Advertisement

Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 301–312 | Cite as

Comparison between the seismic codes of Nepal, India, Japan, and EU

  • Prajwal Giri
  • Anand Dev Bhatt
  • Dipendra GautamEmail author
  • Hemchandra Chaulagain
Technical Note

Abstract

In this paper, we compare the seismic provisions of building codes from Nepal, India, Japan, and EU. A brief history of the development of Nepal National Building Code (NBC), Indian Standard Code (ISC), Building Standard Law of Japan (BSLJ), and Eurocode-8 (EC8) is presented. The main steps and considerations to calculate the fundamental natural period and base shear are highlighted. Thereafter, we computed the fundamental natural period and base shear of a prototype building from the high seismic region following the code provisions of NBC, ISC, BSLJ, and EC8. The sum of computations and reviews contend that NBC, ISC, and EC8 depict close results than the Japanese building code.

Keywords

Nepal building code Indian standard code Building standard law of Japan Eurocode 8 Base shear 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest applies to the reported work.

References

  1. Bilham, R. (1995). Location and magnitude of the 1833 Nepal earthquake and its relation to the rupture zones of contiguous great Himalayan earthquakes. Current Science, 69(2), 101–128.Google Scholar
  2. Building Code Development Project (BCDP). (1994). Seismic hazard mapping and risk assessment for Nepal. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal.Google Scholar
  3. Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS). (2016). Indian Standard Code (IS 1893). Part I: Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures: General provisions and buildings (6th ed.). New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.Google Scholar
  4. Chaulagain, H., Gautam, D., & Rodrigues, H. (2018). Revisiting major historical earthquakes in Nepal: Overview of 1833, 1934, 1980, 1988, 2011, and 2015 seismic events. In D. Gautam & H. Rodrigues (Eds.), Impacts and insights of the Gorkha earthquake (pp. 1–17). Massachusetts: Elsevier.  https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-812808-4.00001-8.Google Scholar
  5. Chaulagain, H., Rodrigues, H., Jara, J., Spacone, E., & Varum, H. (2013). Seismic response of current RC buildings in Nepal: A comparative analysis of different design/construction. Engineering Structures, 49, 284–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaulagain, H., Rodrigues, H., Silva, V., Spacone, E., & Varum, H. (2015). Seismic risk assessment and hazard mapping in Nepal. Natural Hazards, 78(1), 583–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Stefano, M., & Rutenberg, A. (1997). A comparison of the present SEAOC/UBC torsional provisions with the old ones. Engineering Structures, 19, 655–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dobry, R., Borcherdt, R. D., Crouse, C. B., Idriss, I. M., Joyner, W. B., Martin, G. R., et al. (2000). New site coefficients and site classification system used in recent building seismic code provisions. Earthquake Spectra, 16, 41–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dogangun, A., & Livaoglu, R. (2006). A comparative study of the design spectra defined by EC8, UBC, IBC and Turkish Earthquake code on R/C sample buildings. Journal of Seismology, 10, 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eurocode 8 (EC8). (2004). Design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.Google Scholar
  11. Faizian, M., & Ishiyama, Y. (2004). Comparison of seismic codes of 1981 Japan (BSLJ), 2000 USA (IBC), and 1999 Iran (ICS) (p. 3168). Vancouver, BC: 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.Google Scholar
  12. Fenwick, R., Lau, D., & Davidson, B. (2002). A comparison of the seismic design requirements in the New Zealand Loadings standard with other major design codes. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 35, 190–203.Google Scholar
  13. Gautam, D., & Chaulagain, H. (2016). Structural performance and associated lessons to be learned from world earthquakes in Nepal after 25 April 2015 (M W 7.8) Gorkha earthquake. Engineering Failure Analysis, 68, 222–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gautam, D., Fabbrocino, G., & Santucci de Magistris, F. (2018). Derive empirical fragility functions for Nepali residential buildings. Engineering Structures, 171, 617–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gautam, D., Santucci de Magistris, F., & Fabbrocino, G. (2017). Soil liquefaction in Kathmandu valley due to 25 April 2015 Gorkha, Nepal earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 97, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Khose, V. N., Singh, Y., & Lang, D. H. (2012). A comparative study of design base shear for RC buildings in selected seismic design codes. Earthquake Spectra, 28(3), 1047–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Luft, R. W. (1989). Comparison among earthquake codes. Earthquake Spectra, 5, 767–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McIntosh, R. D., & Pezeshk, S. (1997). Comparison of recent US seismic codes. Journal of Structural Engineering, 123, 993–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mosleh, A., Rodrigues, H., Varum, H., Costa, A., & Arede, A. (2016). Seismic behavior of RC building structures designed according to current codes. Structures, 7, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nepal Building Code (NBC-000). (1994). Requirements for the state of the art design: An introduction. Kathmandu: Department of Building, Ministry of Physical Planning and Works, Government of Nepal.Google Scholar
  21. Nepal Building Code (NBC-105). (1994). Seismic design of buildings in Nepal. Kathmandu: Department of Building, Ministry of Physical Planning and Works, Government of Nepal.Google Scholar
  22. Nepal Building Code (NBC-205). (1994). Mandatory rules of thumb: Reinforced concrete buildings without masonry infill. Kathmandu: Department of Building, Ministry of Physical Planning and Works, Government of Nepal.Google Scholar
  23. Popov, E. P. (1994). Development of US seismic codes. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 29, 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rana, B. S. J. B. (1935). The great earthquake of Nepal 1934. Kathmandu: Jorganesh Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rupakhety, R., Olafsson, S., & Halldorsson, B. (2017). The 2015 M w 7.8 Gorkha earthquake in Nepal and its aftershocks: Analysis of strong ground motion. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 15(7), 2587–2616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wesnousky, S. G., Kumahara, Y., Chamlagain, D., Pierce, I. K., Karki, A., & Gautam, D. (2017). Geological observations on large earthquakes along the Himalayan frontal fault near Kathmandu, Nepal. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 457, 366–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhinan, J., & Zhonghai, Z. (2012). Comparison of base shear force method in the seismic design codes of China, America, and Europe. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 166–169, 2345–2352.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EngineeringPokhara UniversityKaskiNepal
  2. 2.Structural and Geotechnical Dynamics Laboratory, StreGa, DiBTUniversity of MoliseCampobassoItaly

Personalised recommendations