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

cyclical monsoon rains, would be extremely detrimental
to lime mortar brick masonry foundations.
Generalizing this prohibition of cement to all uses of
concrete, even in a concealed, carefully considered,
well-executed seismic strengthening measure in a rebuilt
foundation, is a different matter.
Wherever possible, we have used traditional materials,
but...it bears repeating that this is where the Venice
Charter and other international documents support the
use of ‘modern material’: “ where traditional techniques
prove inadequate, the consolidation of a monument
can be achieved by the use of any modern technique
for conservation and construction, the efficacy of which
has been shown by scientific data and proved by experience.”
(Venice Charter, Section 10) Consolidation for
reasons of life safety and survival of structures during future
earthquakes is our justification for this use of modern
techniques.
• Authenticity/seismic balance
It is critical to find a balance between historic and seismic
demands. This - very importantly - also includes
choices between stiff unified structural systems and
flexible traditional systems with improvements. In-between/
hybrid solutions can be problematic in their
seismic performance. The exposition on the Mani Mandapas
demonstrates this, in finding that full life safety/
code compliance would have required an outsized full
structural frame that would destroy the building’s architectural
integrity. We thus had to back off to accept a
reasonable level of safety, designing a system that would
leave time for egress from these tiny, open pavilions
without detracting excessively from their architecture.
This is why the foundation design that makes this solution
possible is so compelling, and traditional Newar
materials provide no purely traditional option for unifying
the structure below grade in this way.
• Quality of implementation
The best seismic scheme in the world isn’t worth much
unless there is excellent and experienced site supervision
and appropriate quality control inspections of the details.
This implies that engineers and architects should
be often on site and focused on the details of building
safety.
• East vs. West
There are seismic implications to deliberately imposing
the Western focus on retaining historic fabric (above
ground) onto the Newar context where replacement is
not only acceptable but preferred. Most of what we do
increases earthquake resistance, but at the limit, some
repaired elements that our carpenters would have preferred
to recarve from scratch are not strong enough
(Manimandapa columns).
• Philosophy and priorities
Repair and maximizing historical fabric retention - such
as the original carved timber columns of the Manimandapas
- and achieving historical configurations - are
priorities. When rebuilding, KVPT’s preference is retaining
or rebuilding the historical, Newar configuration
while adding layers of strengthening. As discussions of
the Manimandapas show, we have found this preferable
to building a new hybrid system.
• Solutions not slogans
Our approach is a rigorous and detailed study and analysis
of individual buildings to identify risk levels, the
building history, possible levels of intervention, strategic
engineering design options (eg Indrapur) and appropriate
technology. Newar buildings have many special characteristics
to be addressed - and we have been identifying
them over the years.
• Documentation and information sharing
We have reviewed our quarter-century of experience
addressing seismic strengthening of Newar architecture
and are in the process of documenting it in detail. In
addition to creating a record of the work, which opens
a new field of study and practice in Nepal, our aim is
96