KVPT’s Patan Darbar Earthquake Response Campaign - Work to Date - September 2016

The Kathmandu Darbar Initiative (1998-2005):
Strengthening schemes for Nepal’s iconic
multi-tiered temples (degah)
After a string of individual building projects of growing
scale in Patan, the Trust proposed a major campaign in
1997, an “ensemble group" for the Kathmandu Darbar
Initiative project in collaboration with the World Monuments
Fund and Nepalese businessmen. In this project,
the Kathmandu Darbar Initiative, seismic strengthening
was identified as a major research and development goal.
Other project initiatives included the first study of the
use of paint on historic temples.
For this high-profile endeavor, whose launch was inaugurated
by the Crown Prince, the Trust was fortunate
to have as our technical advisor Robert Silman, a
major figure in the preservation engineering of historic
buildings around the world. During an expert mission
in 1999 with Silman, Gutschow, Ranjitkar, Theophile,
and Nepalese engineer Prayag Joshi, the group reviewed
KVPT’s and others’ seismic strengthening examples as
a basis for the development of model techniques at this
cluster of temples in Kathmandu Darbar Square.
It is important to point out that up until that time (and
in fact even today), possibly as a holdover from conservative
policies to prevent archaeological raids (and in
defiance of international consensus), the Dept. of Archaeology
had never allowed to excavation and study
of foundations for heritage projects. Soil testing and
analysis were also out of the question. In retrospect, and
particularly after the earthquake of 2015, it seems untenable
for a restoration project to be constrained by this
convention (which historically derived from an Indian
policy of the British Archaeological Survey of India intended
only to address archaeological sites - ‘dead’ monuments).
Because of this, project teams were (and are)
forced to make unverifiable assumptions about the foundation
and soil- the most critical features both for the
assessment of seismic performance and for the potential
reinforcement of foundations. Both were out of bounds.
Silman’s office accepted the Department of Archaeology’s
moratorium on soil testing and undertook the
first-ever modeling of a Nepalese multi-tiered temple,
to explore what strengths or weaknesses were inherent
to the architectural style, the construction methods, and
individual building configurations. Three major temples
in need of restoration, in varying states of disrepair, were
the focus. As with any structural retrofit design, we had
to identify design criteria or goals. As the clients and local
experts, KVPT insisted that the goal of the reinforcement
was to prevent loss of life, not necessarily to prevent
all damage, because a more “ambitious” restoration
to a guaranteed level (i.e. compliant with international
code) would mean losing the very historic buildings
that required such great interventions. Furthermore, we
asked that reinforcements be fully concealed from the
exterior and that solutions should be possible to implement
with locally-available technology and manpower.
With these priorities and based on these characteristics,
project strategies, concepts, and methods could be developed.
Against all odds:
Breaking the law to save Indrapur
Silman’s proposal actually accomplished these goals in
different ways, offering low-key interventions for one
of the buildings, Jagannath, based on its apparently
sound masonry structure, rebuilt in the 1930’s with
high quality and well-bonded brick. The recommended
reinforcement measures for the refurbishment of the
damaged timber roof structure at Jagganath followed
KVPT’s typical working solutions. For the Indrapur and
Narayan temples, considered at-risk by the engineers,
more highly developed and ambitious retrofit schemes
were developed. The lack of soil information due to the
ban on soil testing meant that the engineers had to assume
worst case soil conditions, making the design of
reinforcements even more conservative. Of the three
temples, we decided to start with Indrapur - due to the
comparatively high risk of its top-heavy structure and
visibly poor existing structural conditions. The design
74