthquake started near Nepal-Tibet boundary and stopped 50 km short of
the Himalayan front. This is in contrast to the 1934 earthquake the rupture of which
propagated to the Himalayan front causing destruction in India too.
Mainshock rupture zone is 150 × 55 km and rupture duration is 80 s making
an overall low rupture propagation velocity of 2 km/s. However, a major portion of
the rupture propagated at the normal velocity of 3 km/s. The April 25 mainshock is
located at the NW end of the rupture zone and the May 12 major aftershock of Mw
7.3 at its NE end. Rupture propagated eastward.
Slow seismic moment release rate has generated less high-frequency acceleration
(pga) while the long and slow seismic moment release rate at the end has generated
strong long-period (2–6 s) acceleration. Lower pga has caused restricted damage to
houses and buildings of up to 4 floors. The long-period acceleration for 2 s period has
caused the toppling of two ~60 m tall towers. As there were no other tall structures
the large acceleration for long periods has been of not much consequence to Nepal.
However, it has caused World-wide worry for tall structures in active zones.
Chapter 3
Geology, Seismotectonics, and Geodetic
Deformation of Nepal

Abstract In this chapter, geology, seismotectonics and geodetic deformation of

Nepal is described in short. Geology of the Kathmandu Valley is also covered. Major
thrusts and rock formations are shown in maps. Importance of the Main Himalayan
Thrust (MHT) being the seat of large earthquakes is reiterated. Past Significant Earth-
quakes in Himalaya and especially in Nepal are listed and their effect is mentioned.
The Bihar-Nepal Earthquake of 15 January 1934 and August 20, 1988 Udaipur Nepal
Earthquake of Magnitude 6.8 earthquakes are described in much detail. Estimates
of rupture lengths and areas of large earthquakes in Nepal and vicinity are given.
Seismotectonics of Himalaya in general and Nepal in particular is described in detail
including crustal structure, duplex structure, locked and active zones, and, role of
transverse faults. India-Eurasia convergence rates derived from GPS measurements
in different sectors derived by various investigators are given.

3.1 Brief Geology of Himalaya Including Nepal

Geology of Nepal is shown in Fig. 3.1a and a schematic section across Himalaya
is shown in Fig. 3.1b. Geology of Kathmandu Valley is shown in Fig. 3.2. Major
thrusts around the Kathmandu Valley are shown in Fig. 3.3. The 2500 km length of
the convex Himalaya from Kashmir to NE India has width of about 200 km from
Indus-Tsangpo suture (ITS) in southern Tibet (which represents the boundary of
India and Eurasia plates as it is having an ophiolite chain) to Main Frontal Thrust
(where the mountains end along the Indo-Gangetic Plains). The belt has three mega-
thrusts that run its entire length from Kashmir to Assam, viz., the Main Central
Thrust that demarcates High Himalayas in the North and the Main Boundary Thrust
that delimits the metamorphic rocks of Lesser Himalayas to the south and the Main
Frontal Thrust, which is the contact between the Himalayas and the Gangetic Plains.
All these thrusts sole into the Main Himalayan Thrust (decollement surface) which
is a slip surface for significant earthquakes (Fig. 3.1). These thrusts have resulted
from continued underthrusting of the Indian plate, leading to a stack of thrust sheets
which get progressively younger, southward. In this geometry, the oldest and the

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license 17
to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2024
B. K. Rastogi, Nepal Earthquake of 2015, Springer Transactions in Civil
and Environmental Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4684-2_3
18 3 Geology, Seismotectonics, and Geodetic Deformation of Nepal

northernmost is the Main Central Thrust (MCT) (formed in ca. 24 Ma.), followed by
the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT 10Ma) and the southernmost is the Main Frontal
Thrust (MFT).
South of ITS and up to Higher Himalaya (HH) is the Tethyan sedimentary series
(TSS) consisting of Cambrian to Eocene sedimentary and low-grade metamorphic
rocks. In the HH the high grade metamorphic crystalline rocks (nappes and klippes
of gneiss and schist, etc.) override southward up to the Main Central Thrust (MCT).
Approximately 80–200 km of shortening occurred in this belt. South of MCT is the
Lesser Himalaya (LH) domain of less metamorphosed rocks, which in the south is
bounded by the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT). The Main Boundary Thrust (MBT)
brought Lesser Himalayan rocks southwards over the Sub-Himalaya (SH) belt of
Neogene to Quaternary Siwalik foreland sediments overlying MFT (Lave and Avouac
2001). These rocks form two or three thrust sheets and the type of formations from
bottom to top are mudstone, multi-layered sandstone, and conglomerate (Chamlagain

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3.1 a Geological map of Nepal (Copyright: Department of Mines and Geology, 1998). b a
schematic section across Himalaya
3.1 Brief Geology of Himalaya Including Nepal 19

Fig. 3.2 Geology of Kathmandu Valley and surroundings (redrawn after Department of Mines and
Geology, DMG, 1998, Copyright: Department of Mines and Geology, Nepal)

and Gautam 2015). Evidences of Himalayan tectonics in the last 14 Ma are preserved
in this foreland basin. MFT is presently a blind thrust imaged beneath the gentle folds
of the Siwalik Hills. The width of HH varies along Nepal, it is only a few kilometers
where the unit is limited to its root zone like in central Nepal whereas it can reach tens
of kilometers where it has over thrusted the Lesser Himalaya (LH) in Western and
Eastern Nepal (DeCelles et al. 2001). In Eastern Nepal, the LH is mainly exposed
in tectonic windows that cut through extensive crystalline thrust sheet. In central
Nepal, the width of LH reaches 100 km because of the absence of over thrusted HH.
20 3 Geology, Seismotectonics, and Geodetic Deformation of Nepal

Fig. 3.3 Major thrusts and epicenters of significant earthquakes of 2015 sequence and aftershocks
(after Yamada et al. 2019)

Crystalline nappes and klippes reappear in Western Nepal. The Kathmandu klippe
is a remnant of HHS rocks preserved above the Lesser Himalaya.
The Indian plate underthrusts northward beneath Eurasia generating in 50My a
thick crust due to folding and thrusting along several E-W trending mega-thrusts
(with numerous shallow earthquakes), and some transverse strike-slip faults (up to
lower crust at intermediate depth). Convergence of the Indian and Eurasian plates
is accommodated through slip on the detachment or MHT (Seeber and Armbruster
1981) causing large earthquakes.

3.1.1 Geology of Kathmandu Valley

Kathmandu Valley (~1340 m above MSL) is surrounded by the Lesser Himalayan

Hills (2000–2800 m above MSL). It is nearly circular with a 25–30 km diameter
(Fig. 3.2). It is a depositional basin and is filled with 550–650 m thick Pliocene
to Pleistocene deposits (Yoshida and Gautam 1988; Piya 2004), with a sub-stratum
of the meta-sedimentary formations of the Lesser Himalaya (Rai 2001). The basin
has thick clay of Pliocene (5.3–2.6 million years) to Pleistocene (2.6 million years–
11,700 years) age. It is a Y-shaped large central part of the area that extends southward
also. It is named Kalamati clay and is shown in pink color. North of it is the younger
Gokarna formation shown by its violet color and some others like the formations of
Thimi and Patan. Further north are patches of shelf or scree deposits. Such patches
are southeast and southwest of the Kalamati formation. Scree deposits are masses of
small loose stones that form or cover a slope on a mountain.
On all the sides, surrounding these younger sediments are basement meta-
sedimentary rocks of different types. Major among these are Shivpuri gneiss in
3.2 Past Significant Earthquakes in Himalaya and Nepal 21

the north shown by yellow color and Tistung formation in the south, southeast, and
southwest as shown by light blue color.

3.2 Past Significant Earthquakes in Himalaya and Nepal

Northward underthrusting of India beneath Himalaya generates numerous earth-

quakes. Times of M≥6 earthquakes in Nepal during last 5 decades are shown in
Fig. 3.4. The Nepal Himalaya has also experienced repeated destructive earthquakes
in the past that affected Kathmandu with MM intensity X in 1255, 1344, 1408, 1681,
1833, and 1934 (Figs. 3.5 and 3.6). M6.8 Udaipur Nepal earthquake of 1988 too
caused severe damage in Kathmandu and Bhaktapur (20 km E) (Fig. 3.7). Table 3.1
lists significant earthquakes in Nepal and Fig. 3.8 shows some of the locations.

Fig. 3.4 Time of occurrence of earthquakes of magnitude ≥6 in Nepal since 1964 (redrawn from
an anonymous source)
22 3 Geology, Seismotectonics, and Geodetic Deformation of Nepal

Fig. 3.5 Isoseismals VII to X for 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake (after Dunn et al. 1939) and Main
Boundary Thrust (MBT). The Main Frontal Thrust is about 30–50 km south of MBT. International
boundaries are approximate to give a perspective of the area. Boundaries of West Bengal, Sikkim,
etc. are not given. The epicenter of 1934 earthquake given by Chen and Molnar is near the USGS
location close to the Tibet border which is preferred. Epicenter by Seeber et al. is close to that of
G-R lying near the Indian border

3.2.1 Bihar-Nepal Earthquake of January 15, 1934

Parameters
The Jan 15, 1934 Mw 8.4 (Richter 1954; Duda 1965; Gupta et al. 1995), Rossi-
Forel intensity X Nepal-Bihar earthquake (USGS epicenter 27.6° N 87.1° E) (on
Makar Sankranti at 2:13 PM) occurred in Eastern Nepal. Earthquake magnitude 8.3
was given by Gutenberg and Richter (1954) and Mw 8.2 by Sapkota et al. (2013).
Gutenberg and Richter give the epicenter 26.5° 86.5° which is 100 km south of the
USGS epicenter and south of India-Nepal border and Seeber et al. (1981) give the
epicenter 26.75° N 86.7° E which is 25 km NE of the epicenter by G-R and lying
on Main Frontal Thrust. These locations are probably influenced by highly damaged
3.2 Past Significant Earthquakes in Himalaya and Nepal 23

Fig. 3.6 Isoseismals of 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake for all grades (after Dunn et al. 1935).
Locations of Bettiah and Motihari are within isoseismal IX

areas in India (Figs. 3.1 and 3.2). First motion data indicated thrust faulting (Molnar
and Pandey 1989).
Damage
Source for damage reports in India is Dunn et al. (1939) (summarized by Rastogi
2020) while for Nepal by Rana (1935) (translated from Nepali and recompiled by
Pandey and Molnar 1988). Based on the nature of damage at different locations
isoseismal maps were prepared by Dunn et al. which are redrawn as Figs. 3.5
and 3.6. The earthquake had a death toll of 16,000 (7,253 in India and 8,519 in
24 3 Geology, Seismotectonics, and Geodetic Deformation of Nepal

Fig. 3.7 Epicenter of the 1988 earthquake is 30 km west of Koshi River (or Munger-Saharsa Ridge
shown by two parallel normal faults abutting against MBT) and just south of MBT. Patna Fault is
80 km west. Isoseismals of Bihar-Nepal earthquake of 1988 are also marked (Rastogi 2018)

Nepal; including 4296 in Kathmandu Valley and about 4000 in the eastern moun-
tainous region of Udaipur-Dhankuta (east of Kathmandu 27.25°–27.50° N, 85.5°–
87.0° E), 65 in western mountainous region and 184 in Tarai, low lying area near
India border). Extensive landslides occurred in Nepal Himalaya within lat 27°–28°
N and intensity areas VIII-X. In India damage was in northern Bihar. Maximum
damaged districts were Muzaffarpur (>2,500 deaths), Darbhanga (>2,200), Monghyr
or Munger (>1500), and Champaran (500), while Saran and Bhagalpur districts
having about 200 deaths and Patna about 150. Within minutes, the whole city of
Monghyr and parts of Motihari, Muzaffarpur, Darbhanga, and Patan were ruined. In
Sitamarhi, Madhubani and Purnea houses had tilted and sunk in the ground. Serious
damage took place up to Darjeeling and other towns in Bengal. Roads remained
blocked for days due to fallen debris. In Sitamarhi, bridges, roads, and railway tracks
were nearly destroyed. Road sank by 2 to 3 m at numerous locations.
Isoseismal X: The 1934 earthquake caused near total destruction at Rossi-Forel
intensity X (MMI XII) in three belts, the largest being ESE trending 128 × 30 km
devastated belt within a large slump belt in intensity IX area, a smaller belt (10 × 2
km) from Patan to Bhaktapur through Harsidhi, Khokna, and Bagmati in Kathmandu
Valley and a much smaller belt (3 × 1 km) at Monghyr in Bihar.
3.2 Past Significant Earthquakes in Himalaya and Nepal 25

Table 3.1 Significant earthquakes in Nepal (1. Oldham, 2. US Natl. Geoph. Data Center, 3.
Historical earthquakes in Nepal, Disaster Preparedness Network, Nepal, 4. USGS, 5. European
Mediterranean SC)
YMD Lat Long Description Mag MMI Source
Mw
1223 28.0 85.0 Around Kathmandu OLD
1255 06 07 Rupture length ~200 km X
in east of Kathmandu
1344 Around Kathmandu X
1408 Around Kathmandu X
1505 Rupture length ~400 km 8.2
in Western Nepal
1681 Around Kathmandu X
1810 Around Kathmandu OLD
1816.05.26 30.0 86.5 More than 100 houses fell 7.5–8.0
at Kathmandu. A chasm of
considerable size formed
at Chhapra
1826.10. 29 28.0 85.0 Nr. Kathmandu 6 OLD
1833.08.26 28.0 85.0 Nepal, north and east India 7.5–8.0 X OLD
1833.10.04 27.0 85.0 Kathmandu, Monghyr, IX OLD
Allahabad
1833.10.18 27.0 84.0 Kathmandu, Gorakhpur, VIII OLD
Allahabad
1866.05.23 27.7 85.3 Destroyed a large portion 7 VIII OLD
of Kathmandu, Damage at
Monghyr.
1869.07.07 28.0 85.0 Nepal. Considerable 6.5 X OLD
damage
1916.10.28 30.0 81.0 NW Nepal. All houses 7.5 TNI
collapsed at Dharchula
1934.01.15 27.6 87.1 Bihar-Nepal 20,000 deaths 8.4 X GR
1980 29.8 80.5 Dharchula-Pithoragarh 6.5 VIII
200 persons died
1988.08.21 26.76 86.62 Epicenter near Udaipur, 6.8 VIII USG
Severe damage at Dharan,
Dhankuta, Bhaktapur, and
Kathmandu and in Bihar.
Total of over 1000 deaths
2011.09.18 100 deaths in Eastern 6.9 VIII
Nepal and India
2015.04.25 28.147 84.708 Epicenter in Gorkha 7.8 IX EMSC lePara>
district Eastern Nepal
9000 deaths in Nepal and
some in India and Tibet
2015.05.12 27.89 86.17 Aftershock, Epicenter in 7.3 IX EMSC
Sidhupal dt
26 3 Geology, Seismotectonics, and Geodetic Deformation of Nepal

Fig. 3.8 Rupture areas of 1897, 1905, 1934, 1950, and 2015 are shown on the map of approximate
locations of MFT and MCT. The rupture area of the 2015 earthquake did not extend to MFT and
was restricted up to MBT (Rastogi, 2020). Ruptures of 1905, 1934, and 1950 earthquakes occupied
the entire mountainous area from MCT (High Himalaya to MFT). Similar behavior is expected
for large historical earthquakes of 1255, 1344, and 1505. The location of Kathmandu (KTM) is
shown by a square in rupture area of 2015. Convergence rates derived from GPS are ≈15–17 mm/
yr (Bilham et al. 2019)

Isoseismal IX: In Kathmandu Valley, only one small occurrence of liquefaction was
near Harsidhi. Large scale liquefaction occurred in Bihar in a slump bed (between lat
25.7°–26.7° N and long 84.5°–88°) where land subsided. It is ESE trending, about
250 km long and 40 to 75 km wide, and extends from Bettiah through Motihari
and Madhubani to Purnea and Saharsa in Bihar. Severe sand vents were in between
longitudes 84°45’ and 86°15’E (Seeber et al. 1981). In Kathmandu Valley, Bhaktapur
had 70% houses and most of the temples collapsed. Outside the slump belt in places
such as Muzaffarpur and Darbhanga, there was widespread shaking and collapse,
but less tilting and subsidence. In Purnea, falling under intensity IX, 50% of houses
were destroyed and almost all others were badly damaged. Cities along the Ganges
suffered severe damage, like Patna, close to the western end of the slump belt, and
Jamalpur (south of Monghyr) near the eastern end of the slump bed. Sand ejected by
liquefaction choked the wells and silted the tanks in Muzaffarpur and other places.
The railway line, all along 1400 km in north Bihar was disturbed as the embankments
subsided, the track was distorted and the bridges were damaged or destroyed.
In the soil-covered Kathmandu Valley, 25% of houses collapsed and others were
severely damaged in the towns of Kathmandu, Patan, Thimi, and Thankot. Fissuring
was rare and damage was due to poor construction quality. There was no serious
damage in the rocky rim areas.
Isoseismal VIII: Important cities within the isoseismal VIII are Dhankuta, Khagaria,
and Samastipur, while towns near its border are Bhagalpur, Bihar, Chhapra, Bettiah,
3.2 Past Significant Earthquakes in Himalaya and Nepal 27

Darjeeling, and Kurseong. Many old and weak buildings collapsed. Brick buildings
were somewhat damaged out of which newer ones only in upper floors. Many mud
houses collapsed in Begu Sarai. Houses near the Gandak River in Saran district were
severely damaged. In Bettiah, west of Motihari damage was relatively less and had
no ground cracks, though some were nearby. Many buildings including hospitals,
churches, and government offices were severely damaged, and 20% were repairable.
Isoseismal VII: Several houses suffered collapse, partial collapse, or severe cracking
especially along an ESE-WNW trending zone extending from Dumka to Gaya (VII+),
further continuing toward cities such as Mirzapur, Benares, and Allahabad along the
Ganges in Uttar Pradesh. Liquefaction occurred at several locations on the dry Falgu
River bed at Gaya. There was slight liquefaction at Benares. In many places, damage
was not obvious from the outside.
Isoseismal VI: This isoseismal extends about 400 km in different directions except to
the west where it goes up to Rajasthan for a distance of about 900 km from Sitamarhi.
Buildings within this isoseismal cracked and some severely. Many big towns, like
Agra, Lucknow, Kanpur, Katni, Ranchi, Dhanbad, Asansol, Burdwan, Dhubri, and
Calcutta, are included in this isoseismal. A tall building appeared to be rotating in a
kidney-shaped figure as noticed by a person on top of the building.
Isoseismal V and Lower Isoseismals:
Isoseismal V extends from Sitamarhi to about 1000 km in the west and 600 km
in other directions encompassing cities where some houses got cracks. The towns
near the boundary are Ajmer in the west; Chhindwara, Bilaspur, Sambalpur, and
Balasore in the south; included are Saharanpur, Delhi, Jaipur, Bhopal, and Jabalpur.
Isoseismal IV passes through Bikaner, Jodhpur, Udaipur, and Jalgaon in the west and
Visakhapatnam in the south. However, within this isoseismal the area around Cuttack
in Mahanadi Delta in the east is included where intensity was V+. Isoseismal III and
II combined together are plotted as isoseismal II to show the felt limit including
Bombay and Poona in the west and Ongole in the south at about 1800 km distance
from the USGS epicenter. The Godavari and Krishna Delta areas showed intensity
IV within isoseismal II.
Damage Survey in Nepal: Houses in several towns of the Kathmandu district were
destroyed and there were landslides and cracks on the roads. Houses are mostly badly
constructed, having a core of boulders from the rivers, faced on both sides by bricks
set in mud binding. A small area NW of Kathmandu was severely damaged and
assigned intensity VIII. The area 20 km south from Patan to Harsidhi to Bhaktapur
was destroyed and assigned intensity IX-X.
Going eastward of Kathmandu, in Chautara district (85.5° E) near the Tibet
border all government buildings collapsed and many houses were either severely
damaged or collapsed. There were numerous landslides. In Kodari, the millet granary
was destroyed and in Tatopani (5 km SW of Kodari), a storehouse for salt was
destroyed. All houses in Palchok and Tauthalikot villages were destroyed. In districts
28 3 Geology, Seismotectonics, and Geodetic Deformation of Nepal

of Ramechhap (86° E), Rasuwa Gadhi, Okhaldhunga (86.5° E), and Bhojpur (26.5°–
27.5°, 86.5°–87.0°) most of the houses/buildings were destroyed. At Rasuwa some
houses were damaged by landslides. At Okhaldhunga three famous gompas were
severely damaged. At Bhojpur there were numerous landslides and some new springs
developed. Dharan (26° 49’, 87° 17’, about 30 km SSW of Dhankuta and lying
within isoseismal IX) had destruction of houses including a granary, entire bazar
and government buildings, landslides, fissures, and new springs (Rana). Udaipur
(26.97°, 86.53°) and villages in the north were nearly razed to the ground (Auden).
Further NW, Rana described that at Sindhuli (27.28°, 85.96°) all stone houses were
damaged. The governor’s house, other government houses, and numerous private
houses collapsed and some tilted.
About 25 km SW of Kathmandu at Chisapani Gadhi lying at the boundary of
isoseismal VIII, a temple and several buildings collapsed. At Pokhara, located outside
the NW corner of isoseismal VII and of Fig. 3.5, the earthquake sounded like a motor,
and a house was destroyed. West of Pokhara in Kaski, there were landslides. About
70 km SSE of Pokhara (~28.2°, 84°), in Bandipur (~27.0°, 84.2°), 50–60 houses
cracked and 10 collapsed. Houses in the areas west and north of Kathmandu suffered
large cracks and were assigned intensity VII, though temples in the area and a few
villages on alluvial terraces were destroyed. Kalika Devi temple in Gurkha (~28.0°,
84.5°) nearly collapsed.
The plain area south of mountains bordering India, called Terai (longitude 84.7°
to 87.6°), suffered devastation (Rana) due to widespread liquefaction and shaking
and was assigned intensity IX or even X at places (Dunn et al.). Fissures were
prevalent up to 4 m wide and 30 m deep and Railway was disrupted at many places.
Even better-built houses, temples, and government buildings were tilted, sunk, or
destroyed. Saptari (including towns of Jaleswar, Hanumannagar, and Siraha) and
Mahattari (including the town of Dhanukha) districts (longitudes 86°–87°) were
worst hit. Other towns included Birgunj (27° 0’ N 84° 52’E) and Biratnagar (26.48°
N 87.28° E). Auden noted that liquefaction occurred as far north as Siwalik Hills but
was not common beyond 26N. Villages having bamboo houses were less affected.

3.2.2 August 20, 1988 Udaipur Nepal Earthquake

of Magnitude 6.8

The parameters determined by USGS for the Mw 6.8 Udaipur Eastern Nepal earth-
quake of August 20, 1988 are: origin time 23 h 09 m 09.56s (UT), 26.775° N 86.616°
E, and focal depth 57.4 km. These parameters are found consistent with the additional
international data including that from Nepal and India (Pandey et al. 1999; Rastogi
2018). The epicenter is about 120 km SSW of the epicenter of the 1934 earthquake,
about 200 km SE of the epicenter of the 2015 earthquake, or about 60 km SE of
the rupture zone of the 2015 earthquake. A NE trending and west-dipping strike-slip
fault with a large thrust component down to 57 km depth in the Main Boundary fault
3.3 Rupture Lengths and Areas of Large Earthquakes in Nepal and Vicinity 29

zone is suggested to be the causative fault for the 1988 earthquake. The earthquake
has possibly occurred along the Koshi River fault which might be the extension
of the west-dipping, west margin fault of the NE trending Munger-Saharsa Ridge
(Fig. 3.7). The epicenter corresponding to focus at depth would be some 30–40 km
west of the west-dipping fault with a dip 50° which is the case here. On the surface
and near the epicenter are small NNE trending transverse faults. The deeper depth
of this earthquake indicates that the transverse faults in Himalaya extend to the base
of the crust and may be acting as a partition between major thrusting blocks.
The earthquake caused over 1000 deaths (721 in Nepal and 283 in India). The
earthquake had a maximum intensity of VIII (MM scale) in an area of 250 × 125 km
with an estimated acceleration of 0.2 g. In Nepal, maximum damage was at Dharan
and Dhankuta towns located 60 km east of the epicenter and in Bihar at 100 to 150 km
south. In Nepal 721 persons died, 6908 persons were injured, and 64,470 buildings
collapsed or damaged. There was extensive damage in north Bihar, particularly in
Darbhanga, Madhubani, and Saharsa where at least 283 persons were killed, 3147
were injured, and 36,144 houses collapsed or damaged. Some damage occurred in
Kathmandu and Bhaktapur located 175 km northwest of the epicenter. There was
damage in Sikkim, Bhutan, and Darjeeling. The earthquake was felt in large parts of
northern India from Delhi to the Myanmar border and in much of Bangladesh. The
earthquake caused widespread liquefaction and ground cracks in an area of about
125 × 125 km in Bihar and southern Nepal. The isoseismals trend NE. Isoseismal
VII extends 100 km more from isoseismal VIII including Gangtok in the northeast
while Patna and Nalanda in the southwest direction.

3.3 Rupture Lengths and Areas of Large Earthquakes

in Nepal and Vicinity

Rupture lengths of large earthquakes in Nepal and vicinity are shown in Fig. 3.8.
For historical earthquakes rupture areas are estimated from damage reports while
for recent earthquakes additional data of aftershocks and seismic moment is used.
Sapkota et al. (2013) estimated rupture area for the 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake 150
× 85 km extending from epicenter in the north to HFT in the south between 26.7°
to 27.7° N and 85.85° to 87.30° E occupying MSK intensity VIII area with seismic
moment 1.81 × 1020 Nm and average slip 5 m. Rastogi (2020) suggested that the
rupture area may be 200 × 100 km extending the intensity IX area west and south
along MFT in a strip which will take into account the intensity X area and slump
belt in Bihar.
The catastrophic AD 1255 great earthquake that killed one-third population of
Kathmandu, including King Abhay Malla had also similar rupture area extending
south up to MFT (Sapkota et al. 2013). Western Nepal experienced the Mw 8.2 event
on June 6, 1505. In Western Nepal, Mw 6.5 Dharchula-Pithoragarh earthquake in
1980 killed more than 200 people and destroyed 40,000 houses. On September 18,
30 3 Geology, Seismotectonics, and Geodetic Deformation of Nepal

2011, the Mw 6.9 earthquake occurred in Eastern Nepal (Taplejung 27.7N 88.2E,
also known as the Sikkim earthquake) that killed more than 100 people in India and
Nepal.
The August 26, 1833 Mw 7.7 and 2015 earthquakes have overlapping ruptures
after an interval of 182 years. Rupture length of 1833 Nepal earthquake is estimated
at about 120 km. The 1833 earthquake had occurred about 300 years after the 1505
earthquake at the eastern end of its rupture near Kathmandu. There were two fore-
shocks (Bilham 1995). The first one caused alarm and the second, 5 hours later,
brought most people from their homes. The mainshock (Ambraseys and Douglas
2004) occurred 15 minutes later causing widespread structural damage in India and
Nepal, but the combined loss of life in India and Nepal was only 500 because most
people were already in the open, alarmed by the two foreshocks. The isoseismals
suggest an epicentral region at the western end of the 1934 Mw 8.4 rupture.
Lave et al. (2005) presented paleoseismological evidence of the occurrence of
a great earthquake in the east central Nepal. They estimated that the earthquake
occurred at ~1100 AD with a surface displacement of ~17 m and lateral extent and
size that could have exceeded 240 km and Mw 8.8. In the meizoseismal area of the
1934 Bihar-Nepal great earthquake, Sukhija et al. (2002) reported signatures of two
pre-historic seismic events, one between 1700 and 5300 years BP and the other prior
25,000 years BP.

3.4 Seismotectonics of Himalaya

Seismicity in Himalaya is the result of the continental collision of Indian and Eurasian
plates, which are converging at a relative rate of 40–50 mm/yr, nearly 50% of which is
accommodated in Himalaya and rest in Eurasia. The Indian plate underthrusts north-
ward beneath Eurasia. The surface expression of the plate boundary is marked by the
east-west trending Himalaya Front. Collision of India with Asia started 50 million
years ago. Crustal thickening and burying of rocks to 35 km depth in Himalaya
occurred between ~35 and 30 Ma. During the Miocene (~25–18 Ma) time the Main
Central Thrust (MCT) developed. About 10 million years ago the Main Boundary
Thrust (MBT) became active bringing Lesser Himalayan rocks southwards over
Siwalik foreland sediments. These Himalayan thrusts root into a major blind detach-
ment called the Main Himalayan Thrust (MHT) that represents the present-day plate
margin, where India is underthrusting Himalaya. The zone covered by different
thrusts south of Tibet is locked and episodically produces large earthquakes along
the MHT. The Gorkha earthquake is part of this process. Rupture zones of large
earthquakes in Himalaya are about 150–200 km. From a convergence rate of 2 cm/
yr a strain enough for 4 m slip and a great earthquake may be accumulated every
200 years in such stretches (Bilham et al. 2001; Ader et al. 2012). About 2200 km
length of Himalaya can be divided into 11–15 segments. One-third of Himalaya has
ruptured in the last three centuries. Hence, 7–10 of these segments may have the
potential of a great earthquake (Mw≥8). The segments which did not have any great
3.4 Seismotectonics of Himalaya 31

earthquakes since 1700, the slip potential may be ≥6 m (Bilham et al. 2001) and
hence, may generate Mw 8.6 Assam 1950 type earthquake, the largest intraconti-
nental earthquake in recorded history. It could be devastating in a populous region.
Newly discovered earthquakes occurring in the tenth to sixteenth centuries may have
been much larger than recent events, as some of these have ruptured the MFT.
The fault plane solutions determined for earthquakes in Nepal and Himalaya by
various workers (Rastogi 1974; Chandra 1978; Molnar et al. 1973, 1977; Ni and
Barazangi 1984) indicate thrusting along shallow plane trending along the thrust belt
and slip vectors perpendicular to it. For the 1988 earthquake, USGS reported a strike
slip with a large thrust component along a transverse fault. The causative fault is
west dipping and may be matching with the Kosi fault close to the western margin
of the extension of Munger-Saharsa Ridge in the area (Rastogi 2018).
Some of the features may indicate the presence of asperity in the zone of 1988
and 1934 epicenters like the NW-SE trend of Himalaya west of the 1988 epicenter
becomes E-W in the epicentral area and the width of Himalaya becomes narrow.
This can give rise to a zone of asperity. The Munger-Saharsa Ridge abutting against
Himalaya could also cause accumulation of stress/strain.
In Himalayan front, most of the earthquakes including major and great earthquakes
are within about 20 km depth along or above the decollement surface known as Main
Himalayan or Frontal Thrust. However, some earthquakes, especially those along the
transverse faults have occurred at around 60 km depth. Two such examples are the
1988 Nepal earthquake and the 2011 Sikkim earthquake. Kayal thinks that it may be
due to a doubling of the crust or the presence of transverse ridges (Kayal et al. 1993;
De and Kayal 2003)
Himalayan belt is one of the most seismically hazardous regions on Earth. Diffused
but high seismicity occurs in a 200 km wide belt down to the Main Frontal Thrust
in the south. Four great and several large earthquakes have occurred in this densely
populated region caused by thrusting including the 1934 M8.4 Bihar-Nepal earth-
quake during 1897 to 1950. Seismicity in Himalaya results from the continental
collision of the India and Eurasia plates, which are converging at a relative rate of
40–50 mm/yr, nearly half of which (~18–20 mm/yr) is accommodated in Himalaya
and the rest north of it (Bilham et al. 2001). Nepal lies in the center of the Himalayan
belt. It has a near rectangular area of 870 × 130–260 km. The Nepal earthquake
of April 25, 2015 is in Lesser Himalaya close to MCT (Fig. 3.3) and the rupture
zone covers the Lesser as well as the Higher Himalayan zone. The 2015 earthquake
ruptured a locked fault section west of the rupture plane of the 1934 earthquake
(Avouac et al. 2015). It occurred within the eastern part of the postulated central
seismic gap (locked segment) west of 1934 rupture zone. In this area the Indian and
Eurasian continents are converging at the rate of ~15–17 mm/yr (Bilham et al. 2012).
Pandey et al. (1999) described the seismotectonics of Nepal Himalaya from a local
seismic network operated from May 1994 to January 1998. Seismicity is concentrated
around the MCT/Tibet border. It is relatively less in between longitudes of 82º and
84º E. The focal depths are from 5 to 40 km with a concentration of 15 to 35 km
close to the ramp of MCT. The area around MBT and MCT is probably locked.
32 3 Geology, Seismotectonics, and Geodetic Deformation of Nepal

Fig. 3.9 The MHT, decollment surface or ramp of Himalaya which is the seat of most large earth-
quakes of Himalaya as per the suggestion of (Bilham 2000). According to Yamada et al. (2019),
most of the aftershocks of the 2015 earthquake occurred over the steep as well as gentle slope
changes of the ramp and within the two blobs as indicated. Some do occur in between the two blobs
over the locked portion and some along the sliding portion

The Lesser Himalayan zone is generally believed to form a duplex (Schelling and
Arita 1991; Srivastava and Mitra 1994; DeCelles et al. 2001; Monsalve et al. 2006).
However, some believe that the crust itself is thick (Mitra et al. 2015). Monsalve
et al. (2006) show a doubling of the crust for earthquakes in Eastern Nepal and Tibet.
The depths within Nepal are down to 60 km increasing to 80 km in Tibet. It is like
two MHT’s. The shallow one is like the one shown in (Fig. 3.9) from a depth of
about 5 to 40 km and a deeper one from 45 to 75 km. For the shallow MHT, they
found two ESE trending concentrations of shocks down to 20 km depth as shown
in Fig. 3.9. For the deeper MHT the southern concentration is around MBT, and
the deeper concentration is ESE trending at around 80 km depth in Tibet. They also
found a transverse trend around the 1988 earthquake epicenter occupying an area
around latitude 27° N and longitudes 86°–87.7° E active during 1994–1998 and also
during 2001–2003 (Himalaya-Nepal-Tibet Seismic Experiment (HIMNT) consisting
27 broadband seismometers in Nepal and southern Tibet during September 2001 to
April 2003).
The deeper part of the MHT is believed to be creeping smoothly while the shal-
lower part slips episodically during great earthquakes such as the 1905 Kangra and
1934 Nepal events. The locked part of the subduction interface has a low-dip angle
(about 10°) and is located at depths of 4–18 km (Bilham 2004; Ader et al. 2012).
Figure 3.9 shows a schematic representation of the section of aftershocks distribution
of the 2015 earthquake (after Yamada et al. 2019). Aftershocks of the 2015 earth-
quake concentrate on the locations of steep (active) and gentle (locked) portions of
the ramp and where there are sudden changes in the dip of the ramp. The idea of
the locked segment of the MHT beneath the Lesser Himalaya emerged from GPS
geodesy (Bilham et al. 2001). The dipping interface (MHT) separates the under-
thrusting Indian plate from the overriding mountains and accommodates the conver-
gence. When strain due to the convergence of the Indian and Eurasian plates exceeds,
great earthquakes may be generated episodically. As rocks at 15–20 km depths are
colder and brittle, the shallow portion of MHT is frictionally locked accumulating
3.5 Geodetic Deformation in Himalaya and Nepal 33

strain energy. As the MHT deepens further north the zone is warmer (>350 °C)
causing aseismic sliding (creep). Strain exceeding the rock failure stage is estimated
to be ~10−4 (Mitra et al. 2015).
It is observed that the rupture zones of large earthquakes in Himalaya had been
about 150–200 km long. From a convergence rate of 2 cm/yr, a strain enough for 4
m slip and a great earthquake may be accumulated every 200 years. From the great
earthquakes since 1500, it can be assessed that the 2/3rd portion of Himalaya has the
potential to produce a few great earthquakes.
The 2015 main shock rupture occurred over the meisoseismal zone of the 1833
Nepal earthquake. The region had since accumulated strain enough for a slip of ~3
m, which is in good agreement with the average co-seismic slip associated with the
present event. This indicates that the GPS-derived convergence rate across Himalaya
is similar to the long-term geologic slip rates, and is primarily stored as elastic strain
energy to be eventually released by the earthquakes (Mitra et al. 2015).
The 2015 earthquake might have caused the propagation of stresses to the adjacent
regions. The segment on the west has not produced a major earthquake in the past
~500 years (the last known mega-thrust event was in ca. 1505). This segment has a
slip deficit of ~9 m, which can potentially rupture in an earthquake of M > 8.

3.5 Geodetic Deformation in Himalaya and Nepal

Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements show that India and Eurasia
converge at 12 to 18 mm/year along Himalaya (Bilham 2019) (Fig. 3.6), increasing
from west to east. In Nepal the rate is around 16 mm/y. A 100 km-wide region with
its down-dip edge on the southern edge of the Tibetan Plateau accommodates this
convergence. This region also shows localized vertical movement (1–2 mm/y close
to MFT and up to 5 mm/y in the MCT zone), and small earthquakes are most common
here. From the rupture zones and slip amount of past earthquakes the areas of deficit
convergence may be identified. Great and major earthquakes in the Himalayan region
are known to have occurred in 1803, 1833, 1897, 1905, 1934, and 1950, but little
is known about Himalayan earthquakes in the eighteenth century and before. The
list compiled from limited damage description and palaeoseismology includes the
earthquakes of 844, 1123, 1501, 1555, 1669, 1736, 1779, 1784, 1828, 1885, and 2005
all in Kashmir, while during 1400 in Western Himalaya. In Nepal the list includes
those in 1223, 1225, 1344, and 1505.
GPS measurements from Nepal (Bilham et al. 1997; Bettinelli et al. 2008),
Kumaun, Garhwal and Punjab Himalaya (Jade et al. 2004; Banerjee and Burgmann
2002; Yadav et al. 2019) in central Himalaya show that the site velocities with refer-
ence to Indian plate in these regions vary gradually from nil in the southern part
of Himalaya to about 16 mm/year in the northern part in the Higher Himalaya.
The gradual increase in the site velocity from south to north indicates strain accu-
mulation. The extensive measurements in Nepal Himalaya are consistent with the
locking of detachment (Seeber and Armbruster 1981) in the seismogenic part of the
34 3 Geology, Seismotectonics, and Geodetic Deformation of Nepal

plate boundary, under the Siwaliks and Lesser Himalaya. The accumulated strain on
the detachment will be released during the occurrence of great earthquakes in the
Himalayan detachment. Similar measurements have been made from other parts of
Himalaya and the rate of strain accumulation appears to vary. In the Punjab Himalaya
the rate of strain accumulation is of the order of 14 mm/year (Banerjee and Burgmann
2002). The rate of strain accumulation in the Garhwal and Kumaun Himalaya are
of the order of 18 mm/year, similar to the Nepal Himalaya (Jade et al. 2004; Yadav
et al. 2019). Site velocities from the NE India region, namely, from Shillong Plateau,
Arunachal Himalaya, and Indo-Burmese Arc, have been reported (Jade et al. 2007).
In Arunachal Himalaya the strain appears to be distributed, while Shillong plateau
appears to accommodate about 2–7 mm/year of convergence. Catherin et al. (2014)
reported the interseismic velocity of Port Blair with respect to India on the basis
of campaign mode observations made between 1996 and 2000. The site velocity of
9–11 mm/year toward N250° represents strain accumulation on the seismogenic part
of the plate boundary and in the frontal arc at the rate of 30 mm/year (Gahalaut and
Gahalaut 2007; Gahalaut et al. 2008).
Banerjee and Burgmann (2002) estimated the convergence rate across the north-
west Himalaya as about 15 mm/yr and found that the shortening is localized within
a ∼100 km wide zone that follows the southern edge of the Higher Himalaya. They
found small deformation across the Siwalik foothills and across MFT. Banerjee et al.
(2008) estimated the convergence rate of 11 mm/yr for the Shillong plateau and
suggested that the southward motions at 4–7 mm/yr for the sites on the Shillong
Plateau, well to the south of the Himalayan range front, indicate rapid contraction
across its southern edge.
Jade (2004) and Jade et al. (2004) present a convergence rate of about 14–20 mm/
yr between the Indian Sub-continent and Tibet plateau and 10–18 mm/yr in Garhwal–
Kumaun Himalaya. Jade (2004) estimated the convergence rate of the northeastern
GPS sites to be about 16 ± 0.5 mm/yr whereas in the Sikkim region, it is 10–12 mm/
yr.
A study by Mukul et al. (2010) indicates that the convergence is being accommo-
dated in the NE Himalayan wedge at a rate of about 15–20 mm/yr and approximately
1.5–3.5 mm/yr (~10–20%) of the present-day convergence in the NE Himalayan
wedge is being accommodated in the Shillong Plateau. A study by Mahesh et al.
(2012) shows a motion of about 16.2 ± 0.2 mm/yr with respect to Indian plate in one
of the sites located north of the Higher Himalaya. This motion is consistent with the
estimate of convergence of about 18 mm/yr accommodated in Himalaya. The other
site located in the Outer Himalaya shows negligible motion with respect to India,
suggesting that the detachment under the Outer and Lesser Himalaya is locked and
is accumulating strain for a future large Himalayan earthquake.
Hence, the Global Position System data shows convergence rates between India
and South Tibet to be 18 ± 0.5 mm/year in central and east Nepal and 20.5 ± 1
mm/year in Western Nepal (Ader et al. 2012), 15 mm/yr in the northwest Himalaya,
10–18 mm/yr in Garhwal–Kumaun Himalaya and 16 mm/yr in NE Himalaya.
Chapter 4
Geotechnical and Other Engineering
Aspects of the 2015 Nepal Earthquake

Abstract Geotechnical and other engineering aspects of the 2015 Nepal Earth-
quake have been investigated by various workers (Aydan and Ulusay 2015, Bhagat
et al. 2017, Goda et al. 2015, Parameswaran et al. 2015, Pokhrel et al. 2015a, b,
Wijeyewickrema et al. 2015). Some important observations are summarized here.

4.1 The Geological Setup of the Kathmandu Valley

from a Geotechnical Point of View

The three districts of Kathmandu, Lalitpur, and Bhaktapur are commonly referred to
as Kathmandu Valley. The valley (~1340 m above MSL) is surrounded by the Lesser
Himalayan Hills (2000–2800 m above MSL). It is near circular with 25–30 km diam-
eter. It is a depositional basin and is filled with 550–650 m thick Pliocene to Pleis-
tocene deposits (Yoshida and Gautam 1988; Piya 2004) over the meta-sedimentary
formations of the Lesser Himalaya (Rai 2001). The sedimentary formations are both
arenaceous (sandstones with larger particles) as well as argillaceous (clay and silt,
fine particles) that consist of both gneissic rock and limestone and consist of muds,
silts, sandy loams, fine to coarse sands and gravel to pebble conglomerates (Yoshida
and Igarashi 1984; Kate et al. 1996). These are derived from the surrounding hills.
The basin has thick clay of Pliocene (5.3–2.6 million years) to Pleistocene (2.6
million years–11,700 years) age. The younger formations over the clay are (i) mid-
Pleistocene gray organic mud with an alternate sequence of gravel in the southern
part of the valley, (ii) fluvial fine to medium sand and silt in the central part, and (iii)
micaceous coarse sands, gravel, and silts inter-layered with clays in the northern part.
There are alluvial deposits in river channels, flood plains, and fans of the Holocene
age. The valley is prone to amplification of short as well as long-period ground
motion.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license 35
to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2024
B. K. Rastogi, Nepal Earthquake of 2015, Springer Transactions in Civil
and Environmental Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4684-2_4
36 4 Geotechnical and Other Engineering Aspects of the 2015 Nepal Earthquake

4.2 Recorded Strong Motion of April 25 Earthquake

The earthquake was on a thrust fault with several meters of slip directly beneath
Kathmandu that moved the city by meters in response. Certain salient points of
strong motion are mentioned here, more detailed description is given in Chapter 2.
The earthquake of April 25, 2015 Gorkha, Nepal has generated nearly half of the
generally expected pga for a short period. The recorded PGA was 170 cm/s2 on
an accelerograph at Kathmandu maintained by the Nepal Directorate of Geology
and Mining at a distance of about 70 km from the epicenter and 190 cm/s2 on the
accelerograph maintained by USGS at US Embassy at 60 km distance as compared
to the USGS preliminary estimation of 350 cm/s2 (at 60–70 km distance from the
epicenter). Less acceleration is also reflected in the less damage to buildings. The
1934 Nepal Mw 8.4 earthquake, at a distance of 150 km caused the destruction of 20%
of buildings in Kathmandu as compared to < 5% by the 2015 earthquake. Of course,
other factors like lesser magnitude of the 2015 earthquake giving a lesser duration of
shaking and a better quality of construction now could be there. Spectral acceleration
shows two peaks of up to 600 cm/s2 for periods of 0.1–0.5 (corresponding to 1–
5 storey buildings) and for periods of 3–6 s which may be corresponding to tall
structures of 30–60 storeys in N-S component. Sa for 1 and 5 s are maximum 250
and 400 cm/s2 .
The recorded long-period (3–6 s) acceleration and the corresponding velocity
and displacements are somewhat higher than worldwide normally accounted for tall
structures, which is a cause of worry worldwide. As most tall buildings are designed
for the horizontal base yield strength of less than 15%, we can expect that 190 cm/s2
PGA will cause yielding in tall buildings. The PGV of 107 cm/s and PGD of 139 cm
indicate very strong shaking for long-period structures. This level of long-period
motion may cause a collapse of most (or all) of the world’s tall buildings.
The higher long-period strong motion is attributed to 2–3 times amplification
in the 250–650 m deep Kathmandu Basin of soft sediments and slower rupture
propagation at the tail end of the rupture process. The “Fling effect” which is caused
by the propagation of rupture over the rupture zone could also be a contributing
factor. It is seen at Kathmandu station by a large phase after the P-arrival (Galetzka
et al. 2015).
In India about a dozen stations in soil areas of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh have
recorded strong motion up to 80 cm/s2 (at 100–150 km), 30 cm/s2 (at 300 km),
20 cm/s2 (at 400 km), and 7 cm/s2 (at 500 km). The PGV ranges from 2 to 17 cm/
s and PGD 2–20 cm. The predominant periods are 0.2–0.5 s (2–5 Hz) (Sharma,
2016) which may resonate with 2–6-storey buildings. Luckily there are not many
4–6-storey buildings in the area. The recorded periods indicate that within a distance
of 100 km the long-period (>0.5 s) energy is much attenuated.
4.3 Possible Modifications of Strong Motion Due to Geotechnical Conditions 37

4.3 Possible Modifications of Strong Motion Due

to Geotechnical Conditions

The observed values of PGA 190 at 60 km and 169 at 70 km in Kathmandu as

well as the inferred values from collapsed houses/buildings up to 80 km distance by
Aydan and Ulusay (2015) are plotted in Fig. 4.1. Such values match with the curve
of Fukushima et al. (1988) and a possible attenuation curve is drawn. Acceleration
decays slower in soil cover area, giving higher values at distances of 100–150 km in
Nepal as well as at 300–400 km in India as shown by squares.
It was noted that the accelerograms are dominated by long-period components,
which may be due to the amplification of strong motion by the 250–650 m deep soft
sedimentary Kathmandu Basin. Even the recorded PGA of 170–190 cm/s2 at high
frequencies might have been 2–3 times amplified by shallow layers. This section
deals with amplification due to soil layers and thick basins.
The Kathmandu Valley, where the 2015 Nepal earthquake caused heavy damage,
comprises thick semi-consolidated fluvio-lacustrine Quaternary sediments on the
top of basement rocks (Fig. 4.2a). The maximum thickness of the valley sediments
reaches up to 650 m at the central part of the valley (Fig. 4.2b) and the basement rocks
are composed of Precambrian to Devonian rocks, such as limestone, dolomite, slate,
marble, schist, meta-sandstone, phyllite, and quartzite (Piya 2004). The shear wave
velocity of the soft sedimentary deposits is 167–297 m/s and ground amplification
may be 2–8 (Chamlagain and Gautam 2015, Chamlagain et al. 2015). Takai et al. (Dec

Fig. 4.1 Possible attenuation curve of the observed ground acceleration and the values inferred by
Aydan and Ulusay (2015) from damage due to the Nepal earthquake of Apr 25, 2015. The values of
PGA 190 cm/s2 at 60 km and 169 cm/s2 at 70 km in Kathmandu as well as the inferred values from
collapsed houses/buildings up to 80 km distance match with the curve of Fukushima et al. (1988).
Acceleration decays slower in soil cover area, giving higher values at distances of 100–150 km in
Nepal as well as 300–400 km in India as shown by squares
38 4 Geotechnical and Other Engineering Aspects of the 2015 Nepal Earthquake

2016) estimated large horizontal amplification (about 10) and prolonged oscillations
in periods of 3–5 s. fortunately, there were no structures in this period range.
Resonance frequencies due to sedimentary layers at 250–650 m depths with shear
wave velocity (Vs) of 300–400 m/s would be in the range of 3–6 s (or f = 0.3–
0.17 Hz) based on the relation: H = Vs/4f (Rastogi 2015). The resonance would

Fig. 4.2 a Geological map of the Kathmandu Valley, b schematic geological cross section along
N-S (redrawn after Sakai 2001)
4.4 Geotechnical and Other Engineering Aspects of the Earthquake 39

cause increased duration and amplification of shaking in the long-period range. The
spectral acceleration, Sa of up to 0.25 g in long-period range might have caused
large velocity and displacements which might have caused the collapse of high-rise
structures. There were no tall structures.
The heritage structures are less than 4 storied. Such structures are damaged by
natural periods 0.1–0.5 s (Frequencies 10–2 Hz) which have resonance caused by
soil layers in depth range 5–25 m with Vs 200 m/s. The Sa peak at 0.1 s (10 Hz) is due
to amplification caused by a 5–7 m thick top sediment layer with Vs of 200–300 m/
s. The Sa peak for 2 Hz (0.5 s) could be caused by a 25–40 m thick layer of velocity
200–300 m/s.
The 9-story tall Dharahara tower (masonry structure) which collapsed might have a
natural period of around 1 s. Some RC buildings of similar height have also collapsed/
damaged. However, the spectral acceleration, Sa of 0.25 g for this period is low and
buildings are usually designed for much higher Sa. Hence, it appears that these
structures may not be well-designed. The liquefaction effect, large ground velocity,
and large displacements might have been the additional factors, over the pga and
Sa, to cause a collapse of the multistory structures. Probably there are no structures
taller than 12 stories, hence, accelerations in the period range of 3–6 s are of no
consequence except causing high ground velocity and displacement.
Due to site amplification in Kathmandu Basin there is MM intensity IX as
compared to VIII over the rest of the rupture zone. The same area had experi-
enced higher damage compared to the surrounding area during the 1934 and 1988
earthquakes.

4.4 Geotechnical and Other Engineering Aspects

of the Earthquake

4.4.1 Mass Movements, Landslides, Slope Failures, and Rock

Fall

The epicentral area is mountainous and valleys are steep. Furthermore, sedimentary
rocks are heavily folded and faulted due to tectonic movements and subjected to
weathering due to periodic heating and freezing as well as water-content variations.
According to satellite imagery and aerial photographs (ReliefWeb, NASA, ISRO,
and Media reports), huge mass movements were caused by the earthquake. Many of
the landslides showed sliding of the weathered layer.
The common forms of mass movements are (i) surficial deformations of top soil
or weathered zone, (ii) wedge sliding, and (iii) toppling of a portion. Large mass
movements may cause the blocking of rivers. Such debris dams were spotted in
satellite images (ReliefWeb, NASA, and Indian Space Research Organization). The
mass movements were observed in several districts of Nepal as well as in the Tibetan
side of Himalaya.
40 4 Geotechnical and Other Engineering Aspects of the 2015 Nepal Earthquake

4.4.2 Liquefaction

Liquefaction of soil occurs during earthquake ground shaking. In a water-saturated

layer, the increased pore-pressure triggered by earthquake-induced shear stresses
forces the granular material to form lumps and release water around lumps. The water
expelled from the underlying liquefied sand due to shaking accumulates beneath a
low-permeability capping layer to form a water-rich zone and it is from here that
much of the water and sand vents to the surface after explosively breaking the cap.
Water, sand, and silt may continue to flow to the surface for hours after the earthquake
and the sediment left behind on the surface is termed as sand blows.
The liquefaction susceptibility map for the Kathmandu Valley prepared by Piya
(2004) and also by others indicate that about 1/4th area in the central region along
flood plains is susceptible to liquefaction. However, so far subdued liquefaction has
been observed for the 1833, 1934, and 2015 earthquakes may be due to the fact
that the epicenters were away from Kathmandu city and in a mountainous area. The
deepening water table may still reduce liquefaction potential. A few liquefaction
features were noticed for the earthquake of 1833 (Mw ~ 7.7) like the 2015 Gorkha
earthquake. After the devastating 1934 Nepal earthquake (Mw 8.4) Rana (1935)
reported localized occurrence of liquefaction at some of the places in the Kathmandu
Valley. Rupture for the 1833 and 2015 earthquakes stopped midway on the Himalayan
decollement in contrast to the 1934 earthquake that propagated further southward to
the main frontal thrust, generating massive liquefaction in the plains of Bihar at about
300 km away. Rajendran (2021) carried out paleoseismic investigations at several
sites in the Kathmandu area. Shallow pits within these sites indicate evidences for
1255 and 1344 CE earthquakes dated in Himalaya west of Nepal. No liquefaction
features have been observed during a long-time gap between the medieval (eleventh to
fourteenth centuries) earthquakes and the seventeenth and twentieth-century events.
2015 earthquake caused liquefaction around Kathmandu (Fig. 4.3) and at one
location at Madhubani in north Bihar, India. Sites of liquefaction sand blows around
Kathmandu are Imadol, Manmaiju, Ramkot, Chobhar, Hattiban, and Changunarayan
(Nepal – 2015 April 25 Mw 7.8 Gorkha Earthquake, Geotechnical Extreme Events
Reconnaissance (GEER), 2015 and Parameswaran et al. 2015). At Imadol, liquefac-
tion affected an area of a few-meters extent, while at other places the liquefaction
sand blow covered an area of a meter extent or so at each location. At one location
in Madhubani in north Bihar, India, the sand blows covered area of a few tens of
meters. Minor liquefaction, which was evidenced by sand boils, was observed in a
small open land near a canal near Trishuli dam (30 km NW of the Kathmandu, Goda
et al. 2015).
4.5 Geotechnical and Other Engineering Aspects of Damages 41

Fig. 4.3 Sites of liquefaction sand blows at Imadol, Manmaiju, Ramkot, Chobhar, Hattiban, and
Changunarayan around Kathmandu

4.5 Geotechnical and Other Engineering Aspects

of Damages

4.5.1 Damage to Heritage Structures

The cultural heritage of a nation depicts the social beliefs, customs, and traditions
that connect people and provide a sense of unity and belonging to a nation. Cultural
heritage structures also serve as tourist attractions but are vulnerable to strong ground
shaking due to earthquakes, as these structures were built before structural design
guidelines were established. The traditional materials used for the construction of
cultural heritage structures need proper maintenance at regular intervals to maintain
structural integrity. Lack of regular maintenance and deterioration of construction
materials can lead to significant damage to these structures, even under minor ground
motion. Lack of earthquake-resistant designs and regular maintenance has caused
widespread damage to heritage structures including Darbars (palaces) and temples
(Bhagat et al. 2018).
Kathmandu Valley has seven monument zones included in the list of UNESCO
World heritage sites including Durbar Squares of Kathmandu, Patan, and Bhak-
tapur, the Buddhist stupas of Swayambhu and Boudhanath, and the Hindu temples
42 4 Geotechnical and Other Engineering Aspects of the 2015 Nepal Earthquake

of Pashupatinath and Changu Narayan [UNESCO, 2016]. These cultural heritage

structures are built using stone masonry and brick masonry bonded with mud mortar
or lime mortar, which easily deteriorate with time thus making them susceptible to
damage under lateral shaking. In a few of these structures, if the main frame is made
of timber, there is less damage. Nepalese temples can be broadly grouped into three
categories based on their architectural pattern: Pagoda style, Stupa (round and wide)
style, and Shikhara (slender, tall, curvilinear, pyramidal or conical tower) style.
The devastating earthquake caused enormous destruction to historic centers in
Nepal, resulting in irreparable damage to the cultural legacy of the country. Major
destruction was observed in most of the cultural heritage sites in Kathmandu Valley.
Of the nearly 750 damaged or destroyed monuments, about 450 were located in
Kathmandu Valley and 20 were located in Sindhupalchowk district. Most of the
Nepalese temples and monuments were constructed during the fourteenth–nine-
teenth centuries, without considering proper seismic resistance requirements. Some
of the inherent structural characteristics of Nepalese monuments, such as symmet-
rical construction, multi-level plinth, and conical mass distribution resulted in an
enhanced seismic performance. However, the lack of vertical structural continuity,
lack of rigid connections between various structural components, and heavy roof
structures make these structures more vulnerable to strong ground motions. Shikhar
style temples are more vulnerable due to their slenderness and being made of brick
with mud/lime mortar. Some of the temples that had wide plinth did not suffer
damage. Damage description is given for some of the prominent heritage structures:
Basantpur Darbar in Kathmandu Darbar Square was severely damaged.
Nautalley Darbar (which means 9-story palace) in Kathmandu Darbar Square had
upper six stories (four tiers) in pagoda style over three lower stories of square design.
The upper three stories (two tiers) collapsed. The brick masonry and timber frame
contributed to the heavy weight at the top. Moreover, the load path was discontin-
uous. Dharahara tower was 203 feet (61.88 m) tall and made of brick masonry with
lime and mud mortar. The tower had been constructed with thick walls to take a load
of the structure and an internal spiral stairway. The brittle mode of failure led to 180
deaths.
Damage to Temples:
The brick masonry walls with mud mortar of the Changunarayan temple in the
Bhaktapur area suffered severe damage. The brick layers were not well connected.
Several temples collapsed due to a lack of a rigid connection between the base and
the superstructure, a lack of firm connection between bricks and beams, and poor
joints between timber pillars and timber beams. These are pagoda style Maju Dega
temple (built over a massive multi-level plinth) and the adjacent Narayan temple in
Kathmandu Darbar Square, Shikhar style Vatsala Durga temple in Bhaktapur Darbar
Square on a raised foundation, Fari Dega temple in Bhaktapur Darbar Square which
was also re-constructed on a multi-level plinth subsequent to the 1934 earthquake.
The Shikhar style Vatsala temple had smaller size columns that could not withstand
the heavy load above them. Some other Shikhar style temples damaged in Bhaktapur
include the Laxmi temple whose pinnacle tilted and the upper part of the Shiva
temple collapsed.
4.5 Geotechnical and Other Engineering Aspects of Damages 43

4.5.2 Damage to Engineered and Non-Engineered Buildings

The majority of houses and buildings were damaged or collapsed due to structural
failures. These have poor seismic performance and lacking ductile behavior as not
seismically designed or constructed. According to the 2011 National Population
and Housing Census and as quoted by Chamlagain et al. (2015), the total number of
individual households in Nepal was 5,423,297, while the population was 26,494,504.
The census data indicate that mud-bonded brick/stone masonry buildings are the most
common in all regions of Nepal (44.2%), followed by wooden buildings (24.9%).
In urban areas (e.g., Kathmandu Valley), buildings with cement-bonded brick/stone
(17.6%) and cement concrete (9.9%) are popular. In rural areas many buildings have
wooden frame giving flexibility and some safety, but the masonry materials are of
low strength and thus are seismically vulnerable. Presently, the brick/stone buildings
are constructed with cement mortar. The wooden buildings are popular near the forest
areas in Nepal. In these buildings, wooden pillars are made out of tree trunks, and
walls are constructed with wooden planks or bamboo net and cement/mud mortar
plaster. Construction of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings began in the late 1970s.
Many such well-designed buildings are not damaged (Goda et al. 2015).
Four types of failures were common: i. collapse of a few lower stories or the
whole building due to soft-first story failure, ii. pan-cake type collapse of several
floors due to heavy load on weak pillars or improper column-beam connections, iii.
damage of the adjacent building due to pounding effect, and iv. tilting of buildings
due to foundation failure possibly caused by liquefaction. The shallow focal depth of
the earthquake, amplification of ground motion in the Kathmandu Valley and poor
quality of construction, plastic deformation of their foundation on sloping ground
due to ground shaking and materials of buildings have contributed to the high losses
in the Kathmandu city. Many recently built reinforced concrete structures failed in a
pan-cake mode. The brick structures collapsed or were heavily damaged due to the
use of poor mortar (mainly earth) material.

4.5.2.1 Damage to Engineered Reinforced Concrete (RC) Buildings

Inadequate Seismic Design, Low-Quality Construction Materials, and Poor

Workmanship:
The 2015 Nepal earthquake caused damage to many reinforced concrete buildings
including residential, schools, and factories. Bhagat et al. (2018) identified causes
for RC building damages due to inadequate seismic design—insufficient size of
columns, no stirrups at the joint or wide spacing of stirrups at the beam-column joint,
low-quality construction materials used for structural members causing crushing of
core concrete and failure of column, and poor workmanship during construction like
insufficient cover concrete in beam and improper concreting of beam-column joints
causing exposure of rebars and their corrosion.
44 4 Geotechnical and Other Engineering Aspects of the 2015 Nepal Earthquake

Soft Story Collapse:

Many instances of soft story collapse occurred in Kathmandu and Sindhupalchowk
districts. An example in the later district is one of the three-story buildings of the
Jan Jagriti Higher Secondary School. Bhagat et al. identify two possible reasons:
location on the edge of a slope and large spacing of stirrups (15 cm) in columns.
Structural Failure Due to Addition of Stories to Existing Buildings:
Construction of several floors without adequate strength of columns or adding
additional floors without increasing the strength of columns, in many cases has
caused pan-cake failure or severe damage.

4.5.2.2 Damage to Non-Engineered Masonry Buildings

Many non-engineered masonry buildings made of bricks in cement, lime, or mud

mortar had partially or fully collapsed. In the case of mud mortar, the mortar hardens
with time, leading to shrinkage and separation of joints in masonry structures. The
most common damage patterns observed in such structures are (a) curtain fall collapse
of the side walls (partial or full), (b) vertical cracks on walls along the mortar joint,
(c) diagonal cracks across the walls due to the inability of the wall to resist tensile
stresses, and (d) collapse of the entire structure. The main cause of damage is due to (a)
strength deterioration of the construction materials, (b) lack of regular maintenance,
(c) lack of proper connections at the corners, and (d) excessive weight in the upper
part of the building.
In Kathmandu, old buildings (>30 years old) collapsed either partially or
completely. They were invariably made of un-burnt bricks/rubble masonry with mud
mortar. In some cases when cement had been used as a binder, there was no bonding
structure to the brick laying (no interlocking structures). Well-planned buildings
irrespective of their age remain standing with only marginal external damage. In
fact, sites like Bhaktapur show this type of buildings standing while all the poorly
constructed buildings around it collapsed. In the Sindhupalchowk district, almost all
the adobe houses (constructed of mud mortar with stones or bricks) collapsed. Many
of the modern RC buildings also collapsed or suffered severe damage. Many school
buildings had completely collapsed due to soft-first story failure.
There were numerous building collapses in the northwest section of the Ring Road
along the Bishnumati River (flowing through the western part of the old Kathmandu
city. It is a holy river for both Hindus and Buddhists). According to the local geomor-
phological map, sites within about 300 m from the river are alluvial (Holocene)
soil deposits, whereas sites farther east are Pleistocene soil deposits pointing to site
amplification in alluvial parts. Out of 28 collapsed or severely damaged buildings, 19
buildings were in the alluvial deposit area whereas 9 buildings were in the Pleistocene
deposit area but nearer to the boundary. There was a 16-story high-rise apartment
complex, Park View Horizon. There were major cracks in the walls of this building.
The causes of the major damage to the Horizon apartments (and similar high-rise
buildings in Kathmandu) may be attributed to the long-period ground motions at
4.5 Geotechnical and Other Engineering Aspects of Damages 45

around 2 s. In addition, local topological features may have contributed to exten-

sive damage there (the complex is on a hill). A church collapsed due to the ground
shaking. According to local residents, the church building was standing after the Mw
7.8 mainshock but was collapsed due to the Mw 6.7 aftershock on the following day.
The building must have been structurally damaged due to the main shock.
There were several houses that subsided and tilted in this area. However, the degree
of destruction in this area was minor. Overall, earthquake damage in Kathmandu was
not widespread but more localized. This may suggest that the overall strong shaking
experienced in Kathmandu was not extremely large. The areas that suffered from
major destruction tend to have some local characteristics, such as soft soil conditions
and structural deficiencies.
Damage to School Buildings:
Many school buildings fully or partially collapsed in Kathmandu Valley, Sind-
hupalchowk, and some other districts. Most of them collapsed due to soft-first story
failure. Fortunately, the earthquake was on a school holiday. The Shree Jana Jagriti
Higher Secondary School in Sangachowk of Sindhupalchowk district was severely
damaged due to soft-first story failure. Poor concrete quality and detailing in column
were also observed (Wijeyewickrema et al. 2015).
Non-Structural Damages
Damage to Roadways:
There was uplift/subsidence of roadways by ~ 1 m or so near the Kaushaltar bus
stop and at some other locations on the Koteshwar-Bhaktapur highway. It is a new
road built in a filled embankment (Bhagat et al.).
The roadway embankments in Kathmandu City suffered some damage in the
form of subsidence and lateral spreading. Improper compaction, lateral spreading
of sidewalls, and subsidence of saturated soil beneath the embankments are likely
causes of damage.
Damage to Bridges:
There is no report of damage to bridges. The bridge in Kathmandu City is a
two-span-simply supported reinforced concrete structure. The bridge was functional
despite a nearby reinforced concrete building collapsed in a pan-cake mode. The
bridge in the Gorkha district is a single-span truss bridge. This bridge is also non-
damaged despite it was located in the epicentral area.
Damage to Electricity Poles:
Electricity poles are either made of reinforced concrete or steel. The damage to
these poles was generally caused by the collapse of nearby buildings. However, some
reinforced concrete utility poles having rectangular cross section were toppled down
during earthquake shaking. Some corrosion of reinforcement bars was noticed in the
poles collapsed due to shaking.
Damage to Dams:
Trishuli earth fill dam for hydroelectric power generation, about 30 km NW of
Kathmandu, is of height 12 m (upstream side) and 20 m (downstream side), and the
crest width about 4 m. Cracks at the upstream side of the dam and fissures on the
crest were noticed. Moreover, liquefaction (as evidenced by silt boils) and lateral
spreading occurred inside of the dam reservoir due to the earthquake. The operation
46 4 Geotechnical and Other Engineering Aspects of the 2015 Nepal Earthquake

of the power generation had been suspended for some days. Cracking along the dam
axis has been noted (Goda et al. 2015). Media reported that two Chinese workers were
killed by the falling rocks at the construction site of the Rasuwagadhi hydropower
dam, on the upper reaches of the Trishuli River, a tributary of the Narayani.

4.6 Conclusions

The PGA of 16%–19% g is mild and structural damage is somewhat subdued.

Damage is due to the absence of improper seismic design or construction prac-
tice and most construction being brick/stone masonry with mud mortar. Slow built
up of the seismic moment rate has generated less high-frequency acceleration while
the long tail of the seismic moment rate has generated strong acceleration in the
period range of 2–6 s. The long-period acceleration for the 2 s period has caused
the toppling of two ~ 60 m tall towers. As there were no other tall structures the
large acceleration for long periods has been of not much consequence to Nepal. An
important observation is that the low frequencies 3–6 s are amplified over the deeper
basins; the tall structures need to be designed accordingly in such active areas of the
World.
Chapter 5
Damage Due to Gorkha Nepal
Earthquake of 2015 and Its Intensity

Abstract Information about damage caused by the large earthquake of April 25

(Mw 7.8) and its major aftershock of May 12 (Mw 7.3), 2015 that struck Nepal is
compiled. The earthquakes caused about 8964 human deaths (8,857 in Nepal, 79
in India, 27 in Tibet, China, and 4 in Bangladesh). It has caused 22,300 injuries
and full or partial damage to 756,000 buildings in Nepal. In India, deaths were
mostly in Bihar and some in Uttar Pradesh. Damage was reported from West Bengal,
Jharkhand, Rajasthan and Odisha. Lives of 8 million, i.e., one-third population of
Nepal in 31 of 75 districts got affected. Eight districts were severely affected and
six more were also badly affected. Both the mainshock and the major aftershock
caused landslides near their epicenters. The economic loss was $ 10 billion (~ half
of Nepal’s GDP) and reconstruction cost nearly double of that. Intensity data at over
200 locations were collected in Nepal, India, and Tibet, and an isoseismal map was
plotted. The 25th April earthquake caused the collapse of RC structures in a 75
× 15 km area trending WNW-ESE around Kathmandu where MM Intensity IX is
assigned. Intensity VIII is over the rest of the rupture zone. Intensity VII extends
to parts of Bihar, India. Areas in northwestern Bihar and adjoining UP have some
collapsed houses where intensity VI is assigned. Earthquake has been strongly felt
up to Delhi and Kolkata with intensity IV while intensity III extends to 1500 km
distance up to Ahmedabad, etc. in the west and Odisha as well as Andhra in the east
where it was mildly felt. Felt distance is 1800 km in India as people in Chennai felt
the earthquake on the upper floors. In China, the felt distance was 1900 km. The 12th
May major aftershock caused the collapse of several hundred houses and buildings
including some RC structures in Sindhupalchowk-Kodari-Dolakha. The death toll
due to the May earthquake was about 1000 in Nepal.

5.1 Introduction

Damage survey and isoseismal (equal intensity contours) map of a major earthquake
are important for assessing the damaging effect on various types of structures and
knowledge for making a resilient society for such future earthquakes. Such studies

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license 47
to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2024
B. K. Rastogi, Nepal Earthquake of 2015, Springer Transactions in Civil
and Environmental Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4684-2_5
48 5 Damage Due to Gorkha Nepal Earthquake of 2015 and Its Intensity

were done for the last great earthquake (of magnitude 8.4) of 1934 AD that resulted
in more than 20,000 deaths and for a recent smaller earthquake of 1988 that occurred
about 200 km east of Gorkha and caused the loss of 1000 lives and property at
Dharan, Dhankuta, Bhaktapur, and Kathmandu. This chapter describes isoseismals
and damage due to the 2015 major earthquake which has occurred after 80 years.
The April 25, 2015 Gorkha Nepal earthquake occurred along the Himalayan Arc at
the subduction interface between the Indian plate and the Eurasian plate (Avouac
2003; Ader et al. 2012). The earthquake rupture propagated from west to east and
from deep to shallow parts of the low-dipping fault plane (USGS). The locked part
of the subduction interface has a low-dip angle (about 10°) and is located at depths
of 4–18 km (Bilham 2004). Maximum slip is estimated north of Kathmandu (3.11 m
by USGS and 7.5 m by Yagi, 2015) but less slip near the epicenter (1.29 m by USGS
and 3 m by Yagi). Consequently, strong shaking was experienced in Kathmandu
and the areas north of it. Gorkha and towns located near the western extent of the
fault plane showed much less destruction as opposed to the Kathmandu Valley area
and Bhaktapur. Besides extensive damage in Nepal and some damage in India, the
earthquake was experienced across SW China from Tibet to Chengdu up to 1900 km
distance. The earthquake was well felt in Bhutan, felt in Dhaka, Bangladesh with
intensity IV and lightly felt in Pakistan. Information from different sources like the
Nepal Govt. report, media, and different researchers (Chamlagain et al. 2015; Pokhrel
et al. 2015a,b) about the earthquake damage is compiled and Isoseismals (different
intensity contours as per Modified Mercalli scale) have been prepared. Isoseismals VI
to IX mapped in a SHAKE Map by USGS/Univ. Arizona for Nepal 2015 earthquake
are modified with the data from Nepal and China and also that was compiled by
Prajapati et al. (2016) as well as by print and electronic media at over 175 locations
spread over Nepal, India, Tibet, Bhutan, and Bangladesh.

5.2 Isoseismal Map

Modified Mercalli intensity of IX is assigned in 130 × 20 km ESE-WNW trending

belt through Kathmandu where RC structures have collapsed (Fig. 5.1). It covers
the towns of Dhading, Nuwakot, Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Bhaktapur, and Kavrepalan-
chowk within longitudes 84.8°–85.7°. Intensity IX is also in some pockets at Sindhu-
palchowk, Kodari, and Dolakha in Nepal (Fig. 5.2) and around two towns Jilong and
Zhangmu in Tibet (Fig. 5.3) extensive damage and numerous landslides are reported
including the collapse of some RC structures. This may be due to the reason that high-
frequency seismic waves with higher acceleration were generated at the lower end
of the ramp beneath the Higher Himalaya and near the Nepal-China border region.
The higher frequency waves might have attenuated traveling to distances up to Kath-
mandu resulting in lesser higher frequency strong motion and relatively subdued
damage to small houses even in the meizoseismal area while the lower frequency
waves which may not be much attenuated have caused damage to tall structures
around Kathmandu.
5.4 Damages in Nepal 49

Intensity VIII is over the rest of the rupture zone (180 × 75 km) extending eastward
of the epicenter and within longitudes 84°–86°E over the rupture zone. In Tibet, an
area around towns Sale, Rongxia, and Nyabum is also assigned intensity VIII. The
intensity VII occupies a 260 × 280 km area. Toward the south it extends to northwest
Bihar and a small adjoining part of Uttar Pradesh having some collapsed houses and
in the north up to southernmost Tibet. Intensity VI expands to a large area in the
adjoining soil-covered region of India. Isoseismal V covers the whole of Bihar and
the northern part of West Bengal as stray incidences of damage are reported from the
region. Earthquake has been strongly felt up to Delhi and Kolkata with intensity IV.
Intensity III extends to a 1500 km distance up to Ahmadabad and parts of Odisha as
well as Andhra where people in multistory buildings have strongly felt the earthquake
on upper floors. Earthquake was mildly felt in multistory buildings up to Chennai
1800 km from the epicenter with intensity II and also up to 1900 km in China
(Fig. 5.1).

5.3 Intensity with Distance of Magnitude 7.8 Nepal

Earthquake of 2015

In comparison to Szeliga et al. (2010) the intensities for the M7.8 Nepal earthquake
of April 25, 2015 cover larger distances (Fig. 5.4). Nepal earthquake shows that
higher intensities are observed for longer distances over or near the rupture zone.
The felt distance is also to longer distances in peninsular India due to the efficient
transmission of seismic waves in hard rock areas of India and China. Intensity at
Ahmedabad at 1500 km is III, and in Chennai at 1800 km it is II.
[Some of the locations discussed in the text: Epicenter: 28.230° N 84.731°
E, Gorkha: 27.9842° N, 84.6270° E, Kathmandu:27.717° N, 85.324°E, Kodari:
27.953°N 85.946°E, Lamjung: 28.1600° N, 84.3300° E, Langtang: 28.2063° N,
85.6229° E Rasuwa: 28.1755° N, 85.3963° E, Sindhupalchowk: 27.951°N 85.685°E].

5.4 Damages in Nepal

As a result of the Mw 7.8 earthquake that struck Nepal on April 25, 2015, and its
major aftershock of Mw 7.3 on May 12, 2015, nearly 9,000 lives were lost (8,790 in
Nepal, 79 in India, 25 in China, and 4 in Bangladesh), 22,300 persons injured and
500,000 buildings collapsed and 256,000 severely damaged. Total economic loss is
in the order of 10 billion U.S. dollars, which is about half of Nepal’s gross domestic
product (Center for Disaster Management and Risk Reduction Technology, CEDIM
2015) and reconstruction cost is estimated to be $20 billion. Nepal’s population is
28 M. Lives of 8 million, which is 35% population of Nepal got affected. The 31 of
the 75 districts were affected out of which 14 were severely affected. In the worst-hit
50 5 Damage Due to Gorkha Nepal Earthquake of 2015 and Its Intensity

Fig. 5.1 Isoseismals II to IX of the 2015 Nepal earthquake using the data of SHAKE Map of USGS,
Nepal Govt. report, media reports, and Prajapati et al. (2016)

areas, entire settlements, including popular tourist places like Lamjung and Lang-
tang were wiped out by landslides and debris avalanches triggered by earthquakes.
The earthquake triggered an avalanche on Mount Everest, killing 21, making it the
deadliest mountaineering disaster.
The earthquake caused the collapse of 475,000 and partial damage to 175,000
mud mortar houses, the collapse of 18,000 and partial damage to 66,000 cement
mortar masonry houses, and, the collapse of 6,600 and partial damage to 17,000
5.4 Damages in Nepal 51

Fig. 5.2 a District wise reported preliminary no. of deaths (source Np. Planning Commission
Report, 2015). Isoseismals VII to IX covering areas of significant damages (after a Univ. Arizona
web report and damage reports from Nepal, Tibet, and India). International boundaries and some
locations may not be exact. b Most affected districts are named. Kathmandu (KAT) location is also
shown
52 5 Damage Due to Gorkha Nepal Earthquake of 2015 and Its Intensity

Fig. 5.3 Isoseismals due to the April 25, 2015 Nepal earthquake in the Tibetan border region of
China (After Wu et al. 2019)

Fig. 5.4 Intensities observed for the M7.8 Nepal earthquake are higher than that estimated from
the relation given by Szeliga et al. (2010) over the rupture zone and in peninsular India
5.4 Damages in Nepal 53

reinforced concrete buildings (rounded of numbers from Nepal Govertnment Plan-

ning Commission Report 2015). Among the fully damaged houses, 95% were mud
mortar masonry houses, 4% were cement mortar masonry houses, and only a little
over 1% of reinforced concrete buildings. Hence, damage was mainly to shoddy
constructions built without any earthquake-resistant design. Of course, the country
has a prevalence of only such houses, and lesser number of cement mortar houses,
and fewer Reinforced buildings. It caused damage to infrastructure in urban and rural
areas, and triggered numerous landslides and rock/boulder falls in the mountain areas,
blocking roads, and hampering rescue and recovery activities. The destruction was
widespread covering residential and government buildings, heritage sites, schools
and clinics, rural roads, bridges, water supply systems, agricultural land, trekking
routes, hydropower plants, and sports facilities. Rural areas were particularly devas-
tated due to the inferior quality of houses. Hundreds of historical and cultural monu-
ments at least a century old were either destroyed or extensively damaged. Many
more kids might have died if the earthquake had not occurred on Saturday, a holiday
as 7000 schools collapsed. Foreign casualties in Nepal included those from India
(40 number), France (10), Spain (7), the US (7), Germany (5), China (4), Italy (4),
Canada (2), Russia (2), and one each from several other countries.
At the request of the Government of Nepal, the representatives of the Asian
Development Bank, European Union, UN, and World Bank prepared a comprehen-
sive report of the damages and losses caused by the earthquake entitled “Nepal
Earthquake 2015: Post Disaster Needs Assessment, Vol. A: Key Findings of Nepal
Planning Commission, Kathmandu, 2015”. It helped identify recovery needs as well
as the strategy required for its implementation by the expert team.

Table 5.1 Number of deaths

District Dead Inj
and injuries district wise
Sindhupal 3430 1753
Kathmandu 1302 7952
Nuwakot 1099 1312
Dhading 733 1218
Rasuwa 656 771
Gorkha 448 1034
Kavrepalan 318 930
Bhaktapur 433 2101
Lalitpur 177 3051
Dolakha 169 662
Sindhuli 15 230
Okhaldhunga 20 61
Makwanpur 33 229
Ramechhap 40 134
Source: Nepal Planning Commission Report, 2015
54 5 Damage Due to Gorkha Nepal Earthquake of 2015 and Its Intensity

Fig. 5.5 Collapse of RC buildings in Kathmandu (Wally Santana—AP)

District wise death figures are shown in Fig. 5.2 and listed in Table 5.1 along with
the number of injured persons. This data gives an idea of relative severity in different
districts. NASA—ARIA Google Earth map (http://earthquake-report.com/) showed
that in the meizoseismal area, about 80% of buildings were damaged out of which
10% were severely damaged and 10% collapsed. A photograph of the collapse of
RC structures in Kathmandu is shown in Fig. 5.5. Masonry houses in Gorkha town
and villages collapsed or suffered severe damage (Fig. 5.6).
Though April 25, 2015 Mw 7.8 earthquake had an epicenter in the Gorkha district
the slip and damage was relatively less here than in the Kathmandu area. The area
falls within isoseismal VII. Nevertheless, there was devastation of 70% of rural
houses built of bricks or rock with mud mortar that crumbled within seconds. In the
villages, there are fewer young adults to dig for survivors as they have left for work
in other countries. Some of the villages severely affected in the Gorkha district were
Ghyachol, Saurpani, Warpak, Larpak, Gundra, Lapa, Kashigaunanand, and Kerauja.
Some 500 people died in the Gorkha district.
The main shock and a few major aftershocks NE of Kathmandu, e.g., Mw 6.7
on April 26 and Mw 7.3 northeast of Kathmandu caused landslides and widespread
damage resulting in the collapse of most of the random-rubble in mud mortar houses
and several RC frame buildings of rural towns and villages of Kodari-Dolakha-
Sindhupal Chowk-Chautara region. Some 1000 persons in Nepal, some in India,
and 1 in Tibet are reported to have died due to the major May 12 shock. Injured
were 2000 in Nepal and 100 in India. In Sindhupalchowk three landslides were trig-
gered along the Araniko Highway which connects Kathmandu with Tibet. Maximum
5.4 Damages in Nepal 55

Fig. 5.6 Destroyed villages sit on mountain tops near the epicenter of the massive earthquake, in
the Gorkha District of Nepal (Wally Santana—AP)

deaths happened in Sindhupalchowk located about 40 km west of the May 12

epicenter. Houses and shops are reported collapsed in Charikot and Sunkhani (both
in Dolakha) and Chautara. Some damage is reported from Sindhuli, Salleri, and
Namche (Solukhumbu district), which lies at foot of the Everest.
At Pokhara, falling within isoseismal VI, hundreds were injured. There were
several deaths at places around it. Tipling village, 160 km west of Kathmandu 6
persons died. Some 47 persons died in 6 villages of Baglung district near Taplejung
and within isoseismal VI. Villages Livang, Thokling, Thinglabu, and Lingket were
affected maximum due to landslide.
There was only nominal damage to roads (localized to the eastern edge of the
Kathmandu Valley), bridges, electric poles, concrete culverts, etc., and even in the
hilly towns electric poles and lines remain intact.

5.4.1 Damages to Heritage Structures in Intensity IX, VIII,

and VII Areas

Some 80% of heritage structures collapsed in three Durbar squares of Kathmandu,

Bhaktapur, and Patan (Lalitpur). Historian Prushottam Lochan Shrestha stated, “We
have lost most of the monuments that had been designated as World Heritage Sites
in these three Durbars. They cannot be restored to their original states”. However,
56 5 Damage Due to Gorkha Nepal Earthquake of 2015 and Its Intensity

these buildings are weak being made of rubble in mud mortar, and the wooden beams
and reinforcements become rotten in time.
Many historical buildings in the Kathmandu Durbar Square (in front of the
Old Royal Palace of the former Kathmandu Kingdom which is a UNESCO World
Heritage site) were devastated. Basantapur Tower collapsed. The complete destruc-
tion in the Durbar Square was in sharp contrast with undamaged masonry buildings
surrounding the Durbar Square suffered only wall cracks. In the Indra Chowk area
(market squares near the Old Palace) only some of the many three to six stories
masonry buildings had collapsed. This indicates that the ground shaking in the area
was sufficient to cause the collapses of only the weak and old historical buildings.
The top of the Jaya Bageshwari Temple in Gaushala and some parts of the Pashupati-
nath temple, Swyambhunath, Boudhanath Stupa, Ratna Mandir, inside Rani Pokhari,
and Durbar High School have been destroyed.
In Patan (Lalitpur), the Char Narayan Mandir, the statue of Yog Narendra Malla,
the Taleju Temple, the Hari Shankar, Uma Maheshwar Temple, and the Machhin-
dranath Temple in Bungamati were destroyed. In Tripureshwar, the Kal Mochan
Ghat, a temple inspired by Mughal architecture, was completely destroyed and the
nearby Tripura Sundari also suffered significant damage. In Bhaktapur, several monu-
ments, including the Phasi Deva temple, the Chardham temple, and the seventeenth-
century Vatsala Durga Temple were fully or partially destroyed. A temple at Changu
collapsed.
The northern side of Janaki Mandir in Janakpur (86° E, India border, inten-
sity VIII area) was damaged. The wooden ceiling of the old Shambhunath temple
collapsed. Several temples, including Kasthamandap, Panchtale temple, the top levels
of the nine-story Basantapur Durbar, the Dasa Avtar temple and two temples located
behind the Shiva Parvati temple were destroyed. Some other monuments including
the Taleju Bhawani Temple partially collapsed.
Two tall (~30 m) mud-masonry towers without any design to resist seismic force
collapsed. One of these the Dharahara tower, built in 1832, was of 11 stories that
collapsed in the 1934 earthquake. It was rebuilt to 9 stories. During the April earth-
quake, it swayed two times, then collapsed (only one and a-half damaged stories
remained) and took the lives of 180 people.
Outside the valley, the Manakamana Temple in Gorkha, the Gorkha Durbar,
the Palanchok Bhagwati temple in Kabhrepalanchok District, the Rani Mahal
in Palpa District, the Churiyamai in Makwanpur District, the Dolakha Bhimsensthan
in Dolakha District, and the Nuwakot Durbar suffered varying degrees of damage.

5.4.2 Damage in Intensity IX Area

Destruction was maximum in Kathmandu including the collapse of several RC multi-

story buildings. The population of Kathmandu is 1.5 M. The city is mostly poor,
congested, and shoddily built. There are about 0.2 M migrant workers from Bihar
and Bengal. Every year some 3000 non-engineered houses are added in Kathmandu.
5.5 Ground Failure 57

With an annual population growth of 6.5% and one of the highest urban densities
in the World, Kathmandu was facing a serious and growing risk. The Kathmandu
Valley is on a dried-up lake bed. Steep slopes are prone to landslides and avalanches.
The elevation is 1338.8 m. In Kathmandu city, most of the structural damage was
observed in the city center (heritage buildings and old masonry houses) and the
northwest area along the ring road (damage due to non-engineered RC buildings and
loss of bearing capacity of soft soils).
There was devastation with 70% of rural houses destroyed in the districts of
Nuwakot, Rasuwa, etc. Houses are of bricks or rocks held together with mud mortar
that crumbled within seconds. Incidents of house wall collapse were reported from
Sallaghari in Bhaktapur, an ancient city 10 km east of Kathmandu. Singh Durbar and
PM residence in Kathmandu were damaged. At Lalitpur houses collapsed.
Some places even within isoseismal IX suffered less. Damage in Ranipauwa
(about 15 km northwest of Kathmandu) appeared relatively minor. A little further
northwest, damage to houses and landslides along the mountain slopes were observed
more frequently. The rock fall had hit a vehicle killing people. In Battar (about
25 km northwest of Kathmandu), a large number of brick/stone masonry buildings
collapsed due to the 25th April Mw 6.6 aftershock, which occurred 30 min after the
mainshock. The building materials of these damaged buildings were of poor quality,
for example, bricks were fragile (Goda et al., 2015). East of Kathmandu, several
small villages were damaged due to the April 25 main shock and also April 26 and
May 12 aftershocks.

5.4.3 Damage in Intensity VIII Area

At Trishuli, 30 km NW of Kathmandu cracks/fissures were observed in a small roc-

fill dam and liquefaction was observed in the reservoir area. Cracks were noticed on
land upstream area of the earth dam. Further NW and 30 km short of the epicenter,
no major earthquake damage happened, e.g., at Abu Khaireni town. Earthquake
damage was observed 18 km short of the epicenter. Small to medium landslides and
rock-falls happened. Baluwa town about 5 km short of the epicenter, suffered severe
damage including the collapse of a stone house. There was a 100 × 300 m slope
failure (Goda et al.) which blocked a road. Melamchi town, 30 km NE of Kathmandu
suffered collapse or severe damage to many masonry buildings. Damage to 4–5 story
RC buildings was limited (Goda et al.).

5.5 Ground Failure

Along the Araniko Highway between Kathmandu and Bhaktapur, a section of the
highway (about 200 m in length) was damaged due to the ground settlement. The
amount of settlement was about 0.5–2.0 m. The central section of the highway was
58 5 Damage Due to Gorkha Nepal Earthquake of 2015 and Its Intensity

constructed using a reinforced soil retaining wall and gravity-type retaining wall (2–
3 m high and 100 m wide). The retaining walls were structurally intact and suffered
from minor cracks and outward deformation only, whereas the natural slopes at both
ends of the highway embankments experienced noticeable settlements. Several build-
ings along the highway were tilted due to the settlements. A pedestrian footbridge
crossing the highway suffered from the differential settlement of the foundation,
resulting in a gap of 45 cm between the bridge girder and the stair steps.

5.6 Landslides

Countless landslides have occurred which are valley blocking, extensive, and
individual (Fig. 5.7).
Numerous landslides of different natures like valley blocking, extensive ones,
and many more of limited widths have occurred throughout the rupture zone. Rock

Fig. 5.7 Preliminary map of landslides triggered by 2015 Nepal earthquake compiled from optical
satellite imagery. Open circles: Individual location type, dots: valley-fill type, Very thick lines:
valleys which have experienced very intense land sliding, valleys in northern mountainous areas
have suffered intense land sliding, while those in Lalitpur and Sindhuli areas have small to moderate
landslides. Two highways from Kathmandu to Tibet: (i) through Rasuwa on the left and (ii) Arnico
Highway in the Sindhupalchok area were most affected (redrawn after a report of “Earthquakes
Without Frontiers (EwF)” project of UK). Additional data in Gorkha Valley, north of the epicenter
(star) is from a web report uploaded by “Pacific Disaster Center” which identified four severely
affected villages. From imageries, the Indian Space Research Organization mapped two new major
landslides that blocked the valleys resulting in the development of lakes in the Gorkha Valley area
at 84° 47' 30” and 28° 33' 8” and also in the Langtang area
5.7 Damages in India 59

falls have blocked several roads. Some ice-rock avalanches occurred at elevations of
3500 m and above.
• Major or disruptive landslides are in High Himalaya. This zone includes parts of
the districts of Gorkha, Dhading, Nuwakot, Rasuwa, Sindhupalchok, Dolakha,
Ramechhap, and Khavre. Huge mudslides/rockslides were in Langtang and
Lamjung Valleys on popular trekking routes where scores of people were reported
missing. The whole town of Langtang Valley (85.58–28.22) got covered by mud/
debris due to mud-rock avalanche and was totally devastated.
• Several seismically induced valley-blocking landslides (landslide dams) occurred
along two highways going northward from Kathmandu to Tibet. Some are a km
wide. Prominent ones were in (i) Aranico Highway, (ii) Trisuli area between
Rasuwa (Nepal) and Jilong (Tibet), (iii) Water from blocked rivers breached exten-
sive sections of Aranico Highway south of Chaku, (iv) a large landslide 20 km
north of Chaku near Nepal –Tibet border at Kodari, (v) extensive landslide and
debris avalanche at Nyalam near Tibet-Nepal border, and (vi) Near Poki 1 km
long rock slide.
• In many areas debris avalanches may be individually localized, but together are
extremely widespread.
• Several large valley-blocking landslides were observed which may be due to small
rock-falls and debris avalanches but have a significant local impact and loss of
life. Siwalik and Lesser Himalaya region suffered mostly small (10–50 m wide)
landslides due to reactivation which are difficult to be identified by imagery.
• Hill-slope failure in Hulakdanda (27° 56.4' 83° 41’, 40 km WSW of Pokhara)
caused rocks and mud to slide into the stream below.
• There was damage due to a rock fall on a road from Kathmandu to India. The
debris had blocked a large section of the road.

5.7 Damages in India

In India death toll was 79 including 75 from northern Bihar and 4 from Uttar Pradesh.
Deaths were reported from Patna, Siwan, Darbhanga, Nawada, Samastipur, Muzaf-
farpur, Sitamarhi, Madhepura, Motihari, Purnea, and Saran in Bihar. One person
died due to dashing on a wall while running away from the building. Several houses
cracked in Jehanabad, Darbhanga, Muzaffarpur, Patna, Gaya, and Raxaul while a
power transformer was uprooted in Khagaul.
In neighboring Uttar Pradesh, in addition to deaths, over half a dozen were injured.
A labor was killed and two others injured when a room under construction collapsed
in Bhundaha. In Mahoba one person was killed and five others injured when a section
of roof collapsed in the Panwari locality. Two persons died in Kushinagar and one
in Sambhal.
Minor damage was reported from Odisha. In Kolkata, the walls of a few old
buildings collapsed. An intensity of IV was assigned. Intensity III was assigned
60 5 Damage Due to Gorkha Nepal Earthquake of 2015 and Its Intensity

where no damage has been reported and only felt reports are available. The earth-
quake was strongly felt in multistory buildings in many cities of Gujarat including
Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar situated at about 1500 km with MM intensity III. The
earthquake was felt in multistory buildings in Bangalore, Karnataka, Cochin, Kerala,
and Chennai, Tamil Nadu up to 1800 km distance from the epicenter with intensity
II.

5.8 Damage and Felt Reports from Tibet

Wu et al. (2019) assigned intensity at over 50 locations due to the April and May 2015
earthquakes. In intensity VIII and IX areas, there was destruction of 2700 buildings,
severe damage to over 40,000 others, death of 27 people, and injury to 856 in this
sparsely populated region. Intensity IX is assigned in two separate pockets around two
towns of Jilong and Zhangmu situated close to the rupture zone (only 20 km away).
In these towns most of the mud brick or stone pile houses (adobe type) collapsed or
were severely damaged, some brick houses were damaged or partially collapsed, and
there were some large landslides and numerous small ones (reactivations of older
land slips) along four incised valleys. These did great damage to the buildings, roads,
and bridges in the region. The important towns falling in the intensity VIII area are
Sale, Rongxia, and Nyabum where some of the adobe type houses collapsed/severely
damaged, brick houses were moderately damaged and there were medium to small
landslides. Gyirong and Chentang counties fall under intensity VII. A few adobe
houses were severely damaged, others slightly damaged, and small landslides/rock-
falls along valley slopes or road cuts. In the intensity VI area, a few adobe houses
were slightly damaged, landslides were rare but a small amount of rock fall along
road cuts occurred. The earthquake was felt up to a distance of ~ 700 km in the NE
direction with intensity III or IV.

5.9 Comparison of Damage Due to Earthquakes of 1934

and 2015

Due to the 1988 M6.8 earthquake with an epicenter in the MBT zone, 1000 people
died in Eastern Nepal including some in Kathmandu and Bhaktapur. Due to the 1934
M8.4 earthquake, 20,000 died. Both 1934 and 2015 earthquakes occurred in the MCT
zone on harder rocks. The rupture for the 2015 M7.8 earthquake stopped at the Main
Boundary thrust and it took the lives of 9000 people. The 1934 earthquake rupture
advanced further south up to the Main Frontal thrust affecting heavily populated
areas. Damage due to the 1934 earthquake was heavy in the soil-covered area of
Bihar causing more deaths with a number of houses damaged at 80,893 (Source:
http://earthquake-report.com/).
5.9 Comparison of Damage Due to Earthquakes of 1934 and 2015 61

5.9.1 Concluding Remarks About Damages

The points arising out of the damages at and around Kathmandu are as follows (Goda
et al.):
(1) In Kathmandu, earthquake damage to old historical buildings was severe,
whereas damage to the surrounding buildings was limited. The damaged build-
ings were stone/brick masonry structures with wooden frames. The RC frame
buildings performed well during this earthquake. This may indicate that ground
motion intensity experienced in Kathmandu was not so intense, in comparison
with those predicted from probabilistic seismic hazard studies for Nepal. Hence,
care is needed to face larger earthquakes.
(2) The Kathmandu Basin is deposited by thick soft sediments. This has led to the
amplification of long-period ground motions in the Kathmandu Valley. Although
the majority of the existing buildings in Kathmandu were not directly affected
by the long-period ground motions, such seismic waves can pose serious risks
to high-rise buildings. Adequate earthquake engineering design considerations
are essential for reducing potential seismic risk to these structures.
(3) The building damage in Kathmandu was localized to specific areas. It appeared
that the building collapse sites were affected by local soil characteristics and/or
structural deficiencies. In this regard, microzonation studies provide valuable
insights into earthquake damage occurrence.
(4) Some buildings that were severely damaged by the mainshock were collapsed
due to major aftershocks. The capability for aftershock forecasting, building
evacuation procedure, building inspection and tagging, and building repairs and
retrofitting (low-cost solutions) need to be improved to mitigate the earthquake
risk.
(5) In the mountain areas, numerous villages were devastated by the earthquake
sequence, and major landslides were triggered. On occasion, landslides blocked
roads, disconnecting remote villages. The redundancy of the local transportation
network in Nepal needs to be improved for enhancing the resilience of rural
communities.
(6) Majority of the damaged buildings were stone/brick masonry structures with
no seismic detailing, whereas most of the RC buildings were undamaged. This
indicates that adequate structural design is the key to reduce the earthquake risk
in Nepal.
(7) Ground failure induced the settlement of an embankment along the Araniko
highway, sinking and tilting a number of RC buildings. Such unsafe road/ground
portions need to be surveyed, ground improvement measures may be carried out
and major construction should be disallowed.
(8) Constructions should be designed to take care of liquefaction potential.
(9) In Developing Countries as the houses are not well-constructed, there are more
deaths at night time. Houses need to be better constructed. The hospitals and
schools need to be constructed earthquake resistant. If the 2015 earthquake
had occurred on a working day (the earthquake was on Saturday which was
a holiday) with 7000 schools collapsed, the death toll would have been much
higher.
Chapter 6
Behavior of Aftershocks of Gorkha Nepal
Earthquake of 2015

Abstract After any large earthquake, people are scared of aftershocks and wish to
know that how long the aftershocks may continue and what could be the maximum
magnitude. The behavior may be somewhat different in different regions; hence, it
is important to study the same for the Gorkha Nepal earthquake. Generally, it has
been observed that the largest aftershock may have one unit less than the mainshock.
However, in the case of the Gorkha earthquake, the difference is only 0.5 units. It may
be due to the fact that the largest aftershock had an independent but contiguous rupture
zone. The duration of aftershocks is longer than expected for the region. Rupture of
Nepal April 2015 earthquake of Mw 7.8 in Eastern Nepal occurred along the Main
Himalayan thrust (MHT) and that of May 12 major earthquake was NE of it. Adhikari
et al. (2015) presented the temporal and spatial distribution of aftershock activity
that occurred for the first 3 months by using the data of the Nepal seismic network.
Baillard et al. (2017) processed the same data with automatic onset and hypocenter
determination procedures and stated that most aftershocks are in the Main Central
Thrust zone and the May 12 Mw 7.3 earthquake had its own aftershock activity.
Yamada et al. (2019) studied the aftershocks for an 11-month duration obtained with
additional local seismograph stations. Results of Rastogi and Mittal (2016) on the
investigation of aftershock behavior of the two major 2015 earthquakes using the
EMSC catalog of M ≥ 4 earthquakes until September 2015 are presented here. The
aftershock behavior of the two major earthquakes is compared with each other and
also with the total distribution. Time and space variation as well as the “b” value
(ratio of smaller to larger earthquakes) and “p” value rate of decay of aftershocks)
were investigated.

6.1 Space Distribution of Aftershocks

Epicenters of the two major Nepal earthquakes of April 25 and May 12, 2015 are
located in the high-Himalayan mountains zone close to the Tibet border. The two
major earthquakes had their separate rupture zones and their aftershock sequences
were confined to their rupture zones (Fig. 2.2). The April 25 earthquake was at the

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license 63
to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2024
B. K. Rastogi, Nepal Earthquake of 2015, Springer Transactions in Civil
and Environmental Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4684-2_6
64 6 Behavior of Aftershocks of Gorkha Nepal Earthquake of 2015

northwestern end of its 150 × 55 km rupture zone. The May 12 earthquake occurred
outside the NE corner of this rupture zone and its rupture zone is about 50 km wide.
The junction of the two rupture zones is at about long 86° E. Rupture propagation was
eastward for both earthquakes. These rupture zones are identified based on modeling
of teleseismic seismograms, distribution of aftershocks, and deformations observed
by GPS as well as by Synthetic Aperture Radar. A review of these observations is
made by Rastogi (2016).
April 25 main shock (Mw 7.8) had an aftershock of Mw 6.6 that occurred half an
hour after near the main shock at the western end of the rupture zone, and another
aftershock of Mw 6.7 occurred 25 h after the main shock and occurred 150 km
east. Mw ≥ 5.0 aftershocks (14 out of 16) occurred within 2 days, and Mw 4.0–4.9
aftershocks numbering 204 continued for over 5 months. May 12 Mw 7.3 earthquake
had an aftershock of Mw 6.2, while 11 aftershocks of Mw 5–5.9 and 104 aftershocks
of Mw 4–4.9 until September 9, 2015. Until August 2015 the number of aftershocks
of Mw 6–7 is 3, Mw 5–5.9 is 27, and Mw 4–4.9 is 308, making a total of 338 in
41/2 months. The last Mw 5.1 aftershock occurred on August 23, 2015 at 86.24° E
and 27.96° N. Aftershock locations of Apr earthquake, May 12 earthquake, and all
together are shown in Fig. 6.1a, b, and c, respectively.
Yamada et al. infer 3D fault structure from 11 months long and refined aftershock
catalog. There are fewer events in the large slip area, but prevalent in the surrounding
area. The aftershocks are located in the MCT area on the slip surface and occupy
the entire hanging-wall up to near surface. The slip area dips northward and is also
called Main Himalayan Thrust or decollement surface or ramp. Epicenters are seen
grouping in two patches both of which trend in the WNW direction: one is through
Kathmandu and the other some 30–40 km north of it (Fig. 3.3). Both these patches
have two clusters each, clusters in the northern patch being larger. The spatial features
described above can be discerned from Fig. 6.1a, c, but are sharply defined by Yamada
et al. The southern clusters are shallower than those of the northern clusters, which
is consistent with the dip direction of the MHT. The clusters are on two bends of the
ramp and near the two main shocks. The southern bend is some 30 km north of the
Main Boundary Thrust and the northern bend is 30 km further north (Fig. 3.9). The
shallower southern bend of the ramp is sharper than the northern one. The cluster of
aftershocks may suggest a larger stress accumulation on the ramp structures.

6.2 Time Distribution of Aftershocks

Daily frequency of aftershocks is shown in Fig. 6.2a–c. The Mw < 5 aftershocks have
continued for 5 months. The duration is somewhat more than 3 months as expected
for an Mw 7.8 earthquake in Himalaya according to an empirical relation derived
by Srivastava and Kamble (1972). The activity was high for about a month for Apr
earthquake then gradually waned off. For the May earthquake the activity was high
for 2 weeks and then sharply declined.
6.2 Time Distribution of Aftershocks 65

Fig. 6.1 a Epicenters of aftershocks of the April 25 earthquake until May 11, 2015. Barring a few,
the aftershocks are west of long 86° E, b Epicenters of aftershocks of the May 12 earthquake until
Sept 2015. Kindly note that these occurred east of 86° E, c Combined plot of all the aftershocks of
M ≥4 until September 2015
66 6 Behavior of Aftershocks of Gorkha Nepal Earthquake of 2015

Fig. 6.2 (bottom) Daily frequency of all the aftershocks of Mw ≥ 4.0 of April 25 and May 12
sequences taken together for the period April 25, 2015 to September 9, 2015 earthquake, (middle)
aftershocks of April 25 earthquake which occurred west of 86°E (top) aftershocks of May 12
earthquake which occurred east of 86°E. One mainshock each for two sequences is shown in black
color. Gray color shows shocks of Mw 5–6.9 and light gray indicates shocks of Mw 4–4.9. April 25
sequence had two shocks of Mw 6–6.9 (1st day), sixteen of Mw 5–5.9 (1st and 2nd day), and 204
of Mw 4–4.9 (totaling 222}. May 12 sequence had one Mw 6.2, ten of Mw 5–5.9, and one hundred
five of Mw 4–4.9 totaling 116 aftershocks. Both the sequences taken together had three aftershocks
of Mw 6–6.9, 27 aftershocks of Mw 5–5.9, and 308 of Mw 4–4.9, totaling 338

6.3 Magnitude Distribution of Aftershocks

A total number of aftershocks recorded at different magnitude ranges for four and
a-half months includes 306 aftershocks for the Mw range of 4.0–4.9, 27 for Mw 5.0–
5.9, and three for Mw 6.0–6.9. This sequence is observed against two large shocks
of Mw 7.8 and 7.3 in April and May 2015, respectively.
6.5 Rate of Decay of Aftershocks 67

6.4 The b-Value: Slope of the Relation Between Magnitude

and Number of Earthquakes

We estimated the b-value, which is the slope of a log-linear relation between magni-
tude, M and cumulative number of earthquakes, N using Gutenberg and Richter
(1954) power law as given below:

log10 N = a − bM (6.1)

where “a” is a constant that indicates the seismicity level, and “b” is the slope of
the log-linear relation that indicates the seismic characteristics of the studied area.
As it is a logarithmic scale, one unit lower magnitude would have a ten times higher
number of shocks. Below a certain magnitude, Mc (magnitude of completeness) all
the shocks may not be detected and the linear curve starts flattening (Wiemer and
Wyss, 2000). In our case, the magnitude range 4.0–6.7 gives a linear relation.
The b-value for the aftershocks of the two major earthquakes separately and all
of them taken together are about 1 which is a normal value for different regions of
the world. The estimated b-values for the aftershock sequences of the April 2015
and May 2015 earthquakes as well as for all the aftershocks taken together are 0.98
1.07, 0.98, respectively. The “b” value for M ≥ 4.5 shocks was obtained to be 0.862
by Goda et al. (2015).

6.5 Rate of Decay of Aftershocks

Rate of decay of aftershocks is estimated using Omori’s Law:

n(t) = K/(t + c)p

where p is the decay rate, n(t) is the frequency of earthquakes per unit time, at time
t after the main shock, and K (usually no. of shocks on day 1) and c are constants. It
states that the number of aftershocks occurring at a given time t after the main shock
will be proportional to that time t taken to the negative power of p, a constant. This
means that the decrease in aftershock numbers will be rapid at first, then gradually
until it wanes off to the background seismicity rate. Normally p-value is found to be
1 (0.9–1.5) for tectonic earthquakes. It increases with the structural heterogeneity of
the area. Low value indicates slower decay.
The p-values are 0.73, 0.81 for the aftershocks of April and May earthquakes,
and 0.63 for all the aftershocks taken together. The accuracy of these estimates is
about 0.04. It is natural that individual sequences decay faster and the two sequences
combined together have decayed a little slower. Goda et al. obtained p = 1.049 for
the initial 20 days of aftershocks of M ≥ 4.5, which is near normal.
68 6 Behavior of Aftershocks of Gorkha Nepal Earthquake of 2015

6.6 Results and Discussion About the Aftershocks

The rupture zone of the April 25 earthquake is 150 × 55 km and attached to its NE
boundary is 50 × 50 km rupture zone of May 12 earthquake. The aftershocks of both
earthquakes are found to spread throughout their individual rupture zones. Most of
these shocks are along the MHT extending from near the surface at the Himalayan
front to about 20 km depth near the plate boundary. Deeper shocks are noticed in some
portions of Himalaya due to doubling of the subducting plate boundary (Kayal et al.,
1993) but no such shocks have been recorded here. For the April earthquake, the after-
shocks are less in the area where the slip amount is more. Aftershock sequences decay
faster in Himalaya than in the intra-plate region of India (Richa, 2003). However,
the Nepal 2015 aftershock sequence had a slow decay. As expected for a Himalayan
earthquake, larger aftershocks occurred for two days after the major earthquakes,
the active period was for a month for Apr aftershocks and two weeks for the May
12 sequence, but M4 aftershocks continued for some months. The distribution of
aftershocks and their b- and p-values are given in Table 6.1.
Level of stress in the region and heterogeneity of the rocks govern the “b” value
(Allen et al., 1965; Mogi 1967; Scholz 1968; Tsapanos 1990). World-wide average
“b” value is close to 1. Regionally, changes in b-value are believed to be inversely
related to changes in the stress level (Bufe 1970; Gibowicz 1973, Kanamori 1981,
Urbancic et al., 1992) or heterogeneity of the area. A smaller b-value means high
accumulated stress and/or homogenous area, whereas, heterogeneous areas, having
higher number of smaller shocks yield a high b-value. Our b-values of about 1 indicate
that stress in the rupture zone after the major earthquakes is normal. Goda et al. 2015
obtained the “b” value for M ≥ 4.5 = 0.862, p = 1.049 for 20 days which are similar
to ours. The p-values for all the aftershocks taken together and individually for April
and May earthquakes are 0.63, 0.73, and 0.81, respectively indicating a slow decay
rate as compared to a normal decay rate of 1.

Table 6.1 Parameters of aftershocks

Parameter Apr May All
b 0.98 1.07 0.98
p 0.73 0.81 0.63
Nos M6 = 2,M5 = 16,M4 = M6 = 1,M5 = 11,M4 = M6 = 3,M5 = 27,M4 =
204 Total = 222 104 Total = 116 308 Total = 338
Area 150 km × 55 km 50 km × 50 km 180 km × 55 km
6.7 Conclusions 69

6.7 Conclusions

Aftershocks of both the two major Nepal 2015 earthquakes remained confined to
the rupture zone. Spreading out of the aftershocks indicates the possibility of a big
earthquake in the near future. The rate of decay 0.6–0.8 is found to be slower than
the expected 1.0 in Himalaya and M4 aftershocks continued for more than 5 months
against the expected duration of 3 months. The normal b-value of ~ 1 indicates the
presence of normal stress after the two major earthquakes which have likely released
the accumulated stress. As expected, the behavior of the aftershocks of the two major
earthquakes, occurring in contiguous areas is similar and it is also the same for all
the aftershocks taken together. The aftershocks of Mw 7.3 May 12, 2015 major
earthquake are located east of 86.0° E while foreshocks/aftershocks of the April 25
earthquake have occurred west of 86.0° E longitude. Though the May 12 earthquake
is stress triggered by the April 25 earthquake, the two major earthquakes appear to
behave as independent earthquakes.
Chapter 7
The Gorkha (Nepal) Earthquake of April
25, 2015: Rescue and Relief

Abstract The Gorkha, Nepal earthquake of April 25, 2015 (occurring on a Saturday
morning) affected 8 million people of Kathmandu and nearby districts which urgently
needed all kinds of relief materials like food, water, medicines, shelter, and sanitary
facilities. Nearly 9000 people died and 23,000 injured. A short summary of search,
rescue, and relief operations is prepared using Nepal Govt. Planning Commission
report, 2015, (http://docplayer.net/45013071-Post-disaster-needs-assessment.html)
Vol. A: Key Findings of 2015 Nepal Earthquake, other Reports from press and web
were also used. The salient points regarding the Rehabilitation Plan for Nepal are
also given. This description would be helpful in knowing the needs of and how to do
disaster management.

7.1 Overall Search, Rescue, and Relief Operations

by Nepal and Other Countries as Well as Agencies like
UN and Red Cross

Nepal Government requested international assistance immediately after the earth-

quake. The Nepalese National Disaster Response Framework (NDRF), Central
Disaster Relief Committee (CDRC), and National Emergency Operation Center
(NEOC) carried out disaster management. First focus was on Search and Rescue
(SAR). Prime Minister’s Disaster Relief Funds were disbursed through local govt.
agencies of 11 districts. Several meetings were held with international agencies for
help with SAR and relief. Nepal had no structured SAR mechanism. However, the
Nepalese Army and Police could carry out good SAR though they themselves were
severely affected. National Disaster Response Force (NDRF), Air Force, and Army
Medical Corps of India started relief work within hours of the earthquake.
Subsequently, more than a hundred international teams from tens of countries and
UN agencies started SAR. UN appealed for initial support of US$ 422 million and
within days US$ 130 million was released and much more later on. The Nepalese
Home Ministry rescued thousands by helicopter flights and buses. More than 150,000
soldiers, police, govt. servants, and health workers were requisitioned for SAR and

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license 71
to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2024
B. K. Rastogi, Nepal Earthquake of 2015, Springer Transactions in Civil
and Environmental Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4684-2_7
72 7 The Gorkha (Nepal) Earthquake of April 25, 2015: Rescue and Relief

relief. Airplanes and helicopters from other countries brought relief supplies into
the country and distributed these to remote areas. An arrangement was made at the
Tribhuvan International Airport (TIA) to receive incoming relief material and its
quick distribution by trucks immediately to the earthquake affected areas.
Three temporary tent camps for shelter were started in Kathmandu where food,
water and medicines were provided. These proved to be minimal as people out of
fear from aftershocks kept pouring in from damaged as well as non-damaged houses.
Supply of tents from India and elsewhere poured in and the whole valley looked like
a tent city.
Like in any emergency, local persons started rescue operations, digging out trapped
persons and providing the needed help. This gives a lesson that the governments must
provide digging appliances like cement cutters and other tools to local panchayats for
emergency use. Due to political unrest, the local government institutions were nearly
non-functional due to a lack of staff and funds. Houses of many local authorities
were destroyed also and they lost family members. Though most of the local offices
were damaged, they started working from tents. However, due to the remoteness of
several affected villages and rains, relief operations could not be started in remote
areas during the initial days.
The Nepalese NGOs quickly started rescue and relief work including providing
food, shelters, mobile hospitals, and engineering services.

7.2 Difficulties in Search and Rescue During the Initial

Days

Though many tents were being erected in Kathmandu starting day 1, even then
disaster management soon became a challenge as millions of people started living
outside as houses were destroyed or they feared aftershocks. This required putting
large numbers of tent camps and supply of essentials for more than a month. Relief
workers could not reach remote mountain villages where most houses had collapsed
as the approach was difficult. The District administration Offices had yet to be
made fully functional. This resulted in an imbalance in the supply of relief materials
benefiting the easily approachable villages disproportionately.
On the third day also, roads and lanes remained blocked by landslides hindering
SAR. Nepal has only one international airport, Kathmandu. It was overcrowded by
traffic hindering the arrival of international relief. Phone lines remained disrupted.
The affected area faced a drinking water shortage for several days due to power failure
and broken water pipelines. For a few days, there was a shortage of petrol/diesel after
which the supply was restored. The affected area was short on relief materials like
shelter, fuel, food, water, medicine, power, tents, blankets, tarpaulins, and sanitary
facilities. On the fourth day, the UN disaster assistance fund released $15 M. World
food program began distribution. A mudslide caused by rain on slopes weakened
by an earthquake devastated a remote village (Ghoda Tabela in Langtang Valley), a
7.3 Some Specific Issues 73

popular trekking site. S & R teams of several countries worked and distributed aid.
The Government established 16 large tent camps in Kathmandu. From 5th to 8th day,
many people protested about the perceived slowness of the government’s response,
especially with food. The sanitation problem was feared to hit Nepal as people lived
outside without toilets and water. Rescue and relief teams from abroad worked with
Nepalese teams in remote areas. Many survivors were rescued. Rumors abounded
everywhere that a bigger earthquake is on the way, creating additional concern. The
main complaint was that though the relief material from international donors has
reached, it is not distributed to the needy. Even after a week, the hospitals were
overflowing. Bodies were still buried under the rubble and people were sleeping
in the open without any sanitation fearing an outbreak of diseases. With the help
of UNICEF and several international teams, effective measures were undertaken to
check outbreaks of infectious diseases.

7.3 Some Specific Issues

i. Quick to Aid
Aid pledges poured in millions from the US, UK, Australia, and others. As Nepal was
not well-equipped, many international teams helped. India deployed sixteen trained
teams of a total of 1000 personnel, China sent a 62-member search and rescue team,
Israel had sent 260 rescue experts in addition to a 200-person strong medical team,
while Japan had sent a team of 70 experts as a disaster relief team.
ii. A Weak Base
Nepal had a weak infrastructure. With per capita GDP of less than $700 a year, many
Nepalese build their houses without any advice from trained engineers. Subsequent
to the 1988 earthquake in which 700 people died, a building code was introduced
but it could not be enforced.
The lack of roads made it difficult for assistance to reach remote regions where
it was needed most. Local authorities were overwhelmed as no disaster manage-
ment plan existed. Nepal’s sole international airport in Kathmandu with only a
few terminals could not handle the numerous planes bringing blankets, food, and
medicine.
iii. Economic Cost
The earthquake caused a loss of $10 billion which was half of the annual GDP of
Nepal. Tourism gives 8% of the economy and employment to more than a million
people. Expeditions to Mount Everest were also stopped due to a snow avalanche
triggered by the earthquake that took the lives of over 30 mountaineers, and stranded
a few hundred for days.
74 7 The Gorkha (Nepal) Earthquake of April 25, 2015: Rescue and Relief

iv. Disarray Due to Domestic Politics

At least 12,000 people died in the Communist movement in Nepal during 1996–
2006. It deteriorated the infrastructure and weakened the government so much that it
was not prepared to deal with a massive disaster at the local as well as national level.
(Time, Quartz, Wall Street Journal, BBC, Washington Post, NY Times, Deutsche
Welle, The Independent).
v. Late Rescues
22 h: Miracle baby, a 4-month-old baby trapped under a wooden beam was rescued.
82 h: A 28-year-old man rescued. Though in touch with mobile, he forgot the name
of the hotel he was staying.
84 h: A 27-year man was rescued by a French rescue team from a collapsed apartment
building on Thursday.
120 h: One person from Ganggabu village was rescued.
128 h (a week after): A 24-year-old woman was rescued by the Nepal army and Israel
rescue team from the wreckage of the Jana Sewa guest house in Kathmandu and also
a 101-year-old man was rescued from another place.

7.4 Opening of Schools

Opening of schools sends an important message to the community that normal life
is returning. The schools reopened after 35 days on 31st May. More than 25,000
classrooms were damaged. Only a few school buildings in Kathmandu remained
safe. In badly hit mountainous areas like Sindhupal Chowk and Gorkha, most schools
collapsed. Schools set up semi-permanent Temporary Learning Centers (TLCs). Each
is constructed with wood, bamboo, steel, and tarpaulin. These structures were used for
two years, after which the buildings were repaired. Textbook lessons were replaced
by group activities which provided psychological relief to kids.

7.5 Relief Work by NGOs

NGOs who worked for relief included United Way of India, Maiti Nepal International
Association for Human Value (Art of Living), NGO Federation of Nepal, and CARE
India. Most of the NGOs preferred receiving funds. The United Way of India helped
about 10,000 families with the following relief materials:
Shelter kits: All weather-resistant tents, ground sheets, and solar lamps.
Family kits: Utensils, bedding, dry ration, water, and water purification tablets.
7.6 Search, Rescue, and Relief by International Agencies 75

Health care: Medicines and medical camps.

Hygiene kits: Soap, toothbrush, towels, and sanitary pads.
Childcare: Nutritional support.
Mother kits: Nutritional support for pregnant women and new mothers.

7.6 Search, Rescue, and Relief by International Agencies

Rescue and Relief

Nepal Army was deployed for relief work under “Operation Sankat Mochan”. By
May 1 international emergency teams started evacuating the critically wounded by
helicopter from remote areas and started mobile hospitals. They could rescue trapped
men using advanced heart-beat detection and FINDER devices. International crisis
mapping organizations helped emergency aid work. Maps were prepared for clear
roads, collapsed buildings, damaged areas, and remotely located damaged villages
using data from drones, satellite imageries, and social media platforms. It helped in
rescue and relief operations as well as geohazard studies.
Restoring Heritage Structures
Soon after the earthquake, the Nepal Ministry of Culture along with UNESCO started
restoration of critically damaged heritage structures. According to UNESCO, in the
Kathmandu Valley, more than 30 monuments and some 30 structures had collapsed
and other 120 were damaged. Repair estimates were $160 million to restore 1,000
damaged and destroyed monasteries, temples, historic houses, and shrines across
the country. The destruction is concentrated in the Kathmandu Valley. UNESCO
had designated seven groups of multi-ethnic monuments clustered in the valley as a
single World Heritage Site, including Swayambhu, the Durbar squares of Kathmandu,
Patan, and Bhaktapur, and the Hindu temples of Pashupatinath and Changu Narayan.
Structures were damaged in all three Durbar squares including the temple of Changu
Narayan, and the temple of Sankhu built in 1655. Drones flew above cultural heritage
sites to provide 3D images of the damage for planning repairs.
Summary of International Aid for Nepal 2015 Earthquake Relief
Red Cross: $0.54 M, First Aid, Search & Rescue, Blood-bank
Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders): Medical, Water and Sanitation
camps at Kathmandu, Gorkha and Bhaktapur
European Union: $5.3 M, First Response Teams
Algeria: $1 M, Relief, medicines, etc.
Australia: $15.86 M, Relief through the Australian Red Cross and WHO, etc.
76 7 The Gorkha (Nepal) Earthquake of April 25, 2015: Rescue and Relief

Austria: $0.84 M, Austrian Red Cross

Azerbaijan: 1 ton of Medical and other supplies
Bangladesh: Relief
Belgium: $5.5 M, Search & Rescue Teams
Bhutan: $1 M, Medical Team
Brunei: Relief Team
Canada: $4.16 M, Relief material, Disaster Assistance Response Team
China: $9.9 M, Relief material, Search & Rescue Team
Czech Republic: $ 0.79 M, Relief Material, Medical Team
Denmark: $0.74 M
Finland: $3.35 M, Finnish Red Cross, Relief Material
Germany: $68.34 M, Relief and Medical team, Water & Sanitation Camp
Greece: Search & Rescue teams
Haiti: $1 M
Hong Kong: 6.45 M, Relief Material
India started S&R and relief within hours and continued for 40 days; supplied
massive Relief Material including dry food, baby food, medical supplies, over 200
tons of water, 100,000 bottles of water daily, RO Plant, blankets, Oxygen Regener-
ators and Cylinders, stretchers and tents; 16 teams of National Disaster Response
Force of total over 1000 persons of serving armed forces with search and rescue
dogs along with hundreds of retired Indian Gorkha soldiers were deployed for relief
work; Medical teams and mobile hospitals were set up within a few days; Relief
sorties were made by Air Force using transport planes and helicopters; Indian Oil
Corporation supplied large amount of petroleum; Power Grid Corporation of India
helped for restoring power; Armed forces engineering teams did quick repair of
critical facilities.
Indonesia: $2 M, relief supplies, SAR and medical team
Ireland: $1.126 M
Israel: Fully equipped SAR team, a medical team, and Mobile hospital
Italy: $0.326 M
Japan: $8.4 M, Relief supplies, Well-equipped SAR teams
Netherlands: $4.45 M, Relief supplies, Well-equipped SAR teams
New Zealand: $0.771 M, SAR team
Norway: $31.1 M, Supplies, SAR team, and a medical team
7.7 Search, Rescue, and Relief by India (Source Government of India … 77

Pakistan: Relief supplies, SAR team, and a medical team

South Korea: $1 M, Relief supplies, SAR team and a medical team
Switzerland: $26.7 M, Relief supplies
Sweden: $1.5 M, support team.
Thailand: $6 M, Rescue and Medical team
UAE: $1.36 M, Medical and food supplies, SAR team
UK: $130 M, Relief and equipment, SAR Teams
USA; $129 M, SAR teams
Help was also provided by Columbia, Estonia, France, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives,
Mexico, Monaco, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore,
Slovenia, South Africa, Taiwan, Spain, Turkey, and Vatican.

7.7 Search, Rescue, and Relief by India (Source

Government of India and Media Reports)

Nepalese Prime Minister Sushil Koirala, being out of Nepal came to know about
the 2015 earthquake from a tweet by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Within
minutes PM Modi talked to PM Koirala and assured all help. As Nepal’s immediate
neighbor, India was the first responder to the crisis, by providing relief within hours
of the earthquake through search, rescue, relief, and medical teams under Operation
Maitri (Friendship) launched by the Government of India and Indian armed forces.
Nepali ex-servicemen from India’s Gurkha Regiments helped in relief and rescue.
Indian Air Force started relief and rescue within 3–4 h of the earthquake. It
had flown Sixteen teams of NDRF to Kathmandu. The Air Force made more than
10 sorties daily. Onward flights carried relief material and on return brought evac-
uees. These flights carried army forward hospitals, teams of doctors, nurses, and
paramedics, engineering task forces, water, food, medical personnel, and equip-
ment. Indian Army had sent medical and engineering teams, established about 20
mobile hospitals, and supplied relief materials including 10,000 blankets and 1,000
tents. After 3–4 days when the rains stopped, the Indian Air Force and Army could
help remote areas too. An Inter Ministry Team visited Nepal for coordination (after
TimeLine).
Evacuation: The Indian Air Force and Air India evacuated over a thousand stranded
Indians and others daily for several days. Big evacuation of Indian citizens as well
as citizens of other countries was done by roads. A total of 35 buses and a few
ambulances were deployed in two routes—Sonauli and Raxaul. Goodwill visas were
issued to foreigners.
78 7 The Gorkha (Nepal) Earthquake of April 25, 2015: Rescue and Relief

Relief Material: Indian Air Force planes carried 43 tons of relief material, including
tents and food as well as 55 tons of water on day 1. By the end of the second day, India
dispatched a further 10 tons of blankets, 50 tons of water, 22 tons of food items, and
2 tons of medicines. The amount of relief material was much increased and supply
continued for more than two weeks. On day 4, some 220 tons of food packets and
dry rations, 50 tons of water, 2 tons of medicines, 40 tents, and 1,400 blankets were
supplied to Nepal. Indian Railways provided 100,000 (one lakh) bottles of drinking
water/day to be delivered by the Air Force. The Sashastra Seema Bal (Border Security
Force) provided about 40 vehicles, including ambulances and water tankers from its
border camps.
NDRF: Sixteen teams of NDRF (National Disaster Rapid Force) consisting each of
45 fully trained persons, two search and rescue sniffer dogs were flown to Nepal
from different locations in India. The 1st team reached within 6 h. Four more teams
reached the same day and others in the next 2 days. They deployed in total about 1000
personnel. These teams were from several places in north India including six from
Ghaziabad and four from Bhatinda in Punjab. All NDRF teams were fully equipped
with Collapsible Structures, search and rescue equipment, including cutters that
work with wood, concrete, and steel, life detector machines, breathing equipment,
airlifting bags, communication equipment like satellite phones, VHF and UHF sets.
Each Team has paramedics, equipped with stretchers and necessary medicines.
Medical Relief: A total of 18 Indian Army medical teams had been deployed. Six of
these were in the field within 2 days of the earthquake and the rest of them within a
few days more. A 41-member medical team, along with medical supplies, was sent
to Nepal from Rajasthan. The Indian army took oxygen cylinders for distribution to
medical teams.
Engineering Teams: Ten Indian Army engineering task forces were put in service
with machinery to clear roads and debris.
Restoration of Petroleum Supply Lines by IOC:
As soon as a crisis of petroleum products was brought to the notice of India, the supply
was rushed to Nepal. Indian Oil Corporation supplied 17,000 kiloliters of petroleum
products, including 3700 tons of cooking gas in the next 5 days. Since Thursday
(6th day), transport fuels moved to 100 retail outlets in the Kathmandu Valley from
Nepal Oil Corporation’s depots and there was no shortage as supply routes through
truck tankers were fully operational. The road routes for the movement of petroleum
products from Raxaul to Amlekh Ganj and Kathmandu in Nepal became operational
within five days. On behalf of the oil industry, relief material was also handed over
to Civil Supplies Minister Mr. Giri Bahadur. The Indian Oil Corporation had stocked
adequate quantities of all petroleum products at its Raxaul bulk depot and other
locations which normally cater to Nepal. Sufficient stocks of aviation turbine fuel
were also made available at Gorakhpur and Hindon Air Base of the Indian Air Force.
On June 5, 2015 Operation Maitri was concluded.
7.8 Rehabilitation Plan for Nepal 79

Rescue and Relief in India:

Four NDRF teams rushed from Patna to four affected districts in Bihars’ Gopalganj,
Motihari, Sapaul, and Darbhanga, and one NDRF team was sent to Gorakhpur. The
PMO took to Twitter messaging details of an action plan for relief and rescue. Inter
ministry coordination emergency cell was formed in India.

7.8 Rehabilitation Plan for Nepal

Most of the Rehabilitation was completed within 5 years (Gautam and Rodrigues
2018). The Disaster Risk Reduction and Build Back Better (BBB) plan was adopted.
Taking a cue from the damage pattern the DRR and BBB plans were revised (Dixit
et al. 2018) which included:
• measures to improve preparedness, response, relief, and logistics systems;
• measures to strengthen information and communication capacities for relief,
response, and recovery;
• measures to enhance multi-hazard risk monitoring, vulnerability assessment, risk
information dissemination, and awareness;
• improvements in legal and institutional arrangements;
• measures to mainstream DRR into the developmental sector, particularly housing,
private and public infrastructure, social sectors (health and education), and
livelihood.

Longer Term Recovery Efforts by Red Cross

The Nepal Red Cross Society of Ramechhap district branch built earthquake-resistant
houses in five areas Khimti, Tilpung, Bhirpani, Puranagaun, and Rampur of the
district. The low-cost model houses used local human resources and materials.
The International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC) and Nepal Red Cross
Society (NRCS) helped in the huge rebuilding task. Training programs were run
for masons, carpenters, and ordinary community members on how to build back
safer. A few tips given are: (i) Doors and windows should be near the corners and
should be small in size and (ii) Use beams made of hardwood.
References

Ader T, Avouac JP, Liu-Zeng J, Lyon-Caen H, Bollinger L, Galetzka J, Genrich J, Thomas M,

Chanard K, Sapkota SM, Rajaure S, Shrestha P, Ding L, Flouzat M (2012) Convergence rate
across the Nepal Himalaya and interseismic coupling on the main Himalayan thrust: implications
for seismic hazard. J Geophys Res, Solid Earth 117, B04403. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB
009071
Adhikari L, Gautam U, Koirala B, Bhattarai M, Kandel T, Gupta R, Timsina C, Guilhem A, Merrer
S, Roudil P, Bollinger L (2015) The aftershock sequence of the 2015 April 25 Gorkha Nepal
earthquake. Geophys J Int 203(3):2119–2124
Allen C, Amand P, Richter C, Nordquist J (1965) Relation between seismicity and geological
structure in the southern California region. Bull Seismol Soc Am 55:752–797
Ambraseys NN, Douglas J (2004) Magnitude calibration of north Indian earthquakes. Geophys J
Int 159:165–206
Arya AS (1992) Possible effects of major earthquake in Kangra region of Himachal Pradesh. In:
Gupta HK (ed) Special Issue, Curr Sci 62:251–256
Avouac JP (2003) Mountain building, erosion and the seismic cycle in the Nepal Himalaya. Adv
Geophys 46:1–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2687(03)46001-9
Avouac J-P, Meng L, Wei S, Wang T, Ampuero J-P (2015) Lower edge of locked main Himalayan
thrust unzipped by the 2015 Gorkha earthquake. Nature Geosci 6, Advance online publication
Aydan O, Ulusay R (2015) A quick report on the 2015 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake and its geo-
engineering aspects, IAEG, pp 26
Baillard C, Lyon-Caen H, Bollinger L, Rietbrock A, Letort J, Adhikari LB (2017) Automatic analysis
of the Gorkha earthquake aftershock sequence: evidences of structurally-segmented seismicity.
Geoph J Intl https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggx081
Banerjee P, Burgmann R (2002) Convergence across the northwest Himalaya from GPS measure-
ments. Geophys Res Lett 29(13):1652. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL015184
Banerjee P, Burgmann R, Nagarajan B, Apel E (2008) Intraplate deformation of the Indian
subcontinent. Geophys Res Lett 35:L18301. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL035468
Bettinelli P, Avouac J-P, Flouzat M, Bollinger L, Ramillien G, Rajaure S, Sapkota S (2008) Seasonal
variations of seismicity and geodetic strain in the Himalaya induced by surface hydrology. Earth
Planet Sci Lett 266:332–344
Bhagat S, Samith Buddika HAD, Adhikari RK, Shrestha A, Bajracharya S, Joshi R, Singh J,
Maharjan R, Wijeywickrema AC (2017) Damage to cultural heritage structures and buildings
due to the 2015 Nepal Gorkha earthquake. J Earthq Eng 22(10):1861–1880. Taylor & Francis.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1309608

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license 81
to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2024
B. K. Rastogi, Nepal Earthquake of 2015, Springer Transactions in Civil
and Environmental Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4684-2
82 References

Bilham R (1995) Location and magnitude of the 1833 Nepal earthquake and its relation to the
rupture zones of contiguous great Himalayan earthquakes. Curr Sci 69:101–128
Bilham R (1997) GPS measurements of present-day convergence across the Nepal Himalaya. Nature
386:61–64
Bilham R (2004) Earthquakes in India and the Himalaya: tectonics, geodesy and history. Ann
Geophys 47(2):839–858
Bilham R (2012) Societal and observational problems in earthquake risk assessments and their
delivery to those most at risk. Tectonophysics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2012.03.023
Bilham R (2019) Himalayan earthquakes: a review of historical seismicity and early 21st century slip
potential. In: Treloar PJ, Searle MP (eds) Himalayan tectonics: a modern synthesis. Geological
Society, London, Special Publications, 483, pp 423–482. First published online February 5,
2019. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP483.16
Bilham R, Larson K, Freymueller J (1997) GPS measurements of present-day convergence across
the Nepal Himalaya. Nature 386:61–64
Bilham R, Gaur VK, Molnar P (2001) Himalayan seismic hazard. Science 293:1442–1444
Bufe CG (1970) Frequency-magnitude variations during the 1970 Danville earthquake swarm.
Earthq Notes 41:3–6
Catherine JK, Gahalaut VK, Srinivas N, Kumar S, Nagarajan B (2014) Evidence of strain accumu-
lation in the Andaman region for the giant 2004 Sumatra Andaman earthquake. Bull Seism Soc
Am 104:587–591. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130141
Chamlagain D, Rodrigues H, Spacone E, Varum H (2015) Seismic response of current RC build-
ings in Kathmandu Valley. Struct Eng Mech 53:791–818. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2015.
53.4.791
Chamlagain D, Gautam D (2015) Seismic hazard in the Himalayan intermontane basins: an example
from Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. In: Mountain hazards and disaster risk reduction, pp 73–103
Chander R (1989) On applying the concept of rupture propagation to deduce the location of the
1905 Kangra earthquake epicenter. J Geol Soc India 33:150–158
Chandra U (1977) Earthquakes of Peninsular India—a seismotectonic study. Bull Seism Soc Am
67:1387–1413
De R, Kayal JR (2003) Seismotectonic model of the Sikkim Himalaya: constraint from
microearthquake surveys. Bull Seism Soc Am 93(3):1395–1400
DeCelles PG, Robinson DM, Quade J, Ojha TP, Garzione CN, Copeland P, Upreti BN (2001)
Stratigraphy, structure, and tectonic evolution of the Himalayan fold-thrust belt in western
Nepal. Tectonics 20:487–509
Dixit AM, Shrestha SN, Marasini N (2018) Risk management, response, relief, recovery, reconstruc-
tion, and future disaster risk reduction. In: Gautam D, Rodrigues H (ed) Impacts and insights of
the Gorkha Earthquake. Elsevier Book, pp 182
Dunn JA, Auden JB, Ghosh AM, Wadia DN (1939) The Bihar-Nepal earthquake of 1934. Mem
Geol. Survey in. 73:1–139
Fukushima Y, Tanaka T, Kataoka S (1988) A new attenuation relationship for peak ground accel-
eration derived from strong motion accelerograms. In: 9th World congress of earthquake
engineering, Tokyo, pp 343–348
Galetzka et al (2015) Slip pulse and resonance of Kathmandu basin during the 2015 Mw7.8 Gorkha
earthquake, Nepal imaged with geodesy. Science Express, pp 9
Gautam D, Rodrigue F (ed) (2018) Impacts and insights of the Gorkha earthquake. Elsevier, pp 182
Gibowicz SJ (1973) Variation of the frequency-magnitude relation during earthquake sequences in
New Zealand. Bull Seismol Soc Am 63:517–528
Goda K, Kiyota T, Pokhrel RM, Chiaro G, Katagiri T, Sharma K, Wilkinson S (2015) The 2015
Gorkha Nepal earthquake: insights from earthquake damage survey. Front Built Environ 1,
Article 8, pp 15. https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/215733
Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1954) Seismicity of the Earth. Princeton University Press, Princeton,
N.J., pp 273
References 83

Ichiyanagi M, Takai N, Sigefuji M, Takahashi H (2016) Aftershock activity of the 2015 Gorkha,
Nepal, earthquake determined using the Kathmandu strong motion seismographic array. Earth
Planets Space 68(1):25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-016-0402-8
IRIS site https://ds.iris.edu/ds/nodes/dmc/specialevents/2015/04/25/nepal/ and in “Finite fault
model” section, Polet’s twitter post: https://twitter.com/CPPGeophysics
Jade S, Bhatt BC, Yang Z, Bendick R, Gaur VK, Molnar P, Anand MB, Kumar D (2004) Preliminary
tests of plate-like or continuous deformation in Tibet. Geol Soc Am Bull 116:1385–1391
Kanamori H (1981) The nature of seismic patterns before large earthquakes. In: Simpson DW,
Richards PG (eds) Earthquake prediction: an international review. Maurice Ewing Series, vol
4. AGU, Washington D.C., pp 1–19
Kate TP, Upreti BN, Pokharel GS (1996) Engineering properties of fine-grained soils of Kathmandu
Valley Nepal. J Nepal Geol Soc 13:121–138
Lave J, Yule D, Sapkota SN, Basant K, Madden C, Attal M, Pandey MR (2005) Evidence for a great
medieval earthquake (c. 1100 A.D.) in the central Himalayas, Nepal. Science 141:1302–1305
Mahesh P, Catherine JK, Gahalaut VK, Kundu B, Ambikapathy A, Bansal A, Prem Kishore L,
Narsaiah M, Ghavri S, Chadha RK, Choudhary P, Singh DK, Singh SK, Kumar S, Nagarajan B,
Bhatt BC, Tiwari RP, Kumar A, Kumar A, Bhu H, Kalita S (2012) Rigid indian plate: constraints
from GPS measurements. Gondwana Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2012.01.011
Middlemiss CS (1910) The Kangra earthquake of 4th April 1905. Mem Geol Surv India 38:6
Mitra SH, Paul A, Kumar SK, Singh SD, Powali D (2015) The 25 April 2015 Nepal earthquake
and its aftershocks. Curr Sc 108:1938–1943
Mogi K (1962) Magnitude-frequency relation for elastic shocks accompanying fractures of various
materials and some related problems in earthquakes. Bull Earth Res Inst Univ Tokyo 40:831–853
Molnar P, Fitch TJ, Wu FT (1973) Fault plane solutions of shallow earthquakes and contemporary
tectonics in Asia. Earth Planet Sci Lett 19:101–112
Molnar P, Chen WP, Fitch TJ, Tapponnier P, Warsi WEK, Wu FT (1977) Structure and tectonics of
the Himalaya: a brief summary of relevant geophysical observations. In: Himalaya. Science de
la Terre, Paris, pp 269–294
Monsalve G, Sheehan A, Schulte-Pelkum V, Rajaure S, Pandey MR (2006) Seismicity and one-
dimensional velocity structure of the Himalayan collision zone: earthquakes in the crust and
upper mantle. J Geophys Res 111:B10301
Mukul M, Jade S, Bhattacharyya AK, Bhusan K (2010) Crustal shortening in convergent Orogens:
insights from global positioning system (GPS) measurements in Northeast India. J Geol Soc
India 75:302–312
Nepal Govt. Planning Commission report, 2015, (http://docplayer.net/45013071-Post-sisaster-
needs-assessment.html) Vol. A: Key Findings of 2015 Nepal Earthquake prepared by repre-
sentatives of Asian Development Bank, European Union, UN and World Bank
Ni JF, Barazangi M (1984) Seismotectonics of the Himalayan collision zone: geometry of the
underthrusting Indian plate beneath the Himalaya. J Geophys Res 89:1147–1163
Oldham TA (1883) Catalogue of Indian earthquakes. Geol Surv India Mem 19:163–215
Oldham RD (1906) The constitution of the interior of the Earth, as revealed by earthquakes. Q J
Geol Soc 62:456–475
Oldham RD (1928) The Cutch earthquake of 16th June 1819 with a revision of the great earthquake
of the 12th June 1897. Geol Surv India Mem 46:80–147
Oldham T, Oldham RD (1882) The Cachar earthquake of 10th January 1869. In: Oldham RD (ed)
Geol Surv India Mem 19:1–98
Oldham RD (1899) Report on the great earthquake of the 12th June 1897. Geol Surv India Mem
29, Reprinted, 1981, Geological Survey of India, Calcutta, pp 379
Pandey MR, Molnar P (1988) The distribution of intensity of the Bihar-Nepal earthquake of 15
January 1934 and bounds on the extent of the rupture zone. J Nepal Geol Soc 5:22–44
Pandey M, Tandukar R, Avouac J, Vergne J, Heritier T (1999) Seismotectonics of the Nepal Himalaya
from a local seismic network. J Asian Earth Sci 17:703–712
84 References

Parameswaran R, Thulasiraman N, Rajendran K, Rajendran CP, Mullick R, Wood M, Lekhak H

(2015) Seismotectonics of the April-May 2015 Nepal earthquakes: an assessment based on the
aftershock patterns, surface effects and deformation characteristcs. J Asian Earth Sci. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.jseaes.2015.07.030
Piya BK (2004) Generation of a geological database for the liquefaction hazard assessment in
Kathmandu valley. MSc Thesis, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth
Observation, Enschede, The Netherlands, p 141
Pokhrel RM, Chiaro G, Kiyota T, Katagiri T, Goda K, Sharma K (2015a) Preliminary damage
survey report on 2015 Nepal Gorkha earthquake
Pokhrel RM, Chiaro G, Katagiri T, Sharma K, Wilkinson S (2015b) The 2015 Gorkha Nepal
earthquake: insights from earthquake damage survey. Front Built Environ 1:8. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fbuil.2015.00008
Prajapati SK, Dadhich HK, Chopra S (2016) Isoseismal map of the 2015 Nepal earthquake and its
relationships with ground-motion parameters, distance and magnitude. JAES. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jseaes.2016.07.013
Rai SN (2001) Geology, geochemistry, and radiochronoIogy of the Kathmandu and Gosainkund
crystaIline nappes, central NepaI HimaIaya. J Nepal Geol Soc 25:35–155
Rajendran CP (2021) Constraints on previous earthquakes from the liquefaction sites in the Kath-
mandu Valley associated with the 2015 Gorkha earthquake and their regional implications. Quat
Intl 585:44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2020.10.053
Rana BS (2013) The great earthquake in Nepal (First Published in Nepali in 1934; Translated to
English from the, 2nd Nepali edition. Kesar Lall, Ratna Pustak Bhandar, Kathmandu, Nepal, pp
136, 1935
Rastogi BK, Mittal P (2016) Study of aftershocks of Gorkha Nepal earthquake of 2015. Bhoo-
Kampan, J Ind Soc Earthq Sci 3:36–56
Rastogi BK, Mandal P, Biswas SK (2014) Seismogenesis of earthquakes occurring in the ancient
rift basin of Kachchh, Western India. In: Talwani P (ed) Intraplate earthquakes. Cambridge
University Press, pp 126–161
Rastogi BK (1974) Earthquake mechanism and plate tectonics in the Himalayan region. Tectono-
physics 21:47–56
Rastogi BK (2016) Salient aspects of the 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha Nepal earthquake in central
Himalaya. Bhoo-Kampan, J Ind Soc Earthq Sci 3:18–28
Rastogi BK (2018) Intensity and source parameters study of August 20, 1988 Udaipur Nepal
earthquake of magnitude 6.8. Bhoo-Kampan, J Ind Soc Earthq Sci 5:16–31
Rastogi BK (2020) Bihar-Nepal earthquake of 15 January 1934: isoseismals and damages. Bhoo-
Kampan, J Ind Soc Earthq Sci 7:1–12
Sakai H (2001) Stratigraphic division sedimentary facies of the Kathmandu basin group, Central
Nepal. J Nepal Geol Soc 25 (Special issue), 19–32
Sapkota SN, Bollinger L, Klinger Y, Tapponnier P, Gaudemer Y, Tiwari D (2013) Primary surface
ruptures of the great Himalayan earthquakes in 1934 and 1255. Nat Geosci 6:71–76. https://doi.
org/10.1038/NGEO1669
Scholz CH (1968) The frequency-magnitude relation of micro-fracturing in rock and its relation to
earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58:399–415
Seeber L, Armbruster JG (1981) Great detachment earthquakes along the Himalayan arc and long-
term forecasts. In: Simpson DW, Richards PG (eds) Earthquake prediction: an international
review, Maurice Ewing Series, vol 4. American Geophysical Union, pp 259–277
Seeber L, Armbruster JG, Quittmeyer RC (1981) Seismicity and continental subduction in the
Himalayan arc. Inter-union Commission on Geodynamics Working Group 6 volume, pp 215–242
Shakya M, Kawan CK (2017) Reconnaissance based damage survey of buildings in Kathmandu
valley: an aftermath of 7.8 Mw, 25 April 2015 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake. Eng Fail Anal
59(2016):161–184
References 85

Sharma B, Sandhu M, Kumar D, Teotia SS (2018) Site characteristics of Indo-Gangetic plain area
using strong motion data of Nepal Earthquake (Mw 7.9) of 25th April 2015. Bhoo-Kampan, J
Ind Soc Earthq Sci 5:45–56
Srivastava HN, Kamble VP (1972) Aftershock characteristics in Himalayan mountain belt and
neighborhood. In: J Met Geophys 23:76–82
Sukhija BS, Rao MN, Reddy DV, Nagabhushanam P, Kumar D, Lakshmi BV, Sharma P (2002)
Paleoliquefaction evidence of pre-historic large/great earthquakes in North Bihar. Curr Sci
83(8):1019–1025
Szeliga W, Hough S, Martin S, Bilham R (2010) Intensity magnitude location and attenuation in
India for felt earthquakes since 1762. Bull Seism Soc Am 100(2):570–584
Takai N, Sigefuji M, Rajaure S, Bijukchhen S, Dhital, Ichiyanagi M, Sasatani T (2016) Strong
ground motion in the Kathmandu Valley during the 2015 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake. Earth
Planets Space 68(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-016-0383-7
Tandon AN (1954) A study of Assam earthquake of August 1950 and its aftershocks. Indian J
Meteorol Geophys 5:95–137
Tandon AN, Srivastava HN (1974) Earthquake occurrence in India. In: Tandon AN, Srivastava HN
(eds) Earthquake engineering, Jai Krishna volume. Sarita Prakashan, Meerut
Tsapanos T (1990) b-value of two tectonic parts in the circum-Pacific belt. PAGEOPH 143:229–242
Urbancic TI, Trifu CI, Long JM, Young RP (1992) Space-time correlations of b-values with stress
release. Pure Appl Geophys 139:449–462
Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length,
rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seism Soc 84(4):974–1002
Wenhao S, Li Y, Zhang J (2017) Hybrid stochastic ground motion modeling of the Mw 7.8 Gorkha
Nepal earthquake of 2015 based on InSAR inversion. J Asian Earth Sci 141:268–278
Wiemer S, Wyss M (2000) Minimum magnitude of complete re-porting in earthquake catalogs:
examples from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan. Bull Seism Soc Am 90:859–869
Wijeyewickrema AC, Samith Buddika HAD, Bhagat S, Adhikari RK, Shrestha A, Bajracharya S,
Singh J, Maharjan R (2015) Earthquake reconnaissance survey in Nepal of the magnitude 7.8
Gorkha earthquake of April 25, 2015, Technical Report, pp 62. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.
1.1597.2968
Wu Z, Barosh PJ, Ha G, Yao X, Xu Y, Liu J (2019) Damage induced by the 25 April 2015 Nepal
earthquake in the Tibetan border region of China and increased post-seismic hazards (Personal
Communication)
Yadav RK, Gahalaut VK, Kumar A, Sati SP, Catherine J, Gautam P, Kumar K, Rana N (2019) Strong
seismic coupling underneath Garhwal-Kumaun region, NW Himalaya, India. Earth Planet Sci
Lett 506:8–14
Yagi Y, Okuwaki R (2015) Integrated seismic source model of the 2015 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL064995. http://www.geol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~yagi-y/EQ/20150425/
index.html
Yamada M, Kandel TP, Tamaribuchi K, Ghosh A (2019) 3D Fault structure inferred from a refined
aftershock catalog for the 2015 Gorkha earthquake in Nepal. Bull Seism Soc Am. https://doi.
org/10.1785/0120190075
Yoshida M, Igarashi Y (1984) Neogene to Quaternary lacustrine sediments in the Kathmandu Valley,
Nepal. J Nepal Geol Soc 4:73–100
Yoshida M, Gautam P (1988) Magnetostratigraphy of Plio-Pleistocene lacustrine deposits in the
Kathmandu valley, central Nepal. Proc Indian Natl Sci Acad 54A:410–417
Index

A Debris avalanches, 50, 59

Acceleration, 6, 7, 12–15 Decollment surface, 32
Accelerographs, 12, 36 Dharahara tower, 7, 39, 42, 56
Aftershocks, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 29, 32, 61 Dharchula-Pithoragarh earthquake of 1980,
Anjar, 2 29
Arenaceous, argillaceous formations, 35 Dhubri earthquake of 1930, 2
Assam, 2 Duplex, 32
Assam earthquake of 1950, 2
Attenuation, 37
E
Earthquake risk, 3
B Economic loss, 2
Bhuj, 2 Epicenter, 7–9, 11, 15
Bhuj earthquake of 2001, 2
Bihar, 2
Bihar-Nepal earthquake of 1934, 2 F
Building codes, 3 Fault, 5–7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15
B-value, 67–69 Felt reports, 60
Focal mechanism, 6, 10, 31

C
Cachar earthquake of 1984, 2 G
Chamoli earthquake of 1999, 2 Geodetic deformation, 9
Collision of Indian and Eurasian plates, 30 Geology, 17–19
Convergence rate, 26, 30 Geotechnical and geo-engineering aspects,
39
Global Positioning System (GPS)
D measurements, 2, 3, 12, 33
Damage, 5–7, 9, 13–15, 25, 33, 36, 37, 39, Gorkha, 5, 7, 11, 15, 25, 30
41–46
Damage to bridges, 45
Damage to buildings, 43 H
Damage to dams, 45 Heritage structures, 39, 41, 42, 55
Damage to electricity poles, 45 Higher Himalaya, 33
Damage to roadways, 45 Himalaya, 1, 2, 21, 24, 26, 29–31
Debris, 39 Himalayan belt, 31
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license 87
to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2024
B. K. Rastogi, Nepal Earthquake of 2015, Springer Transactions in Civil
and Environmental Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4684-2
88 Index

I Munger-Saharsa ridge, 24, 29, 31

India, 1–3, 17, 21–23 Muzaffarabad, 2
Indian plate, 30, 32–34 Muzaffarabad, Kashmir earthquake of
Indus -Tsangpo suture, 17, 18 2005, 2
Intensity, 22, 24, 26, 27
Interferometry, 11
Intraplate, 68 N
Isoseismal, 24, 26, 27 National Disaster Response Force (NDRF),
71, 77–79
Nepal, 1–3, 5–10, 12–15, 19–25, 27–34
J Nepal earthquake of 1255, 2, 21
Jabalpur earthquake of 1997, 2 Nepal earthquake of 1833, 21
Nepal earthquake of 1934, 2, 21–24, 26, 29,
31–33
K Nepal earthquake of 1988, 2
Kangra, 2 Nepal (Gorkha) earthquake of 2015, 1, 5,
Kangra earthquake of 1905, 2 20, 58
Kashmir, 2
Kashmir earthquake of 1885, 2
Kathmandu, 5–15, 24–30 O
Kathmandu basin, 1, 37, 39 Omori’s Law, 67
Kathmandu valley, 2, 5, 6, 11, 17, 19, 20, Outer Himalaya, 34
24, 26, 35, 37, 38, 40–43, 45
Koyna, 2
Koyna earthquake of 1967, 2 P
Kumaon, 2 Paleoseismological, Palaeoseismology, 30
Kutch, 2 Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA or pga),
Kutch earthquake of 1819, 2 12, 14, 15, 36, 37, 39
Peak Ground Displacement (PGD), 12, 36
Peak Ground Velocity (PGV), 12, 36
L Probabilistic seismic hazard, 5
Ladakh, 2 Propagation velocity, 6, 15
Landslide, 47, 48, 50, 54, 55, 57–59 Punjab Himalaya, 33, 34
Latur (Killari) earthquake of 1993, 2
Lesser Himalaya, 3, 7, 17–20, 31, 32, 34
Liquefaction, 26–29 R
Liquefaction susceptibility, 40 Rate of decay of aftershocks, 63, 67
Loma Prieta Californian earthquake of Rehabilitation, 71, 79
1989, 1 Repair and reconstruction, 75, 76
Rescue & relief, 71, 79
Resonance frequencies, 38
M Retrofitting, 61
Magnitude, 1, 2 Rupture area, 8, 9, 26, 29
Main Boundary Fault (Thrust), 18 Rupture duration, 6, 9, 10, 15
Main Central Thrust, 5, 7, 11, 18 Rupture length, 9, 25, 29, 30
Main Frontal Thrust (Main Himalayan Rupture process, 5, 6, 14
Thrust), 8, 17, 22, 30, 31 Rupture propagation, 6, 9, 12, 15
Mainshock, 7, 11, 14, 15 Rupture zone, 6–8, 11, 13, 15, 28, 30, 31, 33
Mass movements (landslides, slope
failures), 39
Meizoseismal area, 48 S
Modified Mercalli (MM) intensity scale, 2, Search and Rescue (SAR), 71, 78
15 Seismic hazard, 1
Mt. Everest, 5, 12 Seismicity, 1
Index 89

Seismic moment, 6, 8, 10–12, 15, 29 Synthetic Aperture Radar Interferometer

Seismograph, 6, 9 (InSAR), 6, 8, 9, 11
Seismological parameters, 5
Seismotectonic, 8, 9
Shillong, 2 T
Shillong earthquake of 1897, 2 Tectonics, 5, 11, 19
Shillong plateau, 34 Teleseismic broadband seismograph, 6, 10
Shivalicks, Siwalik, Sivalik, 19, 28, 30, 34 Tethyan sedimentary series, 18
Sikkim earthquake of 2011, 2 Thrust fault, 11, 14
Slip-modeling, 8, 10
Spectral acceleration, 36, 39
Strain, 2, 30–32 U
Strong ground motion, 6, 12 Uttarkashi, 2
Structural damages, 30 Uttarkashi earthquake of 1991, 2