2/2/14 Emerald | Earthquake safety elements in traditional Koti Banal architecture of Uttarakhand, India

www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0965-3562&volume=18&issue=3&articleid=1798742&show=html&view=printarti 1/16
DisasterPreventionandManagement
ArticleInformation:EarthquakesafetyelementsintraditionalKotiBanalarchitecture
ofUttarakhand,India
References: 9
Tocitethisarticle: PiyooshRautela,GirishChandraJoshi,(2009)"Earthquake
safetyelementsintraditionalKotiBanalarchitectureof
Uttarakhand,India",DisasterPreventionandManagement,
Vol.18Iss:3,pp.299316
Tocopythisarticle: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloads: Thefulltextofthisdocumenthasbeendownloaded372times
since2009
TheAuthors
PiyooshRautela,DisasterMitigationandManagementCentre,DepartmentofDisasterManagement,
GovernmentofUttarakhand,UttarakhandSecretariat,Dehradun,India
GirishChandraJoshi,DisasterMitigationandManagementCentre,DepartmentofDisaster
Management,GovernmentofUttarakhand,UttarakhandSecretariat,Dehradun,India
Acknowledgements
TheauthorsarethankfultoShriSubashKumar,PrincipalSecretary,DisasterManagement,Governmentof
Uttarakhandforsupport,guidanceandencouragement.DrC.M.NautiyalofBirbalSahniInstituteof
Palaeobotny,Lucknowisthankedforradiocarbondatingofthesamples.Financialsupportforthestudyfrom
DisasterRiskManagementProgrammeofMinistryofHomeAffairs(MHA),GovernmentofIndiaandUnited
NationsDevelopmentProgrammeisgratefullyacknowledged.
Abstract
PurposeDespitebeinglocatedinearthquakesensitiveregionandoftenexperiencingseismictremorsthe
StateofUttarakhandintheIndianHimalayasexhibitsanelaboratetraditionofconstructingmultistoreyed
houses.BoththelocaldialectsoftheState(KumaoniandGarhwali)haveuniquewordsforidentifyingfour
differentfloorsofabuilding.Thisissuggestiveofacommonoccurrenceofmultistoreyedstructuresinthe
region.Thispaperattemptstoestablishthatthepeopleinhabitingthisruggedearthquakeproneterrainhave
evolvedtheartofconstructingearthquakesafestructureswellbeforetheevolutionofthestructural
engineeringprinciplesgoverningsuchaconstruction.
Design/methodology/approachDetailedinvestigationswereundertakenintheareatoestablishthe
antiquityofthetraditionalstructures,aswerealsoearthquakesafetyprovisionsincorporatedtraditionallyin
these.Radiocarbondatingofthewoodusedinthestructureswasusedtoestablishthetimeofthe
constructionofthesestructures.
FindingsInvestigationssuggestthattheregionhasevolvedadistinct,elaborateandmagnificent
earthquakesafeconstructionstyle.Thisconstructionstyle,designatedKotiBanalarchitecture,attainedits
zenitharound880yearsago.Thisarchitecturalstyleexhibitstheexistenceofelaborateproceduresforsite
selection,preparingtheplatformforraisingthemultistoreyedstructure,alsoforthedetailoftheentire
structurethatwasconstructedonprinciplessomewhatakintothatofframedstructuresofmoderntimes.
Researchlimitations/implicationsTherepresentativestructuresofthisarchitectureareobservedtobe
deterioratingfastduetolackofpatronage,resourcesandawareness.Thisarticlebringsforthawareness
regardingtheheritagevalueofthesestructures,enablingorganizedeffortsfortheconservationandupkeep
ofthesestructures.
Originality/valueThisarticleistheresultoforiginalresearchundertakenbytheauthorsandpavesthe
wayfortheconservationoftheageoldtraditionalstructures.
2/2/14 Emerald | Earthquake safety elements in traditional Koti Banal architecture of Uttarakhand, India
www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0965-3562&volume=18&issue=3&articleid=1798742&show=html&view=printarti 2/16
ArticleType:Researchpaper
Keyword(s):EarthquakesStructuralengineeringArchitectureIndia.
Journal:DisasterPreventionandManagement
Volume:18
Number:3
Year:2009
pp:299316
CopyrightEmeraldGroupPublishingLimited
ISSN:09653562
Thehazardproneterrain
SubductionoftheIndianPlatebeneaththeEurasianPlateanditsconsequentcollisionwiththesameafter
theconsumptionoftheinterveningoceaniccrustresultedintheevolutionoftheHimalayanmountainbelt.
Theplatecollisionhasrenderedtheterrainhighlyfragileandpronetomasswastage.Thenorth
northeastwarddriftoftheIndianPlatehasnotyetseizedandongoingbuiltupofstrainduetothismovement
isresponsibleforfrequentseismictremorsintheregion.
EntireHimalayanterrainisrecognizedasbeinghighlyvulnerabletoearthquakes(Bilhametal.,2001Feldl
andBilham,2006)andinthepasttheregionhasbeenjoltedbyfourGreatEarthquakes(Magnitude>8on
RichterScale)1897ShillongEarthquake,1905KangaraEarthquake,1934BiharNepalEarthquakeand1950
AssamEarthquakeapartfromKumaunEarthquakeof1720andGarhwalEarthquakeof1803(Thakur,2006).
RegionsbetweentherupturezonesoftheGreatEarthquakesarerecognisedasseismicgapsthatare
interpretedtohaveaccumulatedpotentialslipforgeneratingfutureGreatEarthquakes.EntireStateof
Uttarakhandfallsintheseismicgapof1934BiharNepalEarthquakeand1905KangaraEarthquakeandis
categorizedasfallinginZoneIVandVoftheEarthquakeRiskMapofIndia(VulnerabilityAtlasofIndia,
1997).Thisregionhasbeenidentifiedasapotentialsiteforafuturecatastrophicearthquake(Bilhametal.,
2001).Theregionhasalsowitnessedseismiceventsoflessermagnitude(1991UttarkashiEarthquake,1999
ChamoliEarthquake)andunplannedgrowth,concentrationofpopulationandinfrastructure,negligenceof
constructionnorms,abruptchangeinconstructionmaterialwithoutappropriatetechnicalinterventionsand
lackofawarenessasalsotrainedmanpowerfurtherenhanceseismicvulnerabilityoftheregion.
Earthquakesafetyandtraditionalconstructionpractices
Humanresponsetoemergingexigencieshasresultedinfinetuningofresourcemanagementpracticesas
alsolifesupportstrategy,soastoprotecttheinterestsofthehumancommunities.Baseduponexperience,
experimentation,accumulatedknowledgeandingenuityhumanpopulationsaroundtheglobehavethus
evolvedinnovativepracticesforensuringsurvivalagainstalloddsandsurvivalandsupremacyofthe
relativelyunspecializedspeciestestifiesthisfact.
Communitiesresidinginareasoftenaffectedbyearthquakeswerequicktograspthefundamentalpremiseof
earthquakesafetythatstatesstructuralsafetytobethekeytoavoidinglossofhumanlivesina
seismogenicevent.Thisfundamentalunderstandingledtotheevolutionofinnovativepracticesfor
minimizinghumanlossesemanatingfromstructuralcollapse.DhajjidewariandTaqarethefamous
indigenousconstructionstylesofKashmirthatutilizelocallyavailablestoneandtimberinaparticularmanner
toachievedesiredlevelsofseismicsafety.Quettabondisanotherexampleofhumanquesttoreduce
earthquakeinducedlosses.
TheStateofUttarakhandfallsinseismicallyhighlysensitivezoneandhaswitnesseddevastating
earthquakesin1720(KumaunEarthquake)and1803(GarhwalEarthquake).Despiteoftenexperiencing
earthquakes(ChalakinKumaonithelocalparlance)multistoreyedhousesarecommonintheregionanditis
notbeeasyforonetolocateasinglestoreyedtraditionalhouseintheregioneventoday,exceptforcattle
sheds(channiinKumaonithelocalparlance).Thereexistuniquewordsforidentifyingasmanyasfour
differentfloorsinthetwolocaldialectsoftheregionKumaoni(groundfloor,gothfirstfloor,chaaksecond
floor,paanthirdfloor,chaj)andGarhwali(groundfloor,kholifirstfloor,manjuasecondfloor,baundthird
floor,baraur).Unlessoftenrequiredauniquetermcannotbeintroducedinanylanguage.Thisclearlypoint
towardscommonoccurrenceofmultistoreyedhousesintheregion.
Thezealtoavertearthquakeinducedlosses,byutilizingaccumulatedknowledgeofgenerationsand
experimentingwithlocallyavailablebuildingmaterial,pavedwayfortheevolutionofauniquearchitectural
stylethatexhibitsstructuralevolutiontrendswherebydrystonemasonry,asalsostonelime/mud/clay
mortarmasonrywasjudiciouslyusedwithabundantlyavailablewoodtoprovideappropriatestrengthand
2/2/14 Emerald | Earthquake safety elements in traditional Koti Banal architecture of Uttarakhand, India
www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0965-3562&volume=18&issue=3&articleid=1798742&show=html&view=printarti 3/16
flexibilitytothestructures.
InYamunaandBhagirathivalleysoftheGarhwalregionfourtofivestoreyedtraditionalstructurescanstillbe
observed(identifiedasChaukhatfourstoreyedorPanchapurafivestoreyed).Theseageoldstructures
musthavewitnessedmanyearthquakesandintheabsenceoftheelementsofearthquakesafetythese
wouldhavelongbeenrazedtoground.
Thoughnotsuitedtotheclimaticconditions,cementbasedconstructionpracticesarefastgettingpopularin
theregion.Highsocialstatusattachedtothenewtypeofconstructiontogetherwithincreasingdifficultyin
musteringtraditionalbuildingmaterialhavecontributedtoitspopularity.Ashasbeenindicated(Rautelaet
al.,2007)demandisforcinguntrained/inadequatelytrainedmasonstotakeupcementbasedconstruction
workswhichaddstotheseismicvulnerabilityoftheregion.
Survivalofthetraditionalstructuresovergenerationsintheearthquakeproneterrainissuggestiveof
incorporationofelementsofearthquakesafetyinthese.Indepthinvestigationofthesebuildingshavethe
potentialofunfoldinghithertounknownfactsaboutthisparticularconstructionstyleandinnovatingupon
traditionalpracticesonecanevolveabettersuitedconstructiondictumfortheregion.
Rajgarhiarea,tothenorthofBarkotacrossriverYamunainUttarkahidistrictofUttarakhand(Figure1)hasa
largenumberofintactmultistoreyedtraditionalstructures(Plate1)inanumberofvillages(Dakhiyatgaon,
Guna,KotiBanal,Dharali)incloseproximity.Thisareawasthereforeselectedfordetailedinvestigations.A
structuredquestionnairewaspreparedtoassesstheperceptionofthemassestowardsstructuralsafety
relatedaspectsasalsotheirtradition.Detailedfieldinvestigationwasresortedtoforassessingthestructural
safetyrelatedaspectsofthisconstructionstyle.
Perceptionofthemasses
Traditionalpracticesofresourcemanagementreflectthecommunity'sresolvetosafeguarditsinterestsand
theseoftendrawstrengthfortheircontinuationfromreligiomagicalritesthatareimbibeddeepinpopular
belief.Continuationofthesepracticesovergenerationsindicatebenefitsdrawnbythecommunitybyacting
uponthese.Insightintothepopularbeliefandpracticesofthemassesarethereforeperceivedtobethetools
forassessingthestrengthoftheirtraditionalknowledgebase.
Therespondents
Inordertoassessthestatusoftraditionalpracticesrelatingtoearthquakeriskmanagementpeoplewere
interrogatedwiththehelpofastructuredquestionnairepreparedinvernacularthatwasalsointendedtobe
utilizedforassessingthelevelofawarenessofthemassesondisasterrelatedissues.Everyeffortwas
madetohaverepresentationofeverysectionandgroupofthecommunityand50personswereinterrogated
indetailinfivevillagesinRajgarhiarea.Asagricultureisthemainstayoftheeconomyofthearea,mostof
theinterrogatedpersonsengageinagrarianpursuits.Theageoftherespondentsvariedbetween21and81
yearswithalargeproportionoftherespondents(32percent)fallingintheagegroupof4050years.Rampant
illiteracyintheregionisreflectedinthelowliteracylevelsoftherespondentswith44percentbeingilliterate
oreducatedtoprimarylevel.
Earthquakesafetyfeatures
Earthquakeemergedasthemajorconcernofthemasses(90percent)whilelandslideandfloodaccounted
fortherest.Halftherespondentsratedtheleveloftheperceivedasthreatbeinghighwhile34percentrated
thisasbeingsevere.Mostrespondentswereproudofthericharchitecturaltraditionoftheirregionthatis
visuallyappealingandmagnificent.Unlikeinhabitantsoftheareasthathavewitnessedlossoftraditional
housesduetoearthquakesintherecentpast(Uttarkashi1991andChamoli1999)mostrespondents
considertraditionalhousestobesaferthanthemodernhousesconstructedwithcement(Rautelaetal.,
2007).Thissuggeststhatthepopularattitudecanchangeinshorttimeperiodwhentheirbeliefsprovetobe
wrong.Mostpersonsbelieveearthquakesafetytobeacornerstoneofthetraditionalconstructionpractices
butmost(92percent)couldnotpinpointparticularearthquakesafetyrelatedfeatureofthetraditional
structures.Appropriatesiteselectionandjudicioususeofwoodtogetherwiththestonewoodbonding
techniqueusedintraditionalbuildingswereperceivedtoprovidetherequiredlevelsofstrengthtothese
structures.
Siteselection
2/2/14 Emerald | Earthquake safety elements in traditional Koti Banal architecture of Uttarakhand, India
www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0965-3562&volume=18&issue=3&articleid=1798742&show=html&view=printarti 4/16
AshasalsobeenrevealedinthestudiescarriedoutinotherpartsoftheState(Rautelaetal.,2007)thearea
underconsiderationexhibitsanelaboratetraditionofsiteselectionandmostpeoplestillbelieveinits
authenticity.Selectionofstableandflatlandiscitedastheprimarycriteriaforsiteselection.Localpriestis
generallyconsultedforascertainingthesuitabilityofthesiteselectedforconstructionpurposes.Majority(42
percent)holdsthattheadviceisbasedontheobservationofthesoiloftheproposedconstructionsite.
Inspectionoftheconstructionsite(30percent)andpersonalexperience(20percent)areconsideredtobe
othercriterionforextendingthisadvice.Sixpercentoftherespondentsbelievetheadvicetobebasedon
astronomicalcalculations.Itseemsthatsomepersonsbasedupontheirexperienceandaccumulated
knowledgecouldassessandcommentuponthebearingcapacityofsoilbyexaminingsoiltexture,moisture
contentandtheotherrelatedfeatures.Thistechniqueneedstobestudied,documentedandpropagated(with
necessaryimprovementswherenecessary).Thiswouldpavewayfordevelopingaquickandcosteffective
siteselectionmethodology.
Foundation
Thehousesintheareaaremostlyobservedtobeconstructedonaraisedandelaboratesolidplatform(Plate
2)thataddstothestabilityofthestructuresbykeepingthecentreofgravityoftheentirestructurenearthe
ground.Thispracticehasperhapsresultedinthemassesnotpayingmuchattentiononthedetailingofthe
foundationwhichisreflectedintheresponseofthepeople.Oftherespondents,60percentsaidthatthe
depthoffoundationvariedbetween23ft.Unlikeinotherareas,constructionisresortedtoevenifsolidrock
doesnotappearattheproposedconstructionsite.Peopleatthesametimedonotmaintainlongtimegap
betweendiggingupoffoundationandconstructionofthestructureasisinvogueinmostotherareasofthe
State.
Seismicvulnerabilityandsafetyrelatedaspects
EventhoughtheareawasjoltedbyUttarkashiEarthquakeof1991themassesdonotseemtohaveanyidea
ofdifferentialvulnerabilityandmajority(56percent)saidthatallthehouseswouldsufferequallyintheevent
ofanearthquake.Alltherespondentsrememberedthereareabeingaffectedbytheearthquakeinthepast
(thatcausedsomedamagetothedwellings)butonly56percentcouldrecalltheyearrightly.Thismightbe
owedtonotsosevereimpactoftheeventinthearea.
Mostrespondents(80percent)considergoodmasonryworkasthecornerstoneofseismicsafety.Therest
weredividedoversiteselectionanddetailingofthefoundation.Mostrespondentsagreedthatstrongandwell
constructedstructureswouldminimizethelosseslikelytobeincurredintheeventofanearthquake.The
respondentsseemedtohaveheardofearthquakesafeconstructiontechnologyandtheyexpressed
willingnessforspendingabitmoreforwardingoffthethreatoftheirdwellingscrumblingduetoearthquake.
Masons
Traditionalmasonsarepreferredforconstructionworksintheregion.Familiaritywiththesemasonsapart
fromtrustreposedonthem,theirknowledgeandexperiencetogetherwiththeircheapandeasyavailability
arecitedasthereasonsforpreferringthem.Itishardtobelieve67percentoftherespondentswhoassert
thatearthquakesafeconstructionrelatedknowledgeofthemasonsisaconsiderationforentrusting
constructionwork.Alltherespondentsagreedthatthemasonswithknowledgeofearthquakeresistant
constructionwouldbepreferredandwouldthereforegetmoreemploymentandwages.
Traditionalstructures
Theareahastraditionoferectingelaborateandmagnificentmultistoreyedhousesthatarelocallyidentified
asChaukhat.Thistermishoweverusedforfourstoreyedhousesthatarequitecommonintheregionfive
storeyedbeingidentifiedasPanchapura.Massesintheirlocalparlance(Garhwali)usedifferentwordsto
identifydifferentfloorsofthehouse(groundfloor,kholifirstfloor,manjuasecondfloor,baundthirdfloor,
baraur).Thissuggestscommonoccurrenceofmultistoreyedhousesintheregion.Corrosionofthestoneand
woodusedinthebuildingisindicativeoftheantiquityofthesestructures.Therespondentswerehowever
dividedoverthetimeofconstructionofthesestructures.
Thoughmajesticandvisuallyappealingthesemultistoreyedhouseswerenotspaciousthesemostlyhave
onesingleroomoneachfloortowardstherearsideofthestructurewithasmallareainthefrontbeing
utilizedforplacingwoodenlogwithcarvedfootholdsforprovidingaccesstothesubsequentfloor.Thetwo
areasaredividedbyawall.Theuppertwofloorshaveexternalbalconyandtheroofsofallthefloorsarenot
2/2/14 Emerald | Earthquake safety elements in traditional Koti Banal architecture of Uttarakhand, India
www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0965-3562&volume=18&issue=3&articleid=1798742&show=html&view=printarti 5/16
comfortablyhigh.Thekitchenisgenerallylocatedinthetopfloorofthestructure.
Thepurposeofconstructingthesenotsooccupantfriendlymultistoreyedhouseswithasingleentrycould
notbeestablishedtogetherwiththetechniqueandequipmentemployedfortransportingandliftingheavy
stoneandwoodpanels.Thishugestructurecouldnotcertainlybebuiltwithoutsupportivetoolsand
implements.
Mostrespondents(92percent)maintainedthatthesestructureswereconstructedtoprovidesafetyfrom
thieveswhileprotectionfromheavysnowfallwasalsocitedasareason.Whateverbetheconsiderations
behindconstructingtheseelaboratestructures,thesewerecertainlynotdesignedtocatertothecomfortof
theinhabitants.Thisistheprimereasonforalargenumberofthesemultistoreyedstructuresbeingputto
disusepresently.Theseabandonedhousesaredeterioratingfastduetothelackofmaintenance(Plate3)
andrequireinterventionsforpreservingtherichheritageoftheregion.
Fieldobservations
OrnatemultistoreyedhouseswithabundantuseofwoodenbeamsarecharacteristicofRajgarhiarea.
Similarityinthearchitecturalprinciplesandstructuraldetailssuggesttheirpossibleevolutionunderone
singlearchitecturalschoolthatisdesignatedKotiBanalArchitectureafterthemostmagnificentofthese
structuresatthatvillage.Locallyavailablebuildingmateriallongthickwoodenlogs,stonesandslatesare
judiciouslyusedfortheconstructionofthesestructures.Theheightofthesestructuresvariesbetween7and
12metersabovetheplatformandthesearemostlyfour(Caukhat)andfive(Panchapura)storeyed.
Raisedplatform
Themultistoreyedtraditionalstructuresareobservedtobeconstructedonraisedandelaboratestonefilled
solidplatform(Plate2)thatisthecontinuationofthefilledinfoundationtrenchabovetheground.Where
possibleplatformisraiseddirectlyoverinsiturocks.Theheightoftheplatformvariesbetween6and12ft
abovetheground.Drystonemasonryisusedfortheconstructionoftheplatform.
Massivesolidplatformatthebaseofthestructurehelpsinkeepingthecentreofgravityandcentreofmass
incloseproximityandneartotheground.Thisminimizestheoverturningeffectoftheparticularlytall
structureduringseismicloading.
Simplicity
Thestructuresareobservedtobeconstructedonasimplerectangularplan(Plates1and2)withthelength
andwidthvaryingbetween4and8meters.Theratioofthetwosidesofthestructuresvariesbetween1.1
and1.4whichisinkeepingwiththeprovisionsofthebuildingcodes(IS:4326,1993)thatsuggestthatthe
buildingshouldhaveasimplerectangularplanandshouldbesymmetricalbothwithrespecttomassand
rigiditysoastominimizetorsionandstressconcentration.
Theheightofthestructuresabovetheplatformisrestrictedtodoublethelengthoftheshorterside(lengthor
width).Allthehouseshaveasinglesmallentryandrelativelysmallopenings.Strongwoodenempanelment
isprovidedaroundalltheopeningstocompensateforthelossofstrength.Theinternalarchitectureissplit
intostaircasesectionandlivingsection.
Walls
Thewallsofthetraditionalmultistoreyedstructureareraisedbyplacingdoublewoodenlogshorizontallyon
theedgeofthetwoparallelsidesoftheplatform.Thethicknessofthewallsisdeterminedbythewidthofthe
logs(70cm).Theothertwowallsareraisedwithwelldressedflatstonestothesurfacelevelofthelogs
placedontheothertwosides.Thewallsarefurtherraisedto30cmbyplacingheavy,flat,dressedstones
uponthewoodenlogsonthetwosidesandbyplacinganotherpairofwoodenlogsuponthestonesonthe
othertwooppositesides.
Thefourwallsofthestructurearethusraisedusingthewoodenlogsanddressedupflatstonesalternately.
Thestructureisfurtherreinforcedwiththehelpofwoodenbeamsfixedalternatelythatrunfromthemiddleof
thewallsofonesidetotheother,intersectingatthecenter.Thisarrangementdividesthestructureintofour
partsandprovidesforjoistssupportingthefloorboardsineachfloorofthebuilding.
Onthefourthandthefifthfloorsabalconyisconstructedwithawoodenrailingrunningaroundonallthefour
2/2/14 Emerald | Earthquake safety elements in traditional Koti Banal architecture of Uttarakhand, India
www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0965-3562&volume=18&issue=3&articleid=1798742&show=html&view=printarti 6/16
sides.Speciallydesignedwoodenladdersprovidedaccesstothedifferentfloorswiththeroofbeinglaidwith
slates.
Framedconstruction
Interactionwiththemassesbroughtforthsomeinterestingpointsregardingthearchitecturalintricacyofthe
structurethatincludeditsbeingconstructedontheprinciplesakintothatofaframedstructure.Itistoldthat
thewoodenframeoftheentirestructurewasfinalizedandthiswasthenfollowedbyfillingupofthe
interveningvoidsbystone.Thishasresultedinamixedstructurewithtwotypesofloadsharing
mechanisms:
1. verticalloadbeingtakencareofby1.5ftthickwallsrunninginallfourdirectionsand
2. horizontalloadbeingtakencareofbyinterconnectedwoodenjoistsrunninginbothdirections.
Onthetwosidesofthestructurewoodenbeamsareobservedtobeprovidedfromoutside(Plate2).Itisheld
thatthesebeamsinsertedfromabovearepartofaspecialprovisiontoenhancestructure'sseismic
performance.
Summary
Salientpointsofthetechnologyusedintheconstructionofthemultistoreyedtraditionalstructuresisalso
observedtobecommonlyusedinotherstructuresoftheregionaswell.Theseinclude:
theuseofthickwoodenlogsrunningthroughtheentirelengthofeachofthewallsalternatelywith
heavystonesand
atthecornerstheedgesofthepairoflogsontheadjacentwallsarejoinedtogetherbyhammering
thickwoodennailsthroughthem.
Thishastheeffectofturningthestructureintoasinglepiececonstructionandiii)allthewindows,doorways,
ventilatorsandfloorjoistsarejoinedtothesewellsecuredpairsoflogsandthesefurtherstrengthenedthe
structure.
Structuralsafetyaspects
Thearchitectureofthestructuresbeinginvestigatediswovenaroundjudicioususeofwood.Asastructural
material,woodoffersdistinctadvantageinearthquakeperformanceoverothermaterialswoodisstrongyet
lightweight,hencegroundaccelerationsareunabletogenerateasmuchenergyinwoodbuildingsasinother
buildings.Asanaddedadvantage,woodframesystemsflexmorethanothermaterials,thusabsorbingand
dissipatingenergy.
KotiBanalarchitecture:salientstructuralfeatures
Inertialforcesareafunctionoftheweightoftheobjectandthereforeheavierbuildingsaresubjecttohigher
earthquakeforces.Likewise,highergroundaccelerationscreatemorestressinthestructure.Theforces
actinguponastructureduringanearthquakearethusafunctionoftheweightofthestructuresasalsothe
magnitudeofgroundacceleration.Earthquakethusaffectsbuildingsdifferentlydependingongroundmotion
andbuildingcharacteristics.Thenatureofseismicgroundmotionatabuildingsiteisdependentonanumber
offactorsthatinclude:
distanceofbuildingfromtheearthquakeepicenter
magnitudeoftheearthquake
depthoftheearthquakefocusand
soilconditionsatthebuildingsite.
Natureofbuildingresponsetoanearthquakedependsonthesizeofthebuildinganditsstiffness
characteristics.Earthquakesthathavehighpeakgroundaccelerationsposethegreatestchallengetowood
supportedbuildings.Theinertialforcesgeneratedbythegroundmovementoftheearthquake,concentrate
lateralforcesintheroofandfloorswheremostmassofthebuildingisconcentrated.Theforcesintheroof
andfloorsmustberesistedbywallsandentirestructuremustbeadequatelyconnectedtothefoundation.
Criticalcomponentsofseismicsafetyofwoodensupportedbuildingsinclude:
anchoragetothefoundation
2/2/14 Emerald | Earthquake safety elements in traditional Koti Banal architecture of Uttarakhand, India
www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0965-3562&volume=18&issue=3&articleid=1798742&show=html&view=printarti 7/16
strengthandductilityofthewalls
strengthandcontinuityofthehorizontalelements(likeroof,floorandceilings)and
interconnectionoftheallfarmingelements.
ThetraditionalbuildingsbaseduponKotiBanalarchitectureincorporatemanyfeaturesthatimproveits
seismicperformance.Structuralcapabilitiesofthesebuildingsinclude:
Themassandrigidityaredistributedequallyandsymmetricallythepointofresultantearthquake
forces(duringanearthquake)thustendstocoincidewiththepointofresultantresistingforces.
Torsionofthebuildingsisthusavoidedorsignificantlyreduced,whichhelpsinshockresistance.
Thetimberbeamsarehousedinthewallsinboththedirectionsofthestructureafter20to30
centimeterofsquaredrubbledrystonemasonrybroughttocourses.Thelinkedtimberbeamsforma
groupofspacestresssystem.Therigidityofthebeamsisnearlyequaloncrosswayssothatits
entirerigiditytendstobeidentityanditsabilitytoresistdeformationiscoordinated.
Thebeamsusedinthebuildingaremostlyrectangularinshape.Theratioofwidthtoheightofthese
beamsis2:3whichisasuitablesectionforabendingmember.Sectionsofthesewoodenbeamsare
largerthanneededforadequatesafety.Thebuildingsystemthusmeetstherequiredspacerigidityas
alsostrengthrequirements.Thisfurtherhelpsinshockresistance.
Woodisaelastoplasticmaterialwithabilitytoabsorbpowerofearthquake.Bothhousingandnailing
techniquesareresortedtoforjoiningthewoodencomponentsincorporatedinthesestructures(Plate
4).Thisallowsforminimalangulardisplacement.Thiskindofjointinthewoodenbeamsincorporates
advantagesofbothpinjointandtherigidjointandactsasasemirigidjointwhichisanadditional
advantageforshockresistance.
Woodstrengthishighinthedirectionofthegrainbutweakacrossthegrain.Ifdesignedandused
properly,woodhasveryfewstructurallimitations.Woodassembliesofferahighstrengthtoweight
ratiooverthosebuiltwithsteelandconcrete.Thisresultsinlowinertialforcesduringanearthquake.
TheKotiBanalarchitectureutilizesanumberofwoodenassembliesthathelpinresistingearthquake
forcesthatareafunctionoftheinertialforceactinguponthestructure.
Woodframeconstruction,structuralwallsandfloorssheathedwithstructuralwoodpanelsemployedin
KotiBanalbuildingsarewellrecognizedforprovidingsuperiorperformanceagainststrongforces
resultingfrombothwindstormsandearthquakes.Thesewallsandfloorsmaintainhighstiffnessand
strengthinthedesignrange,andifpushedtotheirultimatecapacity,tendtoyieldonlygraduallywhile
continuingtocarryhighloads.Theseassemblieshavehighductilitywhichcanabsorbagreatdealof
energybeforefailure.
Floorsandroofsofwoodconstructionareflexiblediaphragms.FEMA310(1998)treatswood
diaphragmsasflexiblebutdemandsrigidityoftheverticalelements.Theverticalelevationofthese
buildingsconsistsofrigidstonemasonrywallthatisadequateforprovidingtherequiredstrong
supportinthebothdirectionsofthebuilding.
Theraisedpedestalonthefoundationtogetherwiththewoodenbeamsatplinthlevelrestrict
earthquakevibrationeffectsonthesuperstructure.Itisacceptedthatstiffersoilspromoteseffective
isolation.Theelevated,solidstoneplatformshelpinconsolidationofthesoilatthefoundationlevel
andthushelpinpromotingisolation.
EquivalentstaticlateralforceanalysisoftheKotiBanalstructure
Mostlateralforcesactingonastructureduringanearthquakeemanatefrominertia(mass)ofthestructures.
Theseseismogenicforcesaresudden,dynamicandcanwellbeofimmenseintensity.Themagnitudeof
lateralforcesprimarilydependsupontheseismiczone,natureofsoilorgroundconditionandfundamental
buildingcharacteristics.Thedesignbaseshearisfirstcomputedfortheentirestructurewhichis
subsequentlydistributedalongtheheightofthebuildingsbasedonsimpleformulasappropriateforbuildings
withregulardistributionofmassandstiffness.Thedesignlateralforceobtainedateachfloorlevelisthen
distributedtoindividuallateralloadresistingelementdependinguponfloordiaphragmaction.Methodology
putforthbyIS:1893(Part1)(2002)hasbeenutilizedforthiswork.
Designseismicbaseshearcalculation
TableIshowsthedetailedcalculationsfortheKotiBanalstructure.
Distributionoflateralforces
Figure2showsthedistributionoflateralforcesinboxtypeshearwallbuildings.Inordertosuccessfully
transfertheseismicforcestothegroundbuildingshouldnecessarilyhaveacontinuousloadpath.The
2/2/14 Emerald | Earthquake safety elements in traditional Koti Banal architecture of Uttarakhand, India
www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0965-3562&volume=18&issue=3&articleid=1798742&show=html&view=printarti 8/16
generalloadpathfortheKotiBanalstructureisasfollowsearthquakeforcesoriginatinginalltheelements
ofthebuildingaredeliveredthroughthetransversewallsofthebuildinganditisbentbetweenthefloors.The
lateralloadsaretransmittedfromthesetransversewallstothesideshearwallsbyhorizontalfloorandroof
diaphragm.Thediaphragmsdistributetheseforcestoverticalresistingcomponentssuchasshearwallsand
verticalresistingelementsifany,whichtransfertheforcesintothefoundation.Thediaphragmmusthave
adequatestiffnessandstrengthtotransmittheseforces.ItisobservedthatinKotiBanalbuildingsthefloors
aremadeof2022mmthickwoodenplanksthatareexpectedtoexhibithighdegreeofflexibilityandallthe
wallsare45cmdrydressedstonethatarehighlyrigid.Theabovethussatisfactorilyfulfilltheflexible
diaphragmconditions.
SeismicperformanceofKotiBanalstructure
UsingtheequivalentstaticmethodthedesignbaseshearfortheKotiBanalstructurehasbeencomputedto
beoftheorderof700KNthatworksouttobe23percentoftotalseismicweightofthebuilding.Detailed
investigationofanumberofbuildingsintheareaclearlyrevealthattheageoldstructuralsystemsarestill
intactandeventhenonstructuralcomponentshavenotbeendamagedbytheseismicactivitiesdespite
thesebeinglocatedinthemostseverezoneofearthquakedamagerisk(ZoneV)andhavingexperienced
manyearthquakesinthepast.Theageofthebuildingsclearlysuggeststhatthesewouldhaveexperienced
atleastDBEgroundshakingintheirlifespan(IS:1893(Part1)(2002)definesDBEastheearthquakewhich
canreasonablybeexpectedtooccuratleastonceduringthedesignlifeofthestructure).
Ageofthestructures
Timeofconstructionofthetraditionalbuildingsisimportantforassessingthearcheologicalrelevanceof
thesestructuresasalsoforcorrelatingthearchitecturalstylewithothercontemporarystyles.Radiocarbon
datingofthewoodsamplescollectedfromthepanelsusedinthebuildingswasresortedtoatBirbalSahni
InstituteofPalaeobotny,Lucknow.TheKotiBanalstructure(Plate2)wasdatedtobe88090yearsbefore
presentwhiletheoneatGuna(thatshowsintroductionofaberrationsintotheoriginalstyle)wasdatedtobe
72860yearsbeforepresent.
Thedetailingofthestructuressuggeststhattheonesdesigningthestructureshadfairlygoodideaofthe
forceslikelytoactuponthestructureduringanearthquakeevent.Theradiocarbondatesbringforthan
importantfactthattheprinciplesofearthquakesafetyhadevolvedintheregionasearlyas1,000yearsago.
SeismicperformanceofthesestructureshasbeentestedbyKumaunEarthquakeof1720andGarhwal
Earthquakeof1803thatareconsideredtobehighlydamagingandthisearthquakesafetyconsciousschool
ofarchitecturemightwellhavestartedaftertheearthquakeof1100ADthatisbelievedtohavedevastated
largetractsacrossIndia.
Evolutionofanytraditionisalongprocessthatincludestestingofcertainfeaturesandevolvingthesameon
linesobservedtobeworking.Atthesametimecertaintimetestedfeaturesarereplacedtosuite
convenienceandemergingneedswithoutseriouslydwellingupontheirimpact.Itwasinterestingtonotethat
themultistoreyedstructureatGunathoughbuiltusingsimilararchitecturalstyleismoreoccupantfriendly
withtheroofsbeingsufficientlyhigh.Thisstructurehoweverdigressesfromseismicsafetynormsanddoes
notprovideforshearwalls.KotiBanalarchitecturedidnotcaterforthecomfortoftheinhabitantsandwas
totallyutilitarian.Thismightbethereasonfortheintroductionofaberrationsintheoriginalstyleasearlyas
72860yearsbeforepresentasisevidentfromthedatingofGunastructure.
Conclusion
Thestudysuggeststhatthepeopleinhabitingtheareahaddevelopedanelaboratesystemforconstructing
multistoreyedstructuresintheseismicallyvulnerableregion.Appropriatesitewasfirstselectedforthe
proposedconstructionforwhichtheservicesofthetraditionallyrecognizedpersonswereresortedto.It
seemsthatsomepersonscouldassessandcommentuponthebearingcapacityofsoilbyexaminingsoil
texture,moisturecontentandtheotherrelatedfeaturesbasedupontheirexperienceandaccumulated
knowledge.Elementsofthisageoldtraditionalpracticeneedtobestudied,documented,innovatedand
propagated(withnecessaryimprovementswherenecessary)soastoevolveareadilyavailable,easyand
costeffectivetoolforassessingsitesuitability.
Thereexistedtraditionoferectingstructuresoveranelaborate,solidandraisedstoneplatformthatreduced
overturningeffectintheseparticularlyhighstructures.Theconstructionstyleisquitedistinctandalarge
numberofstructuresintheregionarebuiltonsimilarfashionthatisindicativeofevolutionofthisparticular
schoolofarchitectureintheregion.ThisistermedKotiBanalarchitectureafterthemostmagnificent
2/2/14 Emerald | Earthquake safety elements in traditional Koti Banal architecture of Uttarakhand, India
www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0965-3562&volume=18&issue=3&articleid=1798742&show=html&view=printarti 9/16
representativeofthisschool.
TheKotiBanalarchitectureattaineditszenitharound88090yearsagoasisevidentfromthedatingofthe
KotiBanalmasterpiece.ThemainconstituentsofKotiBanalarchitecturalstyleinclude:
simplelayoutofthestructure
constructiononelaborate,solidandraisedplatform
judicioususeoflocallyavailablebuildingmaterial
incorporationofwoodenbeamsallthroughtheheightofthebuildingatregularintervals
smallopeningsand
sheerwalls.
SeismicperformanceofthesestructureshasbeenverifiedbyKumaunEarthquakeof1720andGarhwal
Earthquakeof1803andthisearthquakesafetyconsciousschoolofarchitecturemightwellhavestartedafter
theearthquakeof1100ADthatisbelievedtohavedevastatedlargetractsacrossIndia.TheKotiBanal
architecturehoweverdidnotcaterforthecomfortoftheinhabitantsandwastotallyutilitarian.Thiswas
perhapsthereasonfortheintroductionofaberrationsintheoriginalstyleasearlyas72860yearsbefore
presentasisevidentfromthedatingofGonastructure.TheKotiBanalarchitectureneedstobestudiedand
documentedinmuchmoredetail.Intricaciesofthisageoldconstructionstylehavethepotentialofunfolding
anewlineofconstructionthatmightbebettersuitedeveninpresentgroundrealitiesoftheregion.
ItisobservedthatmanyoldstructuresofKotiBanalstylearebeingputtodisuseandaredeterioratingfast
duetothelackofmaintenance.Peopleareevendemolishingtheseoldstructuresvoluntarilysoastouse
thedisassembledbuildingmaterialfortheconstructionofnewandmoderndwellings.Massesthereforeneed
tobemadeawareandeducatedontheissueofprotectingtheseheritagestructures.Thiswouldalsoprovide
researcherswithanopportunityofstudyingthismajesticarchitecturalstyleofUttarakhandindetail.
Itisobservedthatthetraditionalmasonsthathadmasteredtheartofstonewoodconstructionarefast
switchingovertocementbasedconstructionduetothelackofpatronage.Sincetheyarenotpropagating
intricaciesofthetraditionalconstructionpractices,basicelementsofthetraditionalconstructionstylewould
soonbelost.Itisthereforenecessarytostudyanddocumentthefinerelementsoftraditionalconstruction
practice.Innovatingonthetraditionalbuildingmaterialandpracticeswouldgivealeaseoflifetothis
constructionstyle.
Figure1Locationmapofthestudyarea
2/2/14 Emerald | Earthquake safety elements in traditional Koti Banal architecture of Uttarakhand, India
www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0965-3562&volume=18&issue=3&articleid=1798742&show=html&view=printar 10/16
Plate1PhotographshowingsimplebutmajesticarchitectureofthetraditionalhousesinDharalivillage
2/2/14 Emerald | Earthquake safety elements in traditional Koti Banal architecture of Uttarakhand, India
www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0965-3562&volume=18&issue=3&articleid=1798742&show=html&view=printar 11/16
Plate2PhotographofthefivestoreyedmasterpieceofKotiBanalarchitectureconstructed88090yearsago
2/2/14 Emerald | Earthquake safety elements in traditional Koti Banal architecture of Uttarakhand, India
www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0965-3562&volume=18&issue=3&articleid=1798742&show=html&view=printar 12/16
Plate3Nonmaintenanceofthestructuresisobservedtotaketolloftheculturalheritageoftheregion
Plate4PhotographshowinghousedandnailedjointsusedforfixingthewoodencomponentsinKotiBanal
architecture
2/2/14 Emerald | Earthquake safety elements in traditional Koti Banal architecture of Uttarakhand, India
www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0965-3562&volume=18&issue=3&articleid=1798742&show=html&view=printar 13/16
Figure2FiguredepictingsideelevationanddistributionoflateralforcesindifferentstoriesoftheKotiBanal
structureshowninPlate2
2/2/14 Emerald | Earthquake safety elements in traditional Koti Banal architecture of Uttarakhand, India
www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0965-3562&volume=18&issue=3&articleid=1798742&show=html&view=printar 14/16
2/2/14 Emerald | Earthquake safety elements in traditional Koti Banal architecture of Uttarakhand, India
www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0965-3562&volume=18&issue=3&articleid=1798742&show=html&view=printar 15/16
TableIDetailedcalculationsfortheKotiBanalstructure
References
Bilham,R.,Gaur,V.K.,Molnar,P.(2001),"Himalayanseismichazard",Science,Vol.293pp.14424.
[Manualrequest][Infotrieve]
Feldl,N.,Bilham,R.(2006),"GreatHimalayanearthquakesandtheTibetanplateau",Nature,Vol.444No.9,
pp.16570.
[Manualrequest][Infotrieve]
FEMA310(1998),FEMA310HandbookforSeismicEvaluationofBuildingsAPrestandard,American
SocietyofCivilEngineers,Reston,VA,.
[Manualrequest][Infotrieve]
IS:1893(Part1)(2002),IndianStandard(IS):1893,Part1,2002,CriteriaforEarthquakeResistantDesignof
Structures,BureauofIndianStandards,NewDelhi,.
[Manualrequest][Infotrieve]
IS:875(Part1)(1987),IndianStandard(IS):875(Part1),CodeofPracticeforDesignLoadsforBuildingsand
Structures,BureauofIndianStandards,NewDelhi,.
[Manualrequest][Infotrieve]
IS:4326(1993),IndianStandard(IS):4326,1993,IndianStandardCodeofPracticeforEarthquakeResistant
DesignandConstructionofBuildings,2ndrevision,BureauofIndianStandards,NewDelhi,.
[Manualrequest][Infotrieve]
Rautela,P.,Kumar,S.,Pande,M.,Pande,K.C.(2007),ImpactofEarthquakeSafetyInitiativesin
Uttarakhand(India),DisasterMitigationandManagementCentre,Dehradun,.
[Manualrequest][Infotrieve]
Thakur,V.C.(2006),"SeismotectonicsandearthquakegeologyaspectsofNorthwesternHimalaya",
GeologicalSurveyofIndiaSpecialPublication,Vol.85pp.6171.
[Manualrequest][Infotrieve]
VulnerabilityAtlasofIndia(1997),VulnerabilityAtlasofIndia,1997,PartItoIII,Earthquake,Windstormand
FloodHazardMapsandDamageRisktoHousing,BuildingMaterialsandTechnologyPromotionCouncil,
NewDelhi,.
[Manualrequest][Infotrieve]
2/2/14 Emerald | Earthquake safety elements in traditional Koti Banal architecture of Uttarakhand, India
www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0965-3562&volume=18&issue=3&articleid=1798742&show=html&view=printar 16/16
Printedfrom:http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0965
3562&volume=18&issue=3&articleid=1798742&show=htmlonSundayFebruary2nd,2014
EmeraldGroupPublishingLimited