Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned fromthe 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, March 1-4, 2012, Tokyo, JapanEVALUATION OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
PRACTICES-- A LESSON LEARNT FROM KASHMIR
EARTHQUAKE -Zaheer Abbas KAZMI1, Tauqir AHMED2, Umair SALEEM3 and Muhammad IRFAN4
1

Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tokyo,
Tokyo, Japan, kazmi@iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp
2
Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tokyo,
Tokyo, Japan, tauqir@ip.civil.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
3
Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tokyo,
Tokyo, Japan, mumair@iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp
4
Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tokyo,
Tokyo, Japan, mirfan1@geot.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp

ABSTRACT: An intense earthquake of magnitude 7.6, known as Kashmir Earthquake,
jolted northern areas of Pakistan and Pakistan administrated Kashmir on October 8th,
2005. The affected area has a rugged mountainous terrain with extreme weather
conditions and was never exposed to such a serious seismic activity in the recent history.
Therefore, the event was responsible for the destruction of buildings, infrastructures andearth slopes. The authors have been surveying the devastated areas to assess the damage
pattern, proposed methods for improved design/construction and lack of their practices.
Key Words: Kashmir Earthquake, design and construction practices, damages, lack ofapplication, lessons learnt

INTRODUCTION
An intense earthquake of magnitude 7.6, known as Kashmir Earthquake, jolted northern areas ofPakistan and Pakistan administrated Kashmir at 08:50 (03:50UTC) on October 8th, 2005. The epicenterof the earthquake was located at latitude of 34.493oN, longitude of 73.629oE and focal depth of about
26 km (United States Geological Survey (USGS)). This is the location, around 90 km north-northeast
of Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad and 20 km northeast of Muzaffarabad, local capital of Pakistan
administrated Jammu and Kashmir. The highest numbers of aftershocks (122) were recorded on
October 9th, 2005 with a significant drop of aftershocks in subsequent days. The total aftershocks were
1778 at the end of 2005 (Pakistan Meteorological department, 2006). The earthquake resulted in morethan 86,000 fatalities, 10500 people injured, 400,000 houses destroyed and 2.8 million people left
homeless in northern Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir (EEFIT mission, 2006), and is by far oneof the deadliest in the sub-continent.

1846

This earthquake was resulted from reactivation of northwest-striking fault, later defined as the
Balakot–Bagh fault (Figure 1). The surface expression of the causative fault extends between Baghand Balakot through Muzaffarabad (Geological Survey of Pakistan (GSP), 2006). The fault has reverse
separation with northeast side moved up which has been verified by high crustal deformation fromsatellite data and fault modeling. The earthquake caused a widespread destruction in a wide belt along
the total length of the fault. The area is characterized by its rugged mountainous terrain with limited
communication structures connecting the sparse settlements. The devastated area is also recognized by
the severe environmental conditions (especially very cold winter) and the residential structures wereconstructed with heavy roofs and thick walls to ensure the survival in these extreme environmental
conditions. Due to the poor economical conditions, settlements in the mountainous ranges are the first
choice for common people as compared to the flat land, which is more expensive. Moreover, theimportant/official structures were not designed properly for such an intense shake while the common
residential dwellings were constructed without any design provisions. The earthquake was severe
enough to destroy these structures. The city of Muzaffarabad and Balakot town were the nearest
settlements to the epicenter, and they were the most heavily damaged (Figure 2).

Fig. 1 Simplified geological map of the devastated area with overlaid fault map (Kazmi et al., 2010
after Ahmed et al. 2009). The major devastated cities are Muzaffarabad, Bagh and Balakot.
The authors have been surveying the devastated area since the occurrence of the Earthquake andhave summarized their findings into three stages along the time scale. First stage comprises of twomonths after the earthquake. In this stage, the damage contributed by earthquake is evaluated; thedamage to buildings, residential houses, non engineered structures and geotechnical structures isdiscussed. Second stage comprises of two years after the earthquake. This stage summarizes the work

1847

presented by different researchers for proper site selection and design/construction methodologies todevelop safe settlements. Establishment of different governing bodies for reconstruction andrehabilitation of infrastructures and measures taken by these societies are summarized in this stage.
Third stage comprises of two year after the earthquake to date, emphasizing the change in construction
type, improvement in construction techniques in the local society, and concern of seismic safety during
construction. All the three stages are summarized in detail in the following sections.

Fig. 2 Devastation caused by Kashmir Earthquake in Muzaffarabad and Balakot cities

STAGE-1: TWO MONTHS AFTER THE EARTHQUAKEKashmir Earthquake was different in many aspects as compared to other historical earthquakes.
Although, there were known active faults (Muzaffarabad and Tanda faults, mapped by Nakata et al. in
1991, later comprehensively defined as Balakot-Bagh fault (Figure 1)) in the region, there is no history
of intensive ground shaking in the preceding few decades. In most of the developing countries,
disaster response is event driven instead of being preemptive. Similarly, citing the dormant seismic
history of Kashmir region, there was no concept of seismic safety either at administrative or individuallevels. The affected area has a rugged mountainous terrain with extreme weather conditions. Therefore,
the residential dwellings were developed considering only their environmental vulnerability.
Extent of Damage
The strong ground shaking caused a variety of damages including infrastructure damages, extensive
landslides and damage to residential houses and other structures. Close to 400,000 houses were fully
destroyed and damaged leaving about 2.8 million people without shelters (EEFIT mission, 2006).
Out-dated design codes without seismic consideration, poor construction materials, poor site-selection
and non-engineered structures were the prime reasons of extensive damage to residential buildings.
Damage to buildings and residential houses
As is discussed, the devastated area has a rugged mountainous terrain with very limited flat terraces.
These flat terraces are well congested and the land price is beyond the approach of majority. Therefore,a fair number of population lives along the hill slopes (Figure 3a), building their dwelling against the1848natural slopes (Figure 3b) or on the soft deposits. These sites are vulnerable and have the tendency tomagnify the earthquake effects. A large number of houses, with their back walls against the hill slopes,
have been damaged during the earthquake due to increased pressure from the soil behind (Figure 4).
abFig. 3 a) A view of the Muzaffarabad city showing that a considerable number of population is living
along the hill slopes behind flat terraces b) A typical example of the poor site selection, a common
construction approach along the hillside (Photos by Kazmi, 2007)

Fig. 4 Houses collapsed during the Kashmir earthquake with their rear walls damaged by increased
earth pressure from the hill slope.
In addition to the poor site selection, lack of seismic considerations in design and construction wasa prime reason for this massive devastation and death toll. Use of locally available stone and concrete
blocks in construction is a state-of-the-art approach for construction of houses. Majority of theresidential houses were made of stone or hollow concrete block masonry with corrugated iron roofs
resting on timber trusses. The primary load bearing members were the masonry walls. Complete
structural collapse was observed due to failure of such walls in out-of-plane bending and in-plane
shear. Majority of the public structures (schools, colleges, hospitals etc.), which are supposed to be
designed for a higher level of service and importance factor, also had similar structural systems as thatof the residential houses. The ground shaking was large enough to partially or fully collapse all such
constructions (Figure 5). A death toll of more than 15000 school children witnesses the extent ofdamage to school and colleges.
Landslides and slope failures
Strong ground shaking triggered a large number of landslides and slope failures. The total number oflandslides identified by using SPOT 5 images counted to be 2424 (Sato et al, 2006). The largest

1849example is the Hattain Bala landslide (Figure 6a), an 85 million m3 soil mass (Dunning et al., 2007)
that moved down the slope flushing the whole village settled on it and killing almost 200 people. The
soil mass blocked two tributaries of Jhelum River and created a huge landslide dam, which later
breached in 2010 and caused flooding to its downstream. In addition to such huge landslides, suficial
slope failure appeared in wide belt along the total stretch of Balakot-Bagh fault (Figure 6b). This slope
failure created a huge amount of debris material which moved down the creeks during the heavy rainsof monsoon and hit the inhabitants along the valleys.

Fig. 5 Girls Degree College Rawalakot (left photo) and Boys Degree College Hajira (right photo) weretotally collapsed during the earthquake. The structural system for both the buildings was load bearingstone masonry walls with different roofing system (Photo by Kazmi, 2006)baFig. 6 Landslides and slope failures caused by Kashmir Earthquake a) Hattain Bala landslide b)
surficial slope failure along Balakot-Bagh fault (Photos by Kazmi, 2008)

STAGE-2 TWO YEARS AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE
Construction, rehabilitation, strengthening and retrofitting of the infrastructure in the devastated areasof Kashmir Earthquake were prominent research topics during the two year (approximately) from thedate of earthquake (Kumahara and Nakata 2006, Peiris, 2005, Sato et al. 2006 etc). Particularly, forseismic resistant house, a good number of procedures are proposed in the literature (Dowling et al.,2005 and Sathiparan et al., 2008). In that time, public sector was also interested to develop theguidelines for seismic resistant construction. Methods and efforts to incorporate the seismic safety in1850

new construction and improve the seismic performance of existing houses are summarized in thefollowing sub-sections.
Establishment of disaster mitigation organizations and interest of public sector to develop
guidelines for seismically safe construction
To cope with the tragic devastation, Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA
hereafter) was established soon after the earthquake. Later in 2006, National Disaster Mitigation
Authority (NDMA hereafter) came into existence. They had a vision to achieve sustainable
development by reducing risk and to recover from disasters. Along with achieving mile stones inrehabilitation and reconstruction work, these organizations played an important role in developing thebasics for safer construction by revising the seismic zoning of the country, establishing/revising thedesign codes, developing the skilled manpower etc. The distinguished contributions by theseorganizations are in followings
Revision of seismic zoning of country and setting seismic provisions in building codes:
Following the earthquake, the major discussion at the national level was to revise the seismic zoningof the country. According to the seismic risk map of Pakistan, 2005 (available from Pakistan
Meteorological department), the whole country was divided into four zones (Zone-1 to Zone-4,
representing low to high seismicity). However, most of the areas devastated by Kashmir Earthquake
lied in Zone-3 (NED, 2007). This indexes the necessity of revision of seismic zoning of the country.
Revised seismic zoning was completed by ERRA in accordance with modified seismicity, and wascritically discussed by few other researchers (Rossetto and Peiris, 2009) as well. Formulation/Revisionof Pakistan Building Code (PBC, 2007) was made possible by the continuous effort of ERRA and mayother organizations/individuals. Revision of seismic zoning and formulation of building codes isdiscussed in step by step process by Shabbir and Ilyas (Shabbir and Ilyas, 2007).
Training the worker for seismically safe construction:
Training of workers to modify the traditional construction style was an important work accomplishedby disaster mitigation authorities. Common construction mistakes/flaws which lead to failure during
the seismic activities were conveyed to the workers by model explanation and other means. For
example, importance of proper joints at wall corners, vertically staggered joints in brick or concrete
block walls, concept of monolithic construction etc.
Public awareness for safe construction:
Disaster mitigation authorities and NGOs invested in the projects of public awareness for safe
construction, because seismic safety was not a major concern during the constructions of houses
before the earthquake (Haseeb et al., 2011). Explanations from model tests and technical brochures,
written in local language, were used as tool to invoke the awareness of seismic safety to general public.
Site selection, type of construction, method of construction, and sizes of openings were the main focusof the model test and technical brochures (Stephenson, 2008).
In essence, the approach of disaster mitigation authorities and NGOs was to educate the people toconsider the seismic safety in new construction and also to introduce simple techniques/approaches
which would be helpful to enhance the seismic safety both in the new construction and existingdwelling.
Seismic safety of adobe houses and non engineered dwellings
State-of –the-art residential buildings in Pakistan are un-reinforced brick masonry buildings (Ali,
2006), stone masonry buildings (Ali and Muhammad, 2007) and reinforced concrete buildings(Badrashi, 2010). Majority of the residential buildings in earthquake affected areas were adobe houses;
constructed by sun-dried mud bricks with mud mortar or burnt bricks with mud or cement sand mortar.
Such dwellings have no resistance to seismic excitation. A good number of procedures are proposed to1851reduce the vulnerability of adobe houses against seismic activity (Smith and Redman, 2009).
Conclusively, increase in tensile strength in horizontal and vertical directions is the prime objective ofsuch procedures. To meet that objective, use of PP-band is suggested by many researchers (Sathiparanat el., 2010, Macabuag and Bhattacharya, 2009). Effectiveness of the PP retrofitted panels against outof plane loading is also claimed (Sathiparan at el., 2008).
Other methods, proposed to reduce the vulnerability of adobe houses against seismic activity, use averity of materials to improve the tensile strength in horizontal and vertical direction. Such as, first;
reinforcement with wire mesh covered with lime or cement mortar (Yamin et al., 2004, Bartolome etal., 2004) second; circumferentially cut straps from used car tyres (Charleson and French, 2008, Tureret al., 2007), third; by using bamboo’s strips on both faces for horizontal and vertical directions(Dowling et al., 2005). The availability of material, workmanship to accomplish the proposed methods,
acceptance and affordability of such methods by local community are more important questions thanthe evaluation of effectiveness of the procedures by laboratory tests or by model tests in the field.
Construction of buildings with 150 mm wide concert blocks or fired bricks supporting heavy
concrete slab, non-engineered concrete frames with in-filled brick/stone masonry are common in thesemi urban areas. For safety of non engineered houses, ERRA proposed general guidelines for opening
sizes and locations, reinforcement details, joint details, x-sections of beams and columns etc. Many
foreign and local NGOs have also been contributing to accomplish this purpose. Some NGOs andother organizations claim that they have introduced some effective concepts for seismic retrofitting ofhouses in devastated areas of Kashmir Earthquake like, seismic strips, techniques to effectively join
the timber post to make rafters of trusses (Stephenson 2008).
Seismic safety of engineered-buildings
Methods and Procedures for seismic design of structures are evolving day by day. Sophisticated finite
element based model to contribute the details of beam column joints (Elmorsi et al., 2000), structure
specific ground motion (Honda and Ahmed, 2011, Ahmed and Honda 2010), and nonlinear response
based design ground motion selection methods (Ahmed and Honda 2011 a, b) are few examples. Codebased design approach is proffered by the design engineers due to issues of time, cost, responsibilities
and reliabilities.
Seismic detailing of structural members, loadings according to nature and use of the buildings,
shear and flexural capacity of members etc. are discussed in revised building code of Pakistan 2007.
To consider seismic forces, equivalent static lateral load procedure is proposed for certain height of thebuildings while a time history analysis for complicated structures.
Site selection
The earthquake devastated area is one of the most landslide prone areas of the country due to its
rugged mountainous terrain. The earthquake resulted in building up large strains in soils and rocks
along the dislocated fault which can trigger post-earthquake disasters such as landslides and debris
flows. Another major concern was that the disturbed soil masses will move again during the heavy
rains and snow melt seasons. Therefore, flat and stable terraces were recommended for the satellite
towns and new constructions.
In hilly areas, back wall of house is mostly adjacent to the slope of mountain. By Earthquake
rehabilitations authorities, it was particularly emphasized through the technical broachers and othermediums to avoid construction against the slope if back wall is not designed as a retaining wall.
Authors appreciate the efforts by public sector organizations and researchers to promote theseismic resistant construction. In true sense, such efforts are reflected in projects funded by reputableorganizations such as UNISCO etc. In particular, these projects were supervised by ERRA and goodquality of work was maintained. But in general, the proposed methods were not accepted by thecommunity due to economic and other constraints.

1852

STAGE-3 TWO YEARS AFTER THE EARTHQUKE TO DATEAs discussed in the previous stage, a lot of work has been done by disaster prevention authorities andindividual researchers by revising the building code (Pakistan Building Code, PBC, 2007), defining
new seismic zones, and proposing new methods for rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of thedamaged buildings/houses. However, all the attempts for their practical implication were frustrated bysocio-economic constraints, lack of awareness and availability of the budget for any individual project.
Despite of experiencing such a tragic devastation and losing many lives, people could not learn
enough from the Earthquake and have been building new structures/houses on the old patterns.
Economical conditions of most of the devastated areas made any expensive methodology to be
divorced from the ground reality. Furthermore, there was no law, enforcing individuals to follow therecommendations proposed by the experts. With this type of reconstruction, any future seismic activity
could be as catastrophic as the Kashmir Earthquake of 2005. The authors have been surveying theareas which were seriously devastated (Muzaffarabad, Bagh, Rawalakot and Hajirah), to evaluate new
construction strategies, and have concluded some of their observations in the following sections.
Site Selection
When a disaster strikes our fragile world and causes some serious devastation, it interrupts our senses
for some period of time. But as the time passes by, we easily forget all that. Similarly, forgetting all
what happened during Kashmir Earthquake, people are still constructing their houses against the hillslopes (Figure 7) by cutting the toes of natural slopes.

Fig. 7 Construction of the new house with their back wall facing the natural slope (Photo by Kazmi,
2008)
Flaws in Concrete Construction
Figure 8 shows construction of government hospital at Hajira, a typical example of post earthquake
construction. Both the photos in Figure 8 witness poor quality of design and construction. According
to the revised seismic zoning, the building is located in zone-4 but the reinforcement detailing andstructural members are not concordant with that. Spacing for the shear ties was larger than the
maximum limit specified by the revised design code even at the locations of concentrated loads fromthe bracing beams. Sizes of many of the beams and columns were also violating the code
specifications. Roof slab was not monolithically cast with the supporting beams and shear ties andnegative reinforcement of the beams was exposed to the atmosphere. In addition to the inappropriate
design/detailing, poor quality of construction was also observed. As can be seen from Figure 8, thewhole construction was presenting concrete segregation and honeycombing while the reinforcement
was exposed to the surfaces. While surveying the devastated area to evaluate the reconstruction, a1853

large number of similar cases were observed. Any future seismic activity may repeat the history withsuch a poor quality of design and construction. Although there are many socio-economic issues,
people might have learnt from this recent incident to ensure safety for their lives.

Fig. 8 A typical example of reconstruction for concrete frame structure (Photos by Kazmi, 2007).

Flaws in Masonry Construction
Despite of the effort made by ERRA and other authorities to communicate the recommendations foradobe houses to local society, local houses have been constructed on the older fashion with slight
modification. Figure 9 shows a typical example of reconstruction for masonry houses. Very thincolumns (equal to the width of concrete block, 150mm) were provided on corners and a single bar
around the wall openings. 150mm wide hollow blocks were used for the in filled masonry. The
adopted construction methodology can neither be cauterized as frame structure nor a masonry
structure and are vulnerable to any extreme condition. Recommendations made to make the masonryhouses seismic resistant (application of PP band etc.) were not observed in practical.

Fig. 9 A typical example of reconstruction for masonry houses (Photo by Kazmi, 2007)

1854

CHALLENGES IN APPLICATION OF PROPOSED GUIDELINES FORSEISMIC-RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION
Methods and guidelines for seismic resistant construction proposed by researchers, disaster mitigation
authorities and NGOs are proved to be effective in seismic resistant construction by laboratory test
(Sathiparan at el., 2010, Macabuag and Bhattacharya, 2009). In laboratory tests, the field conditions
are artificially reproduced to verify the effectiveness of the methods (Dowling et al., 2005). However,
the adoptability by the local community is an important issue. By analyzing the survey results andbased on ground facts, following challenges in application of proposed guidelines for seismic resistantconstruction are noticeable, specifically for Kashmir Earthquake affected areas.
z Financial Aspects: Finance is major challenge to successfully implement the new seismic resistantconstruction techniques. The average income of the earthquake affected areas was very low,which can be imagined from type and size of dwellings and their living styles. Additionally,
people lost their business, jobs and savings due to the earthquake and fell to miserable financial
conditions. Due to lack of financial assistance, people were forced to build houses on traditional
construction style, reusing debris of their collapsed houses.
z

Lack of availability of material, workmanship and machinery: To imply the earthquake resistantconstruction, special materials, skilled workers and machineries were required. These wereneither locally available nor in the financial approach of local people. Therefore, the community
imagined the proposed techniques to be divorced from the ground reality and adopted the
traditional construction with locally available material. The inconsistency between the resources
required for seismic resistant construction and locally available resources was another hindrance
in the application of proposed guidelines.

z

Proposed methods are sophisticated: Methods proposed by researchers were very sophisticated.
For example, orientation and anchorage of the PP-bands (Macabuag and Bhattacharya, 2009),
proper fixing of the wire mesh to the wall etc. Sophisticated methods are good for test conditions.
Simplicity and flexibility in application to a variety of conditions are prerequisites for a method to
be followed by local masons and builders.

zAccessibility: The area devastated by earthquake was more than 26,000 square kilometers.
Limited communicating structures connecting the sparse settlements were destroyed by theearthquake, hindering the quick access of responsible authorities to the far settlements.

z

Lack of access to information: Social-net-works, the only reliable and effective source ofcommunication in the target area, were also severely joggled by the earthquake. Therefore, thestaggered community of the area has the least access to information about seismic resistantconstruction techniques and methods.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Massive earthquakes often leave their fringe patterns behind. Whenever a strong earthquake hits our
fragile world, it interrupts our senses for some period of time. However, time is best healer and weforget the things as the time passes by.
The Kashmir Earthquake of 2005 stuck northern areas of Pakistan and the state of Kashmir. This isa remote area and there was no concept of seismic safety for the construction of buildings/houses.
Therefore, the earthquake caused a widespread destruction with a tragic loss of lives and property.
Soon after the earthquake, many disaster mitigation authorities, local organization and local andforeign NGOs came into play for technical assistance. A lot of effort has been put by theseorganizations to improve/revise the design codes, to literate the local community about the seismicallysafe reconstruction and to train the technical staff. Many individual researchers were also attracted and1855they have put a remarkable input at their capacity. Authors highly appreciate the efforts made by theseorganizations and researchers to promote the seismic resistant construction.
However, all the attempts for the implication of these techniques have been frustrated by the social,socio-economic, topographical and geophysical constraints. Despite of experiencing a massive
destruction in the very recent history, people have been reconstructing their dwellings on the older
patterns (with the exception of some public sector buildings which were funded by reputed
organizations and supervised by ERRA) with locally available materials and limited resources.
Although all the sympathies of the authors are with the inhabitants, most of the reconstructedbuildings/houses are not capable of sustaining any serious seismic event and the history can be
repeated.
The authors strongly recommend that along with technical development, there should be someincentive and law, enforcing the inhabitants to comply with the updated guidelines. As has been
repeatedly discussed that financial constraints are the most critical, no technical or administrative
development can be of use as long as there is no financial assistance.

REFERENCES
Ahmad H, Yeast R.S, MonaLisa (2009). “Geological setting of the 8 October 2005 Kashmir
earthquake” J Seismology, 13(3): 315-325.
Ahmed, T. and Honda, R. (2010). “Performance of design input motions selected using feature indicesto represent possible ground motions.” Proceedings of the 13th Japan Earthquake Engineering
Symposium.” 1965-1972
Ahmed, T. and Honda, R. (2011a) Efficiency of design ground motion representing ground motions
generated by fault model in terms of nonlinear response values. Proceedings of the seventh Japan
conference on structural safety and reliability, Vol.7, Paper No. WA3-7A
Ahmed, T. and Honda, R. (2011b) “Stability of design ground motion synthesized by using nonlinear
response based feature indices.” Proceedings of the 13th international summer symposium, 67-70(ISSN 1345-8507)
Ali Q. (2006). “Unreinforced brick masonry residential building.” World Housing Encyclopedia,
Report No. 112
Ali Q. and Muhammad, T. (2007). “Stone masonry residential building.” World Housing Encyclopedia,
Report No. 138
Badrashi, Y. I., Ali, Q., Ashraf, M. (2010). “Reinforced concrete buildings in Pakistan.” World
Housing Encyclopedia, Report No. 159
Bartolome, A. S., Quiun, D. and Zegarra, L. (2004). “Effective system for seismic reinforcement of
adobe houses.” Proceeding of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, B.C.,
Canada.
Charleson, A.W. and French, M. A. (2008). “Used car tyre straps as seismic reinforcement for adobe
houses.” Proceeding of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China
Dowling, D., Samali, B. and Li, J. (2005). “An improved means of reinforcing adobe walls - Externalvertical reinforcement.” SismoAdobe 2005, PUCP, Lima, Peru.
Dunning, S.A., Mitchell, W.A., Rosser, N.J., Petley, D.N. (2007). “The Hattian Bala rock avalanche
and associated landslides triggered by the Kashmir Earthquake of 8 October 2005” Engineering
Geology 93 130–144.
Elmorsi, M., Kianoush, M. R. and Tso, W.K. (2000). “Modeling bond–slip deformations in reinforced
concrete beam–column joints.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 27, 490-505
Haseeb, M., Xinhailu, Bibi A., Khan, J. Z., Ahmad, I and Malik R. (2011). “Construction ofearthquake resistant buildings and infrastructure implementing seismic design and building code innorthern Pakistan 2005 earthquake affected area.” International Journal of Business and Social
Science, Vol. 3 No. 2, 168-177
Honda, R. and Ahmed, T. (2011). “Design input motion synthesis considering the effect of uncertainty
in structural and seismic parameters by feature indices.” Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE,

1856

Vol. 37, No. 3, 391–400.
Kazmi, Z. A., Konagai, K., and Ikeda, T. (2010). ”Calibrating Debris Flow Numerical Simulation
Parameters for Proper Disaster Mitigation Strategy -Case Study of Debris Flow in Muzaffarabad”
Proceedings of the 13th Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium.” pp. 2072, 2079.
Kumahara Y, Nakata T (2006). ”Active faults in the epicentral area of the 2005 Pakistan earthquake”
Research Center for Regional Geography, Hiroshima University, Japan, 54pp.
Macabuag, J. and Bhattacharya, S., (2009). “Extending the collapse time of non-engineered masonrybuildings under seismic loading.” EWB-UK Research Conference 2009, Royal Academy ofEngineering, London.
Nakata, T., Tsutsumi, H., Khan, S.H. and Lawrence, R.D., “Active faults of Pakistan”, ResearchCenter for Regional Geography, Hiroshima University, Japan, pp. 141, 1991.
NED (2007). “Devastating quake strikes Northern Pakistan.” Cowasjee Earthquake study centre NED,
Newsletter, Vol. 5 No. 2
Peiris, N., Rossetto, T., Burton, P. and Mahmood, S. (2005). “EEFIT Mission: October 8, 2005
Kashmir Earthquake”, Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team (EEFIT), The Institutionof Structural Engineers.
Rossetto, T and Peiris, N. (2009). “Observations of damage due to the Kashmir earthquake of October
8, 2005 and study of current seismic provisions for buildings in Pakistan.” Vol. 7, No.3, 681-699.
Sato, H.P., Koarai, M., Une, H., Hasegawa, H., Iwahashi, J., Kamiya, I. and Ishitsuka, Y. (2006):“Interpretation of landslide distribution triggered by the northern Pakistan earthquake on 8 October2005 using 2.5m resolution SPOT 5 stereo-imagery”, Extended Abstracts of International
Conference on Earthquake in Pakistan, 94-98, 2006.
Sathiparan, N., Mayorca, P. and Meguro K (2010). “Parametric study of diagonal shear tests onmasonry wallettes retrofitted by pp-band mesh.” Proceedings of the 30th conference on Earthquake
Engineering Symposium, JSCE, Japan, Paper No. 3-0054.
Sathiparan, N., Paola, M. and Meguro, K. (2008). “Parametric study on diagonal shear and out ofplane behavior of masonry wallettes retrofitted by PP-band mesh.” Proceeding of the 14th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
Shabbir, M. J. and Ilyas, M. (2007), “Development and adoption of building code of Pakistan”
Proceedings of CBM-CI International Workshop, Karachi, Pakistan 535-549.
Smith, A. and Redman, T. (2009). “A critical review of retrofitting methods for unreinforced masonry
structures.” EWB-UK Research Conference 2009, Royal Academy of Engineering, London.
Stephenson, M. (2008). “Notes from experience in post-earthquake rural housing reconstruction in
Pakistan.” Proceedings of Building Back Better workshop, Beijing, China.
Turer, A., Korkmaz, S, Z, and Korkmaz H. H. (2007). “Performance improvement studies of masonryhouses using elastic post-tensioning straps.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.
36 No. 5, 683-705
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2006.
http://www.usgs.gov/
Yamin, L.E., Phillips, C, A., Reyes J. C. and Ruiz, D. M. (2004). “Seismic behavior and rehabilitation
alternatives for adobe and rammed earth buildings.” Proceeding of the 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, B.C., Canada.

1857