Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 284–294

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Seismic response of current RC buildings in Nepal: A comparative

analysis of different design/construction
H. Chaulagain a, H. Rodrigues a,⇑, J. Jara b, E. Spacone c, H. Varum a
a
University of Aveiro, Civil Engineering Department, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
b
University Michoacana San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Civil Engineering School, 58040 Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico
c
University of Chieti-Pescara, Department PRICOS – Architettura, 65127 Pescara, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents the seismic response of the current reinforced concrete (RC) buildings in Nepal. It was
Received 13 June 2012 achieved by non-linear static and dynamic analyses of four structures corresponding to four scenarios of
Revised 4 October 2012 design/construction, namely a building: (i) representing the Current Construction Practice (CCP) (ii) the
Accepted 31 October 2012
Nepal Building Code (NBC), (iii) the Modified Nepal Building Code (NBC+) and (iv) a Well Designed Struc-
Available online 25 December 2012
ture (WDS). The seismic demands are analyzed and discussed in terms of base shear, maximum roof dis-
placement, capacity curve and inter-storey drift. The results indicate a good correlation between the
Keywords:
static and dynamic methods. The Current Construction Practice (CCP) structure and Nepal Building Code
Current construction practice
Non-liner analysis
(NBC) structures experience inter-storey drift demands higher than the other models and they also pres-
RC buildings ent some irregularities in the drift profile. The modified Nepal Building Code (NBC+) and Well Designed
Seismic codes Structure (WDS) have presented a better performance with low inter-storey drifts. Finally, the safety
Structural vulnerability assessment is performed based on drift limit proposed by ATC-40 and FEMA-356, showing that CCP
and NBC building are highly vulnerable to earthquakes.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction construction trends and practices of RC building production mecha-

Reinforced concrete (RC) building construction in Nepal has
begun from late 1970s. In the last 3–4 decades, RC building con-
struction rapidly increased, replacing other construction materials
and solutions like adobe, stone and brick masonry in Kathmandu
Valley as well as in other parts of the country. Most of the buildings
in the urban areas of Nepal are 2–6 storeys. These buildings are con-
structed with light reinforced frames with masonry infill which can
present insufficient strength, lacked of ductile detailing, poorly
constructed and have limited durability. It is mainly due to the
building construction mechanism which is owner built based on
the inferior masonry quality, lean frames, and lack of reinforcement
[1]. The majority of the buildings constructed in Kathmandu valley
are designed by technician however in most of the cases the seismic
design is not considered [2]. The Bureau of Crises Prevention and
Recovery of the United Nations Development Program ranks Nepal
11th in the world. The seismic history of Nepal also shows the
occurrence of a large devastating earthquake every 60–70 years.
The recent history of construction practices of RC building is only
30–40 years back, and it is estimated that more than 90% of the
buildings, some of them designed according to old standards,
are non-engineered RC frame and owner built, posing high risk to life
and property [3]. The review of literatures also indicate that the
nism in India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Haiti and Turkey are similar to
Nepal [4–7]. However, since 2003 legal provisions were imple-
mented in the Nepal Building Code for building construction to im-
prove the seismic behaviour of RC buildings. The primary aim of this
code is to improve the quality of building construction in Nepal.
In this context, the present study is focused on the performance
of the existing building in Nepal. To achieve this goal, the seismic
behaviour of four different 3-stories RC residential building
structures was studied. The building structures were subjected to
static pushover analysis with different load paths, namely: triangu-
lar, uniformly and first mode distributed load. In addition, an
adaptive pushover analysis and non-linear dynamic time history
analysis were also performed and compared. For each model and
loading direction, the capacity curve has been obtained and a set
of results has been analyzed, namely: maximum base shear, lateral
displacement and inter-story drift. Furthermore, the drift profiles
are compared with the drift limits proposed for each damage state
according with international guidelines (ATC-40 [8] and FEMA-
356 [9]).
2. Case study building
2.1. Common RC building construction practices

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 234 370 049; fax: +351 234 370 094. Recently a sample survey was conducted for characterising the
E-mail address: hrodrigues@ua.pt (H. Rodrigues). actual construction in different localities of Nepal. The information

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.10.036
 H. Chaulagain et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 284–294
collected during field surveys includes plinth area, size and detail-
ing of RC elements (beams and columns), inter-storey height, num-
ber of bays and span lengths, structures’ age, quality of concrete,
and type of steel. Previous research on building survey on Kath-
mandu valley [1–3] and first author’s field investigation has shown
than the plan area of most of the RC residential buildings were be-
tween 65 and 90 m2. Moreover, the study has also shown the var-
iation of construction practices in different localities, ranges from
eastern to western part of the country. The RC building construc-
tion is now more popular in all over the country. Technical man-
power is involved in building construction in city core area
whereas the owner built construction is more common in the
periphery.
3m
3m
X
4m 4m 4m
Y
(a) Plan of building
Fig. 1. Geometry of the building structure.
Table 1
Longitudinal reinforcement of beam sections.
285
2.2. Description of the 3-storey RC building
The sample 3-storey reinforced concrete building is intended to
represent a typical residential RC building in urban area of Nepal.
The global dimensions of the prototype building, namely storey
height, number of storey’s and bays spacing were based on the sta-
tistical analysis of the collected data from the field survey and the
past survey reports [10].
The plan view and elevation is presented in Fig. 1. In terms of the
lateral stiffness and mass distribution, the structure is symmetric in
plan with respect to two orthogonal axes; therefore the analysis
may be performed using two planar models, one for each main
horizontal direction. The structure does not present any vertical
3m
3m
3m
4m 4m 4m
(b) Frame elevation in x-z plane
286 H. Chaulagain et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 284–294

Table 2
Longitudinal reinforcement and dimension of column cross-sections (all dimensions are in mm).

Column Storey Cross-section of column

WDS NBC NBC+ CCP
1st 8 U16 4 U 16 4 U 16 6 U 10
350  350 270  270 300  300 230  230
2nd 8 U16 4 U 16 4 U 16 6 U 10
350  350 230  230 300  300 230  230
3rd 8 U16 4 U 16 4 U 16 4 U 10
300  300 230  230 300  300 230  230
1st 8 U16 4 U 16 4 U 16 6 U 10
400  400 270  270 300  300 230  230
2nd 8 U16 4 U 16 4 U 16 6 U 10
400  400 230  230 300  300 230  230
3rd 8 U16 4 U 12 4 U 16 4 U 10
350  350 230  230 300  300 230  230
1st 8 U16 8 U 12 8 U 12 6 U 10
400  400 270  270 300  300 230  230
2nd 8 U16 8 U 12 8 U 12 6 U 10
400  400 230  230 300  300 230  230
3rd 8 U16 4 U 12 8 U 12 4 U 10
350  350 230  230 300  300 230  230

irregularity, discontinuities or abrupt change in the dimensions and 2.2.2. NBC

stiffness of the adjacent stories. The material properties of the four
structures are assumed to be identical throughout the height of the
structure as; (a) reinforcing steel yield strength, fey = 415 MPa (b)
concrete compressive strength, fc0 ¼ 20 MPa; (c) roof live load =
1.5 kN/m2 (Nil for earthquake); (d) floor live load = 2 kN/m2 (25%
for earthquake); (e) roof and floor finish = 1 kN/m2; (f) brick wall
on peripheral beams = 230 mm thick; (g) brick wall on internal
beams = 115 mm thick; (h) density of concrete = 25 kN/m3; (i) den-
sity of brick including plaster = 20 kN/m3.
In this study the four variation of the typical moment resistant
frame (MRF) defined previously are presented: (i) the first type cor-
responds to moment resisting frames which is designed based on
Indian standard code with seismic provisions, namely seismic de-
sign with ductile detailing (called Well Designed Structure, WDS)
[11–13]; (ii) the second design type is based on Nepal building
code based on Mandatory Rules of Thumb (called NBC design
structure) [14,15]; (iii) the third type of structure is the modified
version of the Nepal Building Code (called as NBC+) [16]; and (iv)
the last type of RC frame design represent the current construction
practices in Nepal (called CCP structure). Due to the lack of
adequate provisions for seismic design of RC building structures
in Nepal Building Code (NBC), the so-called Well Designed
Structure (WDS) considered in this study was designed with Indian
standard codes. In the following sections, the particular character-
istics of each building are described.
NBC structure was designed with the mandatory Rules of
Thumb (MRT) [14]. MRT provides some provisions for ready-to-
use in terms of dimensions and details for structural and non-
structural elements for up to three-storey RC, framed, ordinary res-
idential buildings commonly built by owner-builders in Nepal [14].
The main objective of this document is to replace the commonly
non-engineered construction and achieve the minimum seismic
safety requirements [15]. Since 2003, this document became man-
datory in Nepal. The NBC structures were designed according to
these simplified rules.
2.2.3. NBC+
The Department of Urban Development and Building Construc-
tion published in 2010 additional recommendations for the con-
struction of Earthquake Safer Buildings in Nepal with assistance
of UNDP [16]. This document is an improvement of the NBC, and
specifies the minimum size of columns for buildings up to three
stories. Room sizes not more than 4.5 m  3.0 m, e.g., should have
column dimensions of 300 mm  300 mm or 75 mm more than the
beam width. The minimum column reinforcement is also provided.

2.2.1. Well Designed Structure (WDS)

The WDS building was designed based on the Indian standard
code, considering seismic design with ductile detailing, consider-
ing the building located in the seismic zone V (which is liable for
shaking intensity of IX and higher) and medium soil type. Due to
the low height and the plan and elevation regularity, the seismic
analysis is performed using seismic coefficient method (IS 1893-
2002) [12]. The effect of finite size of joint width (e.g., rigid offsets
at member ends) is not considered in the analysis. However, the ef-
fect of shear deformation is considered. Beams and columns were
designed with the IS13920:1993 recommendations [13]. The dead
load considered were the self weight of the structural members
(beams, columns and slabs) and partition walls according to
IS 875 (Part I). The Live load considered was also according to IS
875 (part 2). Load combinations were defined based on IS 456-
2000 [11]. Fig. 2. 3-D model of the building.
 H. Chaulagain et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 284–294 287

Table 3 forced concrete frames with masonry infill walls. With urbanisa-
Hazard curves for the moderate-high European scenario [32]. tion and increases in the land price, owners tended to add an
Return period (years) Peak ground acceleration (m/s2) additional storey to their existing building not originally designed
73 0.889 (0.09 g) for this condition. As such, most residential buildings are between
100 1.060 (0.11 g) 2 and 6 stories, the majority of them are of three stories. However,
170 1.402 (0.14 g) these structures are not usually constructed with seismic detailing.
300 1.796 (0.18 g) Due to the increase of the number of storeys and considering the
475 2.180 (0.22 g)
700 2.543 (0.26 g)
large occupancy, these buildings could represent a significant risk
975 2.884 (0.29 g) to urban areas in the case of earthquake occurrence. In fact, the col-
1370 3.265 (0.33 g) lapse of similar buildings during past earthquakes in neighbouring
2000 3.728 (0.38 g) regions has showed the catastrophic results and tremendous loss
3000 4.273 (0.44 g)
of human lives and damage to properties.
CCP building was defined based on visual observation of the RC
buildings under construction. It has column cross-sections of
230 mm  230 mm and beams with a rectangular cross section
Table 4
PGA value and intensity/ magnitude of the earthquake model in Kathmandu valley
230 mm wide and 325 mm deep. The reinforced concrete floor
(Ref. JICA, 2002). slabs are 115 mm thick and the concrete and steel grades for all
structural elements are M20 and Fe 415, respectively. All the
Earthquake model PGA value (m/ s2) Intensity/magnitude
periphery walls and the walls adjacent to staircase are 230 mm
Mid Nepal Most parts 0.20 (0.2 g) VIII/8.0 thick and other internal partition walls are 115 mm (half brick)
(some areas > 0.30
thick. The rear side of the building consists of a full brick wall while
(0.3 g)
North Bagmati <0.20 (0.2 g) VI–VII/6.0 the remaining three sides have door and window openings. This
Kathmandu valley >0.30 (0.3 g) VII–VIII in most part building resembles the most common building type in the urban
1934 Earthquake >0.20 (0.2 g) VIII/8.4 in most parts, IX in areas of Nepal.
some areas in eastern
parts
>0.30 (0.3 g) 3. Detailing of case study structures
(Bhaktapur)
>0.40 (0.4 g) (In some Design results from the standard analysis of the RC building
areas) named as WDS is presented with NBC, NBC+ and CCP structures
in tabular form. Beam sections with negative and positive reinforce-
ments at support, and mid-spans of beam are presented in Table 1.
Table 5 The column longitudinal reinforcement is presented in Table 2.
Time periods (in s) of the building models.

Mode CCP NBC NBC+ WDS 4. Non-linear analysis

1st mode (X direction) 0.81 0.69 0.56 0.44
2nd mode (Y direction) 0.80 0.69 0.55 0.43 In order to assess the seismic capacity of the four building struc-
3rd mode (rotation) 0.75 0.64 0.52 0.41 tures defined, several non-linear analyses were performed; in a
first study it was performed a pushover analysis, with three load
distribution, namely uniform, triangular and first mode. Finally,
The requirements for beam detailing are the same of those speci- these results are compared with an adaptive pushover analysis.
fied in the NBC document. The NBC+ structures presented in this To complement this analysis series of dynamic time history analy-
study were defined considering the NBC structure previously sis with different earthquake records were performed. In the fol-
defined. lowing section the assumption considered for the analysis are
briefly described.

2.2.4. CCP 4.1. Non-linear modelling

An additional building was defined to represent the current
construction practice (CPP) in Nepal. The Current Construction The numerical analyses developed and described in the present
Practices of the buildings in the urban areas of Nepal use light rein- paper with different non-linear modelling strategies were

NBC -Y_APOA NBC+Y_APOA WDS -Y_APOA CCP -Y_APOA

NBC -X_APOA NBC+X_APOA WDS -X_APOA CCP -X_APOA
0.25
0.25
Base shear/ Total weight
Base shear/ Total weight

0.2
0.2
0.15
0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Roof displacement (m) Roof displacement (m)

(a) (b)
Fig. 3. Capacity curves by static adaptive pushover analysis of building structures (a) transverse (X) and (b) longitudinal (Y) direction. e, D, h and s represent yielding of 1st
column, yielding of 1st beam, yielding and concrete crushing respectively.
288 H. Chaulagain et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 284–294

(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Capacity curves by dynamic time-history analysis of building structures (a) transverse (X) and (b) longitudinal (Y) direction. Note: CCP-X_DTHA, NBC-X_DTHA,
NBC + X_DTHS, WDS-X_DTHA, represent dynamic history analysis in CCP, NBC, NBC + and WDS in X-direction respectively.

performed using the computer program SeismoStruct [17]. The ses can be performed, namely: static and dynamic time-history,
program includes models for the representation of the behaviour conventional and adaptive pushover, incremental dynamic analy-
of spatial frames under static and/or dynamic loading, considering sis, modal analysis, and static analysis (possibly non-linear) under
both material and geometric non-linearities. Seven types of analy- quasi-permanent loading.

Fig. 5. (a) Capacity curve, (b) max. IS-drift for ag = 0.38 g, (c) max. IS-drift for 3% of roof displacement in X-direction, (d) capacity curve, (e) max. IS-drift for ag = 0.38 g, and (f)
max IS-drift for 3% roof displacement in Y direction. Note: CCPXT, CCPXU, CCPXFM, CCPAS, CCPTH represents pushover analysis with triangular loading, uniformly distributed
loading, first mode pushover analysis, static adaptive pushover analysis and inelastic time history analysis in X direction for CCP structures.
 H. Chaulagain et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 284–294
In this work elements with lumped-plasticity were considered.
Different studies have proposed expressions to estimate the plastic
hinge length (Lp) of RC elements to be adopted in lumped plasticity
models. In the analyses performed in this paper, half of the larger
dimension of the cross-section was considered as the plastic hinge
length with fibre discretization at the section level. The consider-
ation of non-linear material behaviour in the prediction of the RC
columns’ response requires accurate modelling of the uniaxial
material stress–strain cyclic response.
Concrete model is based on the Madas uniaxial model, which fol-
lows the constitutive law proposed by Mander et al. [18]. The cyclic
rules included in the model for the confined and unconfined con-
crete were proposed by Martinez-Rueda and Elnashai [19,20]. The
confinement effects provided by the transverse reinforcement were
considered through the rules proposed by Mander et al. [18], where-
by constant confining pressure is assumed throughout the entire
stress–strain range, traduced by the increase in the peak value of
the compression strength and the stiffness of the unloading branch.
The uniaxial model proposed by Menegotto and Pinto [21], cou-
pled with the isotropic hardening rules proposed by Filippou et al.
Fig. 6. (a) Capacity curve, (b) max. IS-drift for ag = 0.38 g, (c) max. IS-drift for 3% of roof displacement in X-direction, (d) capacity curve, (e) max. IS-drift for ag = 0.38 g period,
and (f) max IS-drift for 3% roof displacement in Y direction.
289
[22], was adopted for the steel reinforcement representation in
these analyses. This steel model does not represent the yielding
plateau characteristic of the mild steel virgin curve. The model
takes into account the Bauschinger effect, which is relevant for
the representation of the columns’ stiffness degradation under
cyclic loading.
The model adopted in the analyses performed in this study is
represented in Fig. 2.
4.2. Static pushover analysis
The static pushover analysis is used to estimate the horizontal
capacity of the structures. Due to simplicity in operation and
minimum computational efforts, static pushover method has be-
come more popular for nonlinear analysis of structures [8,23,24].
It can be performed as either force-controlled or displacement-
controlled depending on the nature of the load and the behaviour
expected from the structure. Force-controlled option is useful
when the load is known and the structure is expected to be able
to support the load [8]. Displacement-controlled procedure is used
290 H. Chaulagain et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 284–294
when specified drifts are sought, where the magnitude of the ap-
plied load is not known in advance, or when the structure can be
expected to lose strength or become unstable [9,17].
Static pushover analysis is sufficiently accurate to assess the
displacement capacity of regular low-rise buildings [25]. Consider-
ing this, a pushover analysis with uniform, triangular distributed
loading and first mode pushover analysis is performed in each
direction (X and Y) to evaluate the performance of the structure.
With the obtained results it is possible to verify the sensitivity of
the buildings to lateral load patterns [25–27].
4.3. Static adaptive pushover analysis
To complement the results obtained in the previous section a
static adaptive pushover analysis was also performed for each
building in each independent direction. In fact, the simplified pro-
cedures based on invariant load patterns are inadequate to predict
inelastic seismic demands in buildings when modes higher than
the first mode contribute to the response and inelastic effects alter
Fig. 7. (a) Capacity curve, (b) max. IS-drift for ag = 0.38 g, (c) max. IS-drift for 3% of roof displacement in X-direction, (d) capacity curve, (e) max. IS-drift for ag = 0.38 g, and (f)
max IS-drift for 3% roof displacement in Y direction.
the height-wise distribution of inertia forces [28–30]. To overcome
this effect, adaptive pushover procedure, modified form of push-
over procedures, is employed in the estimation of the horizontal
capacity of a structure, taking full account of the effect that the
deformation of the structure and the frequency content of input
motion have on its dynamic response characteristic [31]. The lat-
eral load distribution is not kept constant but rather continuously
updated during the analysis, according to the modal shapes and
participation factors divided by eigenvalues analysis carried out
at each analysis step [6]. The results from displacement based
adaptive pushover are close to the ones obtained with dynamic
time history analysis [31].
4.4. Dynamic time-history analysis
Dynamic time history analysis is a more refined model, used for
obtaining the time history response of the structure. In the present
study twelve different artificially generated time history records
 H. Chaulagain et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 284–294
with increasing peak ground acceleration (PGA) values ranges from
0.09 g to 0.44 g are used (Table 4) [32].
The series of twelve artificially generated earthquake input
motion for a medium/high seismic risk scenario, for various return
periods are adopted for the seismic vulnerability assessment of
the building in Nepal [8]. Artificially generated PGA for various re-
turn periods and PGA values and intensity/magnitude of the
earthquake models in Kathmandu valley are presented in Tables
3 and 4 [33].
5. Analysis and interpretation of results
In order to evaluate the differences in the seismic response of
the four buildings the results of the pushover analysis and dynamic
analyses were analyzed it terms of: (i) natural frequencies; (ii)
shear drift curves; (iii) inter-storey drift profile; (iv) maximum base
shear and its corresponding displacement. The criterion to stop the
pushover analysis was the instant when the roof displacement
reached 3% of drift.
Fig. 8. (a) Capacity curve, (b) max. IS-drift for ag = 0.38 g, (c) max. IS-drift for 3% of roof displacement in X-direction, (d) capacity curve, (e) max. IS-drift for ag = 0.38 g, and (f)
max IS-drift for 3% roof displacement in Y direction.
291
5.1. Natural frequencies
Results of natural frequencies in X-direction, Y-direction and
rotation of the building structures are presented in Table 5. CCP,
NBC and WDS structures have low, intermediate and high natural
frequencies respectively. The dynamic characteristics directly af-
fect the seismic response of the considered structures. Analysis
indicates that the structures associated with higher frequencies
have better performance as compared to lower frequencies.
5.2. Capacity curves
The capacity curve represents the envelope of the structural
behaviour under inelastic incursions and can be represented in
terms of top displacement versus base shear. The capacity curves
are evaluated for representative top floor nodes, in the X and Y
directions.
Fig. 3 presents the results of the pushover analysis for each
building and for each loading direction. Fig. 4 plots the results ob-
tained with the non-linear dynamic time history analyses of the
292 H. Chaulagain et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 284–294

buildings subjected to 12 different artificially seismic records. In Table 6

dynamic analysis, absolute of maximum values of roof displace- Tangent stiffness, maximum strength and corresponding deformation of the
structure.
ment and base shear were plotted in the capacity curve. Figs. 3
and 4, represents the examples of the capacity curve assessment Standard Direction Tangent Max. Roof displacement for
for static adaptive pushover and dynamic time history analyses. of loading stiffness strength max. strength (m)
(kN m) (kN)
The capacity curve for each building (CCP, NBC, NBC+ and WDS)
are plotted next for each direction and it is compared with the re- CCP X 3868.42 214.49 0.126
Y 3902.43 216.51 0.149
sults of the different non-linear analysis methods. Based on the re-
sults, the main conclusions are summarized as follows: NBC X 5937.46 367.76 0.137
Y 5771.77 367.63 0.141

 The shear strength capacity and tangent stiffness of WDS are NBC+ X 9062.33 471.95 0.150
Y 8512.22 494.52 0.160
nearly two, three and four times the values obtained with the
NBC+, NBC and CCP structures. WDS X 15631.73 816.14 0.179
Y 14535.34 871.21 0.237
 The code recommendation procedure NBC presents a poor per-
formance in terms of strength, tangent stiffness and deforma-
tion as compared with WDS. In fact, the NBC structures  The capacity curve is affected by the load type pattern consid-
present a quite similar performance as CCP structures. In partic- ered in the pushover analysis, and may lead to an under- or
ular NBC design conducts the building model to present a soft- over-estimate the building seismic capacity. The uniform load
storey mechanism in the second storey, due to the reduction of pattern represents an upper bound for seismic capacity. First
the column cross-section between the first and second storey mode and triangular load patterns gives similar results, repre-
(see Table 2), which is considered non-adequate for earthquake senting lower seismic capacity than the average. The static
prone areas. adaptive and dynamic time history analyses present an average
 The NBC+ building structure showed a better performance in value of the seismic capacity.
maximum displacement and maximum shear strength
demands, as compared with CCP and NBC structures. 5.4. Stiffness, strength and deformation of the study buildings
 In CCP and NBC structures, column yielding appears much ear-
lier than the beam yielding, whereas in WDS structures, the In order to evaluate the behaviour of the building structures un-
weak-beam strong-column mechanism is not observed, i.e. der study, and for the same loading conditions, different parame-
the yielding of beam and column developed simultaneously. ters were quantified and reported in Table 6, namely the tangent
 It is important to note the displacement capacity of each model stiffness, maximum strength and corresponding roof displacement.
quantified by the displacement at the moment of column con- Results indicate that CCP, NBC and WDS had lower, intermediate
crete crushing. It is remarkable the capacity reduction of the and higher structural performance in terms of stiffness, maximum
CCP model as compared with the WDS model. shear and roof displacement.

5.3. Capacity curves and maximum inter-storey drift profi le 5.5. Seismic safety assessment of the building

In the present section, the results are analysed in terms of capac-
ity curves and the maximum drift profiles for each building and
direction of analysis. Roof displacements and drift profiles are ob-
tained for: (a) 3% of the total drift of structure (b) PGA (ag) of 0.38 g
and 0.44 g (Table 4). Summary of the results from capacity curve
and corresponding IS drift for different analysis methods are com-
pared and presented in Figs. 5–8. The results of the dynamic time his-
tory analysis with PGA 0.38 g are marked by filled black square.
In order to assess the seismic vulnerability of the four buildings
under study, the results of the non-linear dynamic analysis for
each direction were compared in terms of the maximum drift de-
mands and the basic performance objectives proposed by interna-
Table 7
Basic performance objectives for buildings according to FEMA-356 [9].

Fully Operational Life Near

 CCP structures have maximum IS drift profile, minimum shear operational safety collapse
capacity and low stiffness as compared with NBC, NBC+ and Earthquake design level
WDS structures (Fig. 5). Frequent (43-yrp)
 In NBC, the maximum IS drift is presented in second storey, Occasional (72-yrp) X
Rare (475-yrp) X
which increases from 3–4% (0.38 PGA) to 7–8% (3% of roof dis-
Very rare (970–2000) yrp X
placement). The drift values obtained with the pushover analy-
sis are not structurally meaningful, but they evidence the
mechanism associated with the soft-storey (Fig. 6).
 IS drift and capacity curve indicates that NBC+ model has better
performance as compared to CCP and NBC structure (Fig. 7). Table 8
Storey drift limits according to the (a) ATC-40 [8] and (b) FEMA-356 [9].
 WDS perform well both in target displacement of PGA 0.38 g
and 3% of roof displacement. In both of these cases, rate of Performance level
change of IS drift is quite regular and consistent in all floor lev- Immediate Damage Life Structural
els (Fig. 8). occupancy control safety stability
 IS drift profile is highly affected by the load pattern and the (a) Storey drift limits according to the ATC-40
analysis method. Drift 1% 1–2% 2% 0.33 Vi/Pi  7%
 The capacity curve obtained from static pushover analysis with limit
Fully operational Operational Life safe Near collapse
uniformly distributed load has the higher value followed by
dynamic time history and adaptive pushover method. Triangu- (b) Storey drift limits according to the FEMA-356
Drift 0.2% 0.5% 1.5% 2.5%
lar and first mode load pattern have nearly the same capacity
limit
curve (Figs. 5–8).
 H. Chaulagain et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 284–294
(a)
Fig. 9. Vulnerability curves of the maximum IS drift for structure CCP, NBC, NBC+, and WDS loaded in X and Y directions respectively.
tional guidelines, namely the ATC-40 [8] and FEMA-356 [9] (Tables
7 and 8). These proposed values have been used by several authors
to assess the seismic capacity of RC buildings. Various documents
[8,9,34,35] follow the same concepts and methodologies with min-
or differences in the values adopted. Even considering that these
values were not calibrated for Nepal’s typical buildings, they al-
lows for a first estimative of these buildings safety.
Fig. 9 presents the vulnerability curves of the buildings includ-
ing the drift limits proposed by the ATC-40 and FEMA-356 recom-
mendations. Comparing the maximum storey drift demands with
the limit states, it was observed that values of PGA smaller than
3 m/s2 conduct the building structures, in both directions, to a
maximum inter-storey drift demand lower than 3%. The CCP and
NBC structures were the most vulnerable models and they pre-
sented a similar behaviour. The well performance of NBC+ and
WDS models is evident in this figure.
6. Conclusions
The seismic vulnerability of RC buildings designed according
with different methodologies adopted in Nepal was studied.
Three-dimensional analytical models of the buildings were devel-
oped and studied under non-linear static pushover analysis and
dynamic analysis. Based on the results of non-linear analyses the
following conclusions can be drawn:
 The pushover curves for the CCP and NBC buildings exhibit sig-
nificant softening in lateral-load-carrying capacity at larger roof
displacements (drifts of 8.77% and 7.28%). Pushover analysis
with uniform distribution loading induces the softening for
lower drift demands.
 An abrupt change in inter storey drift was observed in the CCP
and NBC structures leading to soft first storey and second storey
mechanism due to inadequate design (beam and column sec-
tions) and detailing of the structures.
 NBC+ and WDS had a better performance in maximum shear
capacity, roof displacement, and IS drift for all the static and
dynamic analyses conducted.
 The static adaptive pushover analysis provides the closest
results to the ones obtained with non-linear dynamic time his-
tory analyses in all cases. This conclusion is in accordance with
other authors [31,36,37], and in future analysis this pushover
strategy can be used to characterise the dynamic response of
regular buildings.
 The vulnerability assessment based on ATC-40 [8] and FEMA-
356 [9] clearly showed that the building types of current con-
struction practices (CCP) and Nepal Building Code (NBC) are
highly vulnerable. Moreover, the nonlinear behaviour indicates
293
(b)
that softening is more pronounced in these structures and a
quite different seismic response could be expected between
the CCP and NBC buildings, and the NBC+ and WDS models.
 The pushover analysis showed that the elastic stiffness, yield
strength, and yield displacement of the capacity curve depends
on the lateral force distribution. The ‘‘Uniform’’ distribution
generally leads to pushover curve with higher elastic stiffness,
higher yield strength, and lower yield displacement compared
to all other distributions. The ‘‘Triangular’’ distribution, on the
other hand, leads to pushover curve with lower elastic stiffness,
lower yield strength, and higher yield displacement. The Static
Adaptive Pushover and Dynamic Time History Analysis give
pushover curves that are bounded by the pushover curves due
to ‘‘Uniform’’ and ‘‘Triangular’’ distributions [26,31,37–39].
Acknowledgements
This research investigation is supported by the Eurasian Univer-
sity Network for International Cooperation in Earthquake (EU-
NICE), through fellowship for PhD research of the first author. This
support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Shrestha H, Bothara JK. Vulnerability of typical RC frame buildings in Nepal and
suitable mitigation measures. Innovative initiatives in disaster risk reduction
applied research by young practitioners in South, South East, and East Asia,
applied research grants for disaster risk reduction rounds I and Eurasian
Disaster Prepared Centre; 2006.
[2] Chaulagain H, Guragain R, Mallik RK. Assessment of response reduction factor
of RC buildings in Nepal. ME Thesis, Purbanchal University; 2010.
[3] JICA. The study on earthquake disaster mitigation in the Kathmandu Valley
Kingdom of Nepal. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and Ministry
of Home Affairs, His Majesty‘s Government of Nepal, vol. 1, 110+p; 2002.
[4] Bothara JK, Hiçyılmaz KM. General observations of building behaviour during
the 8th October 2005 Pakistan earthquake. Bullet New Zeal Soc Earthquake
Eng 2008;41(4).
[5] Dogangun A. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the May 1,
2003 Bingo Earthquake in Turkey. Eng Struct 2004;26:841–56.
[6] Ghobaraha A, Murat Saatcioglub M, Nistorb I. The impact of the 26 December
2004 earthquake and tsunami on structures and infrastructure – Engineering
Structures, vol. 28. Indonesia and, Thailand; 2006. P. 312–6.
[7] Seen H, Whittaker AS, Elwood KJ, Moslem KM. Performance of reinforced
concrete buildings during the August 17, 1999 Kokkali, Turkey earthquake, and
seismic design and construction practise in Turkey. Eng Struct
2003;25:103–14.
[8] ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Applied
Technical Council, California Seismic Safety Commission, Report No. SSC 96–
01 (two volumes). Redwood City, California, US; 1996.
[9] FEMA356. Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2000.
[10] Chaulagain H, Varum H, Spacone E, Rodrigues H. Reflections on the seismic
vulnerability associated to common RC buildings in Nepal. In: 15th WCEE;
2012.
294 H. Chaulagain et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 284–294
[11] IS 456-2000. Plain and reinforced concrete code of practice, 4th revision.
Bureau of Indian Standards, ManakBhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New
Delhi; 2000.
[12] IS 1893 (Part1):2002. Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design
of structures, 5th revision. Bureau of Indian Standards, ManakBhavan, 9
Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi; 2002.
[13] IS 13920:1993. Indian standard ductile detailing of reinforced concrete
structures subjected to seismic force. Bureau of Indian Standards,
ManakBhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi; 1993.
[14] NBC-201:1994. Nepal National Building Code.HMG/Ministry of Housing and
Physical Planning, Department of Building; 1994.
[15] NBC-205:1994. Nepal National Building Code. HMG/Ministry of Housing and
Physical Planning, Department of Building; 1994.
[16] UNDP. Recommendations for construction of earthquake safer buildings –
Earthquake Risk Reduction and Recovery Preparedness Programme for Nepal,
UNDP/ERRRP-Project: NEP/07/010. Department of Urban Development and
Building Construction, Babarmahal, Kathmandu; 2010.
[17] SeismoSoft. A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of
framed structure; 2006 <http://www.seismosoft.com>.
[18] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[19] Martinez-Rueda JE. Energy dissipation devices for seismic upgrading of RC
structures. PhD Thesis, Imperial College, University of London, London, UK;
1997.
[20] Elnashai AS, Elghazouli AY. Performance of composite steel/concrete members
under earthquake loading, part I: analytical model. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dynam 1993;22:315–45.
[21] Menegotto M, Pinto PE. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded RC plane
frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behaviour of elements
under combined normal force and bending. In: Symposium on the resistance
and ultimate deformability of structures acted on by well defined repeated
loads. Zurich, Switzerland: International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering; 1973. p. 15–22.
[22] Filippou FC, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic
behaviour of reinforced concrete joints. Report EERC 83-19. Berkeley:
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California; 1983.
[23] Elnashai AS. Advanced inelastic (pushover) analysis for seismic design and
assessment. In: The G. Penelis, Symposium; 2000.
[24] Kalkan E, Kunnath SK. Assessment of current nonlinear static procedures for
seismic evaluation of buildings. Eng Struct 2007;29:305–16.
[25] Li JH, Su RKL, Chandler AM. Assessment of low-rise building with transfer
beam under seismic forces. Eng Struct 2003;25:1537–49.
[26] Jianguo N, Kai Q, Yan X. Pushover analysis of the seismic behavior of a
concrete-filled rectangular tubular frame structure. Tsinghua Sci Technol
2006:124–30.
[27] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of
RC buildings. Eng Struct 2001;23:407–24.
[28] Goel RK, Chopra AK. Evaluation of modal and FEMA pushover analyses: SAC
buildings. Earthquake Spectra 2004;20(1):225–54.
[29] Gupta B, Kunnath SK. Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic
evaluation of structures. Earthquake Spectra 2000;16(2):367–91.
[30] Kalkan E, Kunnath SK. Method of modal combinations for pushover analysis of
buildings. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake
engineering, Paper no. 2713; 2004.
[31] Antoniou S, Pinho R. Development and verification of a displacement based
adaptive pushover procedure. J Earthquake Eng 2006;8(5):643–61.
[32] Carvalho EC, Coelho E, Campos Costa A. Preparation of the full-scale tests on
reinforced concrete frames – characteristics of the test specimens, materials
and testing conditions. ICONS report, Innovative Seismic Design Concepts for
New and Existing Structures. European TMR Network – LNEC, Lisbon; 1999.
[33] UNDP. Seismic hazard mapping and risk assessment for Nepal. His Majesty’s
Government of Nepal, Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning, UNDP/
UNCHS (Habitat) Subproject NEP/88/054/21.03; 1994.
[34] SEAOC. Vision 2000. Performance based seismic engineering ofbuildings, vols.
I and II: Conceptual framework. Sacramento (CA): Structural Engineers
Association of California; 1995.
[35] Ghobarah A. Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: state of
development. Eng Struct 2001;23:878–84.
[36] Antoniou S, Pinho K. Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive
force based pushover procedures. J Earthquake Eng 2004;8(4):497–522.
[37] Meireles H, Pinho R, Bento R, Antoniou S. Verification of an adaptive pushover
technique for the 3D case. In: First European conference on earthquake
engineering and seismology. Geneva, Switzerland, paper no-619; 2006.
[38] Akbas B, She J, Kara FI, Tugsal, UM. Seismic behavior and pushover analysis in
steel frames. In: The 5th national conference on earthquake engineering.
Istanbul, Turkey, Paper no. AT-053; 2003.
[39] Inel M, Tjhin T, Aschheim MA. The significance of lateral load pattern in
pushover analysis. In: The 5th national conference on earthquake engineering.
Istanbul, Turkey, Paper No. AE-009; 2003.