Dedicated to the people who lost their lives and injured by the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake

A QUICK REPORT
ON
THE 2015 GORKHA (NEPAL) EARTHQUAKE
AND
ITS GEO-ENGINEERING ASPECTS

*mer AYDAN
University of the Ryukyus, Dept. of Civil Engng. & Architecture, Okinawa, JAPAN
*Resat ULUSAY
Hacettepe University, Dept. of Geological Engng., 06800 Beytepe, Ankara, TURKEY
(* Member of IAEG)

INTRODUCTION
The Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake (Mw7.8) occurred at 11:56 NST on 25 April 2015 with an
epicentre 77 km (48 miles) northwest of Kathmandu, the capital city of Nepal, that is home to
nearly 1.5 million inhabitants, and at a focal depth of approximately 10-15 km (Figure 1). This
earthquake was the one of the most powerful earthquakes to strike Nepal since the 1934
Nepal-Bihar earthquake (Mw8.1). Based on the information by the United Nations, eight
million people have been affected by the massive 2015 earthquake in Nepal, more than a
quarter of the Nepals population.

Figure 1. Map showing the epicentre of the 2015 Nepal earthquake

The April 25, 2015 earthquake occurred about 200 km west of the 1934 earthquake. Nepal,
which constitutes a part of Himalaya region, was also hit by other earthquakes occurred in
1964, 1988 during the instrumental period. The region belongs to Himalaya Arc, which was
suffered very large earthquakes with a moment magnitude of 7.5 or more in 1100, 1505, 1555,
1724, 1803, 1833, 1897, 2005, 1947, 1950, 2005, 1833 during the instrumental period and
historical period, respectively (Bilham, 2004, 2009; Bilham et al., 2001).
The earthquake mainly resulted in about loss of more than 7400 people as of May 4, 2015 and
it may rise again in the coming days as collapsed and heavy damaged structures cleared away

(Figure 2). Particularly in Nepal, historic buildings and temples were destroyed, leaving massive
piles of debris in streets.

Figure 2. Damage to buildings and historical monuments

This earthquake induced many mass movements in mountainous areas and resulted in
landslide lakes, which could be another cause of secondary disasters. The mass movements
and deformation of weathered soft soil cover are the main causes of the collapse or heavy
damage to buildings and heavy casualties in mountainous areas (Figure 3a). In addition, the
earthquake also triggered a major avalanche on the south slopes of Mt. Everest, located
approximately 160 km east-northeast of the epicentre. The avalanche destroyed the base
camp of climbers. According to reports, the avalanche killed at least 17 people and injured 61
others. The earthquake also triggered avalanches in Himalayas, killing some people. Some
other adjoining countries such as India, China and Bangladesh were also affected by the
earthquake with causalities (Figure 3b).

Figure 3. Collapsed buildings due to surficial plastic deformation of slopes and the avalanche at
Mt. Everest
GLOBAL AND REGIONAL TECTONICS OF NEPAL AND ITS CLOSE VICINITY
Apparently, about 225 million years ago, the Indian continent was a large island situated off
the Australian coast. A vast ocean called the Tethys Sea separated the Indian continent from
the rest of the Asian continent. Later when Pangea began to break apart, India began to move
northward. About 80 million years ago, India was located just south of the Asian continent,
moving northward at a rate of about 9 m a century. Eventually India collided with Eurasia
about 40 to 50 million years ago, and its northward advance slowed by about half. The
Himalayas are also in continuous motion. Himalaya mountain range constitutes the northern
plate boundary of the Indian plate. Chaman fault in the west and Sagaing fault in the east is
the transform plate boundaries. While Chaman fault is a sinistral fault, the Sagaing fault is a
dextral fault. The indentation of the Indian plate into Euroasia resulted in the formation of
Altyn Tagh and Karakorum faults in the central Asia (Figure 4).
Himalayan Frontal Thrust (HFT), the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) and Main Central Thrust
(MCT) are the main faults in the region and they are part of the Great Himalayan range (Figure
5). Presently the main tectonic displacement zone is the Himalayan Frontal Thrust Fault (HFTF)
System, which comprises Himalayan Frontal Fault at the edge of the Indo-Gangetic plains, and
several active anticlines and synclines to the north. The Himalayan front in the western Nepal
is characterized by several discontinuous segments of the HFT and its subsidiary faults (Figure
6).

Figure 4. Tectonic features of Indian plate and its close vicinity (Aydan, 2006)

Figure 5. Main tectonic elements in the earthquake affected area (from Sapkota et al., 2013)
Nepal has been divided into three major tectonic zones (Figure 6), namely, Main Central Thrust
(MCT), Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) and Himalayan Frontal Fault (HFF) (Piya, 2004). According
to Nakata and Kumahara (2002), many active faults are distributed along the major tectonic
boundaries. These faults were produced by the collision of the Indian Plate with the Eurasian
Plate. A cross-section of the Nepal Himalayas running from SSW-NNE is shown in Figure 10.
Saijo et al. (1995) and Yagi et al. (2000) reported the existence of active faults in the SW part
the Kathmandu basin and they are cutting the Late Pleistocene sediments and have a vertical
displacement rate of 1 mm/yr.

Figure 6. Distribution of the active faults in and around Nepal Himalaya (from Nakata and
Kumahara 2002)
Crustal deformation measurements have been carried out to observe the motions of crustal
plates by International GPS service. Although some local GPS networks are used in both
Pakistan and India, the measurements at GPS stations are not always continuous. A rough
estimation of the crustal straining in the vicinity in the Indian Plate and close vicinity was
carried out using the measured annual deformation rates of GPS stations, namely, BAHR
(Bahrain), IISC (India), KIT3 (Uzbekistan) and LHAS (Tibet) by Aydan (2006). The strain rates of
the elements are given in Table 1. The annual deformation rates and strains are shown in
Figure 7. As noted from the computational results, the principal direction of crustal strain is
NE-SW and it ranges between 12 and 28 degrees from north.
Table 1. Computed annual strain rates
Element

1
( s / year )

3
( s / year )

(radian)

7.45044

-20.1116

-50.0149E-02

8.73246

13.3154

-22.4190E-02

Figure 7. Crustal deformation rates and strain rates in the Indian plate and its close vicinity
(from Aydan, 2006)

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EARTHQUAKE

The earthquake occurred in Gorkha district near the village of Barpak, which was completely
destroyed by the earthquake. The distribution of aftershocks, which extend up to 130 km to
the east of the epicenter, suggests that the rupture have propagated from west to east,
potentially leading to more severe destruction in Kathmandu. Most of the aftershocks were at
the relatively shallow depth of less than 15 kms below the Earth's surface (Figure 8).

Figure 8. The location of the main shock and the distribution of aftershocks (data from USGS
and base map from Google-Earth)

The estimated magnitude of the earthquake varies from 7.7 to 7.9 depending upon the
institutes and USGS assigned the moment magnitude of the 2015 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake
as 7.8. The epicentre of the earthquake estimated from the different institutes is located in
Gorkha district while the epicentre by Harvard is very close to Kathmandu (Figure 9). The 2015
Nepal earthquake occurred as the result of thrust faulting on or near the main frontal thrust
between the subducting India plate and the overriding Eurasia plate to the north. The rupture
plane strikes parallel to the Himalayan Belt WNW to ESE, and dips with 11 to the North. The
rupture duration and relative slip range between 45-60 seconds and 4-5 m. The estimated
length, slip and rupture duration of the earthquake fault for a moment magnitude of 7.8 are
132 km, 6 m and 67 seconds from the empirical relations developed by Aydan (2007, 2012),
respectively. The preliminary location, size and focal mechanism of the April 25 earthquake are
consistent with its occurrence on the main subduction thrust interface between the India and
Eurasia plates (i.e. Bilham et al., 2001; Bilham, 2004, 2009).

Figure 9. Focal plane solutions, depth and magnitude of the 2015 Gorkha earthquake (from
EMSC, 2015) (Red line corresponds to the causative Himalaya Frontal Thrust Fault (HFTF))
(www.emsc-csem.org, EMSC, 2015)

There are several preliminary intensity maps based on the accessible districts. According to
these preliminary intensity maps on the MMI scale, intensity VIII was reported for Kathmandu
(Figure 10). However, it is very likely that it may be up to IX-X in Gorkha district when the
information becomes available from presently inaccessible regions. For example, the aerial
photos imply that the Barpak village was completely destroyed and this may imply that the
intensity may be almost X on MMI scale.

Figure 10. Intensity map for the 2015 Nepal earthquake (www.mapsoftworld.com, 2015)
The strong motion network of Nepal is quite limited. Nevertheless, there are strong motion
stations at Gorkha, Kathmandu and Everest in the earthquake-affected area. However, the
records at these stations are not available yet. Nevertheless, the Kanti-Path (Kathmandu)
recorded the maximum ground acceleration of 0.164 g. It was noted that the record was
dominated by the long-period components of acceleration, which may be affected by the soft
sedimentary basin effects on the duration and amplification of shaking in Kathmandu Valley.
The USGS preliminary estimation of the maximum ground acceleration (PGA) in the epicentral
area was about 0.35g and 0.1-0.15g for Kathmandu as shown in Figure 11. The authors tried to
estimate the ground motions using the empirical relations developed by Aydan (Aydan and
Ohta, 2011; Aydan, 2007, 2012) as shown in Figure 12. The estimations shown in Figure 12 are
for base accelerations and the estimated ground acceleration are high at the epicentral area.

Figure 11. Maximum ground acceleration (www.usgs.gov; USGS, 2015)

Figure 12. Maximum ground acceleration based on the relations of Aydan (2007, 2012)

Although the available data are quite limited, an attempt was made on the attenuation of
maximum ground accelerations. Figure 13 shows the attenuation of strong motion together
with observed and inferred data from the collapsed or toppled structures. The data is roughly
consistent with available empirical relations proposed by various researchers.

Figure 13. Comparison of various empirical relations for attenuation of maximum ground
acceleration with observed and inferred data
India and China also have their own strong motion networks. It was reported that none of the
strong motion sensors of the Indian strong motion network was triggered due to poor
maintenance of the network sensors. There is no data from the network of China as it is not
open to international access, which happened to be the case in Wenchuan earthquake also.

BRIEF GEOLOGY OF NEPAL AND KATHMANDU AND SURROUNDINGS

Nepal is located in the centre of the Himalayan concave chain, and is almost rectangular in
shape with about 870 km length in the NWW-SEE and 130-260 km in N-S direction. The Main
Frontal Thrust (MFT) system consists of two or three thrust sheets composed entirely of
Siwalik rocks, from bottom to top mudstone, multi-storied sandstone and conglomerate
(Chamlagain and Gautam, 2015). These sedimentary foreland basin deposits form an archive of
the final stage of the Himalayan upheaval and record the most recent tectonic events in the
entire history of Himalayan evolution since ~14 Ma. The northernmost thrust sheet of the MFT
is truncated by the Lesser Himalayan sequence and overlain by unmetamorphosed to weakly
metamorphosed rocks of the Lesser Himalaya, where the Lesser Himalayan rock package is
thrust over the Siwalik Group along Main Boundary Thrust (MBT). In western Himalaya
crystalline thrust sheets are frequently observed within the Lesser Himalaya (LH). The Lesser
Himalayan zone generally forms a duplex above the mid crustal ramp (Schelling and Arita,
1991; Srivastava and Mitra, 1994; Decelles et al., 2001). The Main Central Thrust (MCT) system
overlies the Lesser Himalayan MBT system and was formed in ca. 24 Ma. This MCT system
consists of high-grade rocks, e.g. kyanite-sillimanite gneiss, schist and quartzite and is mostly
characterized by ductile deformation.

Figure 14. Geological map of Nepal (after Upreti and Le Fort, 1999) (LH: lesser Himalaya; HH:
higher Himalaya; TTS: Tibetan-Tethys sequence; STDS: South Tibetan detachment
system)

The Kathmandu valley, where the 2015 Nepal earthquake caused heavy damage, comprises of
thick semi-consolidated fluvio-lacustrine Quaternary sediments on the top of basement rocks
(Figure 15). Piya (2004) reports that the maximum thickness of the valley sediments reaches
up to 550 m at the central part of the valley and the basement rocks composed of Precambrian
to Devonian rocks, such as limestone, dolomite, slate, marble, schist, meta-sandstone, phylitte,
quartzite. The shear wave velocity of the soft sedimentary deposits ranges between 167 m/s
and 297 m/s and ground amplification may be ranging between 1.9 and 7.9 according to
Chamlagain and Gautam (2015).

Figure 15. (a) Geological map of the Kathmandu valley, (b) schematic geological cross-section
along N-S (after Sakai, 2001)

GEO-ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF THE EARTHQUAKE

(a) Mass Movements (Landslides, Slope Failures)
The epicentral area is very mountainous and valleys are steep. Furthermore, sedimentary rocks
are heavily folded and faulted resulting from the tectonic movements and subjected to
weathering due to intense freezing-thawing cycles as well as water-content variations. The
mass movements are quite similar to those observed recently in the 2005 Kashmir earthquake
and 2008 Wenchuan earthquake (Aydan et al., 2009a, 2009b, 2009c). According to satellite
imagery and aerial photographs (ReliefWeb, NASA, Mass media reports), huge mass
movements were caused by the earthquake (Figure 16). The common forms of mass
movements can be categorized as surficial plastic deformations of top soil or weathered zone,
planar and wedge sliding and flexural or block toppling. When these mass movements are of
large scale, there is a strong possibility of large valley-blocking mass movements triggered by
the Nepal earthquake in the high mountainous areas. Such debris dams were already spotted
in satellite images (ReliefWeb, NASA and Indian Space Research Organization). The mass
movements were observed in Gorkha district as well as Tibetan side of Himalayas (Figure 1619).

Figure 16. A satellite image of mass movements (28.36N;85.35E) (from Indian Space Research
Organization (ISRO): nrsc.gov.in, 2015)

Figure 17. Surficial failure or surficial plastic deformation

Figure 18. Various scale rock slope failures and rock falls

Figure 19. Large-scale mass movements

(b) Liquefaction and Liquefaction Induced Ground Failures
After the devastating 1934 Nepal earthquake, Rana (1935) reported about the occurrence of
liquefaction at some of the places in the Kathmandu valley in his book entitled Great
Earthquake of Nepal. Reports from previous major earthquakes of Nepal, such as the one
from 1934, give evidence that substantial damage to buildings and infrastructures occurred in
Kathmandu valley as a result of widespread liquefaction (Piya, 2004). The comparison between
the two liquefaction susceptibility maps prepared for the Kathmandu valley (Figure 20)
indicates that in this region, a large area is susceptible to liquefaction and its effects.
Although detailed information on the occurrence of liquefaction during this earthquake has
not been reported yet, CEDIM (2015) reports that besides the impact caused directly by
ground shaking, secondary effects like liquefaction posed an additional threat. Some pictures

from Kathmandu clearly confirmed that liquefaction did occur in Kathmandu (Figures 21 and
22). In addition, ground liquefaction did occur in even Bihar region of India.

Figure 20. Comparison between the liquefaction susceptibility map prepared by JICA (2002) for
the 1934 Nepal earthquake and that prepared by Piya (2004) for the Kathmandu
valley

Figure 21. Views of liquefaction induced by the 2015 Gorkha earthquake

Figure 22. Location of liquefaction observed in Kathmandu on the liquefaction susceptibility

map by OCHA, 1993)
(c) Roadway Damages
The roadway embankments in Kathmandu City suffered some damage in the form of
subsidence and lateral spreading as seen in Figure 23. As Kathmandu City is on the hangingwall side of the earthquake fault, permanent deformations resulting from the faulting may
cause some damage. Nevertheless, the sedimentary deposits beneath Kathmandu City are
more than 500 m, surface ruptures likely to be diluted within the sedimentary deposits. It is
very likely that improper compaction, lateral spreading of sidewalls and subsidence of
saturated soil beneath the embankments would be the potential causes as expected from
various geotechnical investigations in Kathmandu.
(d) Damage to Bridges
There is no report yet about the damage to bridges. Figure 24 shows two bridges. The bridge in
Kathmandu City is a two span-simply supported reinforced concrete structure. The bridge
appears to be functional despite a nearby reinforced concrete building collapsed in a pan-cake

mode. Bridge in Gorhka district is a single-span truss bridge. This bridge is also non-damaged
despite it was located in the epicentral area.

Figure 23. Damage and settlement of roadway embankments

(a) Kathmandu

(b) Gorhka district

Figure 24. Views of bridges in Kathmandu and Gorhka district

(d) Utility Poles

Utility poles are either made of reinforced concrete or steel. The damage to these utility 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.
Figure 25 shows some examples of damage to utility poles in Kathmandu City.

Figure 25. Damage to utility poles in Kathmandu City

(e) Damage to Dams
Nepal has been trying to improve the energy shortage by building dams along major rivers.
However, these dams along major rivers are all located within the earthquake-prone areas.
Mass 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. There is no report of damage by the earthquake at other
hydropower dam sites, yet.
STRUCTURAL DAMAGES
(a) Building Damages
The shallow depth of the quake and the nature of Kathmandu valley have contributed to the
high losses in the capital of Nepal. However, it should be noted that the quality of construction

and materials of buildings is very poor. Many recently built reinforced concrete structures
failed in a pan-cake mode due to improper column-beam connections (Figure 26). Furthermore,
many brick structures collapsed or heavily damaged due to the use of poor mortar (mainly
earth) material and tie-beams and slabs within the walls (Figure 27). The walls of houses were
built as dry-masonry and their resistances are mainly due to frictional forces. In addition,
plastic deformation of their foundation on sloping ground due to ground shaking was another
cause of collapse and heavy damage as seen in Figures 2 and 17. Although Nepal has been
trying to improve its safety and infrastructure by updating building codes for more than two
decades, the efforts were not sufficient.

Figure 26. Views from RC building damages caused by the 2015 Nepal earthquake
(b) Damage to Monuments
Historical monuments as well as religious structures associated with budism suffered
tremendous damage induced by the 2015 Gorhka earthquake. Most of these structures are of
masonry type using bricks and earth-mortar as a bonding-agent. Figure 28 shows the damage
to major historical momental structures in Kathmandu. Among them Dharahara Tower, which
was 9 story high and built in 1832, was completely destroyed by the earthquake as seen In
Figure 28a. Similarly Maju Deval Temple completely collapsed as seen in Figure 28b.

Figure 27. Views from brick masonry building damages caused by the 2015 Nepal earthquake
(a)

(b)

Figure 28. Before and after pictures of Nepal showing the extent of the devastation: (a)
Dharahara Tower, (b) Maju Deval Temple-Durbar Square

ATTENTION
This quick note is prepared with a sole purpose of summarizing the information available from
various sources, which may be useful for damage investigation teams to be dispatched to the
earthquake stricken area. The pictures and figures are obtained from various sources with due
references available in various web-sites. If anything is not referred, it is not done intentionally
and the authors apologize for that.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The information provided by J. Itoh of Orient Consultants, Tokyo (Japan) is gratefully
acknowledged. The major sources of pictures relevant to the aspects of this document are
obtained from the following web-sites and they are gratefully acknowledged for providing and
sharing the information through images and reports of the earthquake.
Institute or Establishment

URL Address (http://www.)

Google-Earth
Google-map
Kashmir
NOAA
NASA
UN-ReliefWeb
EERI
PEER
JSCE
AIJ
JAEE
EFFIT
MCEER
FLICKR (Yahoo)
PICASAWEB
MSNBC
USGS
EMSC
HARVARD
TU-ERI
IPGP
New York Times
BBC
CNN
Washington Post
National Geographic
Huffington Post
Telegraph
UNAVCO
Indian Space Research Organization

earth.google.com
maps.google.co.jp/
kashmir3d.com
noaa.gov/
earthobservatory.nasa.gov
reliefweb.int
eeri.org
peer.berkeley.edu
jsce.org.jp
aij.or.jp
jaee.or.jp
istructe.org/knowledge/EEFIT/
mceer.buffalo.edu
flickr.com
picasaweb.google.com
msnbc.msn.com
earthquake.usgs.gov
emsc-csem.org
globalcmt.org
eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp
geoscope.ipgp.fr
nytimes.com
bbc.com
cnn.com
washingtonpost.com
nationalgeographic.com
huffingonpost.com
telegraph.co.uk
unavco.org
nrsc.gov.in

REFERENCES
Aydan, (2001) Comparison of suitability of submerged tunnel and shield tunnel for subsea
passage of Bosphorus. Geological Engineering Journal, 25 (1), 1-17 (in Turkish).
Aydan, (2006) Geological and seismological aspects of Kashmir earthquake of October 8,
2005 and a geotechnical evaluation of induced failures of natural and cut slopes. Journal of
the School of Marine Science and Technology, 4 (1), 25-44.
http://www2.scc.u-tokai.ac.jp/www3/kiyou/pdf/2006vol4_1/omer.pdf
Aydan, 2007Inference of seismic characteristics of possible earthquakes and liquefaction
and landslide risks from active faults. The 6th National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering of Turkey, Istanbul, Vol.1, pp. 563-574 (in Turkish).
Aydan, (2012) Ground motions and deformations associated with earthquake faulting and
their effects on the safety of engineering structures. Encyclopedia of Sustainability
Science and Technology, Springer, R. Meyers (Ed.), pp. 3233-3253.
Aydan, ., Ohta, Y (2011) A new proposal for strong ground motion estimations with the
consideration of characteristics of earthquake fault. Seventh National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey Paper No 65, 10 p.
Aydan, ., Ohta, S., Hamada, M (2009a) Geotechnical evaluation of slope and ground failures
during the 8 October 2005 Muzaffarabad earthquake, Pakistan. Journal of Seismology
13 (3), 399-413.
Aydan, ., Hamada, M., Itoh, J., Ohkubo, K (2009b) Damage to civil engineering structures
with an emphasis on rock slope failures and tunnel damage induced by the 2008
Wenchuan earthquake. Journal of Disaster Research, 4 (2), 153-164.
Aydan, ., Y. Ohta, M., Hamada, J. Ito, K., Ohkubo, K (2009c) The characteristics of the 2008
Wenchuan earthquake disaster with a special emphasis on rock slope failures, quake
lakes and damage to tunnels. Journal of the School of Marine Science and Technology,
Tokai University, 7 (2), 1-23
Bilham, R (2004) Earthquakes in India and the Himalaya: tectonics, geodesy and history. Annals
of Geophysics, 47 (2), 839-858.
Bilham, R (2009). The seismic future of cities. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 7, 839887.
Bilham, R., Gaur, V.K., Molnar, P (2001) Himalayan seismic hazard. Science, 293, 14421444
Campbell, K.W. (1981) Near source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration. Bulletin of
Seismological Society of America, 71(6), 2039-2070.
CEDIM, 2015. Nepal earthquake report No. 1
(www.cedim.de/download/CEDIM_ImpactSummary_ earthquakeNepal2015_Report1)

Chamlagain, D., Gautam, D (2015) Seismic hazard in the Himalayan Intermontane Basins: An
example from Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Mountain Hazards and Disaster Risk
Reduction, pp. 73-103.
Decelles, P.G., Robinson, D.M., Quade, J., Ojha, T.P., Garzione, C.N., Copeland, P., Upreti, B.N.
(2001) Stratigraphy, structure, and tectonic evolution of the Himalayan fold-thrust belt in
western Nepal. Tectonics, 20, 487509.
Fukushima, Y., Tanaka, T., Kataoka, S (1988) A new attenuation relationship for peak ground
acceleration derived from strong motion accelerograms.. 9th World Congress of
Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, pp. 343-348.
JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) (2002) The study of earthquake disaster
mitigation in the Kathmandu valley, Kingdom of Nepal. Final Report, Vol. I, II, II, IV.
Joyner, W.B., Boore, D.M. (1981) Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong motion
records from the 1979 Imperial Valley California Earthquake. Bulletin of Seismological
Society of America, 71(6), 2011-2038.
Nakata, T., Kumahara, Y (2002) Active faulting across the Himalaya and its significance in the
collision tectonics. Active Fault Research, 22, 716.
OCHA (1993) Liquefaction hazard map of Kathmandu Valley floor area (1993 Survey). United
Nations for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, New York.
Piya, B.K. (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, 141 p.
Rana, B.S.J.B. (1935) Nepal Ko Maha Bhukampa (The Great Earthquake of Nepal). Second
Edition, Kathmandu.
Saijo, K., Kimora, K., Dongol, G., Komatsubara, T., Yagi, H (1995) Active faults in south western
Kathmandu basin, central Nepal. Journal of Nepal Geological Society, 11 (Special Issue),
217-224.
Sapkota, S.N., Bollinger, L., Klinger, Y., Tapponier, P., Gaudemer, Y., Tiwari, D (2013) Primary
surface ruptures of the great Himalayan earthquakes in 1934 and 1255. Nature Geoscience,
6, 7176.
Sakai, H (2001) Stratigraphic division sedimentary facies of the Kathmandu basin group,
Central Nepal. Journal of Nepal Geological Society, 25 (Special issue), 1932.
Schelling, D., Arita, K (1991) Thrust tectonics, crustal shortening and the structure of the far
eastern Nepal Himalaya. Tectonics, 10, 851862.
Srivastava, P., Mitra, G (1994) Thrust geometries and deep structure of the outer and lesser
Himalaya, Kumaon and Garhwal (India): implications for evolution of the fold-and-thrust
belt. Tectonics, 13, 89109.

Ulusay, R., Tuncay, E., Sonmez, H., Gokceoglu, C (2004) An attenuation relationship based on
Turkish strong motion data and iso-acceleration map of Turkey. Engineering Geology, 74,
265-291.
Upreti, B.N., Le Fort, P (1999) Lesser Himalayan crystalline nappes of Nepal: problem of their
origin. In: Macfarlane A, Quade J, Sorkhabi R (eds), Geological Society of America special
paper, Vol 328, pp. 225238.
Yagi, H., Maemoku, H., Ohtsuki, Y., Saiju, K., Nakata, T (2000) Recent activities faults
distributed in and around Kathmandu valley, Lower Himalayan zone. Proceedings of the
Active Fault Research for the New Millennium, pp. 557-560.