Comparison of Seismic Parameter in RC Building Using NBC 105:2016, IS 1893:2016 and ASCE 7-22

Gokaran Singh Chaisir; Kishor Chaulagain; Amit Kumar Yadav; Gautam Kumar Sah; Navraj Khanal; Arjun Paudel; Abhinesh Khatri

doi:doi:10.11648/j.larp.20261101.11

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Comparison of Seismic Parameter in RC Building Using NBC 105:2016, IS 1893:2016 and ASCE 7-22

Gokaran Singh Chaisir^*

, Kishor Chaulagain

, Amit Kumar Yadav

, Gautam Kumar Sah

, Navraj Khanal

, Arjun Paudel

, Abhinesh Khatri

Published in Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning (Volume 11, Issue 1)

Received: 19 September 2025 Accepted: 7 October 2025 Published: 26 January 2026

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This work aims to compare three codes; ASCE 7-22, IS 1893:2016 and NBC 105:2020 in terms of lateral effect on RC building, focusing on the seismic force effect. Since all of the codes have different standards and factors, therefore it is expected that there will be some differences in the structural behavior. This research will contain analysis of building consisting of 5 RC buildings and comparison of several provisions. This research study will investigate the difference between seismic results between the all codes and if there might be any differences in the structural elements reinforcement percentage. In order to illustrate a real and accurate comparison, all these structures have been compared in similar circumstances; all of them were assumed to be designed in Nepal. This analysis has been performed using ETABS software. The ETABS software will be used in analysis. In this study building was analyzed to compare the base shear, storey displacement, storey drift, percentages of reinforcement and fundamental time period in accordance with Nepal National Building Code, Indian Standard and American Society of Civil Engineers guidelines. The analysis results indicated that NBC 105:2020 showed a higher value of base shear compared to the other codes. NBC 105:2020 showed higher inter storey drift than other two codes. The displacement obtained in NBC 105:2020 is found to be higher than other two codes. Fundamental time period is more in NBC 105:2020 than other two codes. The investigation revealed that the revised NBC 105:2020 displayed higher values for all response parameters analyzed. Based on the design outcomes, the ASCE codes exhibited the highest percentage of longitudinal rebar, while NBC 105:2020 depicted the lowest. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the adherence to building code regulations during construction. The findings of this study aim to equip designers with comprehensive knowledge regarding seismic provisions and standards to facilitate informed decision- making in their design activities.

Published in	Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning (Volume 11, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.larp.20261101.11
Page(s)	1-12
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

RCC Framed Building, Seismic Parameter, ASCE

1. Introduction

The RC design practice of Nepal is greatly influenced by the Indian Standard Codes. Up until 1984, Nepal did not have its own RC design code and heavily relied upon the Indian Standard codes for the design of its structures. But the design parameter in IS code didn’t have the provision for the Nepali landscape, so the Nepali Designers had to improvise the code use it in the context of Nepal. Finally, in 1994 Nepal developed its own code NBC 105:1994 and implemented its use all over the country. The new code had used various methods different to the IS code including load patterns, time periods more suited to the Nepali Terrain and landscape. The major changes NBC 105:1994 brought is that it provided a greater provision of seismic loading which is necessary for an earthquake prone zone like Nepal.

Although the NBC 105:1984 was published in 1984, the code wasn’t made mandatory in all parts of the country, so people kept on using the IS codes which was more frequently updated and used as basis for teaching students as well. A massive earthquake hit Nepal in 2012 AD which unfortunately resulted in collapse of numerous RC structures. At this stage a massive emphasis was given to update the preexisting NBC code so that it could be more relevant to the seismic threats to the Nepali terrain and drop the reliance on Indian Standard Codes. Finally, a new code was developed and published in Nepal heavily emphasizing on the Seismic performance of buildings in 2020 AD as NBC 105:2020. Various codes have been taken as reference to develop this code whose seismic risk is similar to our country. This research paper presents the comparison of various parameters which differentiates this code with the ASCE 7 22 in both commercial and residential structures. The study was done by using numerical models in ETABS.

The US code, reflecting international best practices, can provide insights into innovative construction technologies, interdisciplinary approaches, and adaptation to diverse climates, thereby contributing to Nepal's seismic safety and sustainability. Strong focus on earthquake-resistant design due to Nepal's high seismic risk. NBC 105 specifically addresses seismic design criteria tailored to local conditions.

There are multiple researches that have been conducted regarding codes comparison, starting with A comparative study conducted by Dhanvijay, Telang and Nair to compare some of the international design codes including the Indian code IS 1893:2002, Eurocode and the American code (ASCE/IBC). The structural model was a G+10 special reinforced concrete moments-resisting frames, the building system was used in order to resist earthquakes. The columns and the beams were detailed in a way that enable them to resist axial, shear and flexural actions when the structure is being swayed in multiple displacement cycles during an earthquake. The analysis was made on STAAD-Pro software. This study main objective was to bring out the contributing factors which lead into poor performance of the structure during an earthquake and make recommendations on how to make structure perform better. To do so, they conducted a comparative analysis of displacement, base shear, axial load and moment at x and z directions for some selected columns, shear in y direction and moment in z direction for some selected beams. The conclusion for the columns analysis was that both the Indian code and the American code had very close results in both x and z directions while the Eurocode showed highly different result, while for displacements and moments in y and z, the obtained results were relatively different than each code. For beams only the moment in z direction for the American code and the Eurocode was close while for base shear, shear in y direction and torsion were all relatively different

[2]

Another comparative study was conducted by Devendra shah and shakshi chalotra to compare RC frame building with NBC105:2020 and IS code 1983:2002, where they compared drift value, displacement value, shear storey & storey stiffness of both codes by making G+8 model in ETABS software. The conclusion of their study were: the displacement value, drift value, base shear &the storey shear was more in the building analyzed by NBC 105:2020 whereas the overturning moment in building analyzed with IS code is more. The other findings were, the fundamental time period of the building with IS Code gets reduced

[3]

The main conclusion from previous mentioned studies is that the codes are differ from each other in many provisions, which make the comparison field huge. This research will conduct a comparison of the analysis for different provisions between the ASCE 7-22 code, IS 1893:2016 and the NBC 105:2020 and by performing this analysis the final structural elements will be compared in terms of the amount of reinforcement used. The study comparison for seismic assessment provisions will contain base Shear, storey drift, storey displacement, percentage of reinforcement and fundamental time period. This study will be performed on two (seven and six storey) commercial building and three (five, four and three storey) residential buildings that are assumed to be built in Nepal.

2. Over View of Seismic Provision

Seismic codes are primarily developed to safeguard human life by guiding engineers in the proper analysis and design of structures subjected to earthquakes. However, factors such as seismic hazard levels, ground motion characteristics, and construction practices can differ significantly from one region to another

[4]

. Therefore, it is essential to tailor the design and detailing process to suit local conditions by using the appropriate seismic codes. Adhering to these codes and accurately applying their detailing requirements is key to ensuring the structural integrity and safety of buildings during seismic events

[5]

. Table 1 provides a comparative overview of different seismic codes and standards, highlighting their respective design and detailing approaches.

Table 1. List of codes for seismic design.

Codes/Standards	Seismic code
Nepal National Building Code	NBC 105:2020
Indian Standard	IS 1893:2016
American Standard	ASCE 7–22

2.1. Seismic Zone Factor

The guidelines for seismic zoning, NBC 105:2020 in Nepal and IS 1893:2002 and IS 1893:2016 in India include a factor called "Z", however, the ASCE 7–16 guideline does not have a similar factor. Instead, ASCE uses two seismic hazard parameters, "Ss" and "S1", to determine the seismic zone of a specific area. These parameters are calculated based on bedrock conditions, unlike in the Nepalese and Indian codes, which consider the effects of soil

[17]

S1 MCER, 5% damped, spectral response acceleration parameter at a period of 1s S_S MCER, 5% damped, spectral response acceleration parameter at a period of 0.2s MCER Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake.

NBC 105:2020 utilizes specific values of the Seismic Zoning Factor (Z), which represents the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) for a 475-year return period. The values range from 0.25 g to 0.4 g. The Zone Factor is city-wise tabulated, and interpolation is applied. The revised standard reflects the updated understanding of seismic hazard in Nepal and emphasizes the need for more robust building design. It considers recent advancements in seismic design and construction practices, as well as les sons learnt from past earthquakes in the region

[1]

Table 2. Seismic Zone classification specified in various seismic design code.

NBC 105:2020	IS1893:2016	clause 4.1.4
0.25 for Zone A	0.10 for Zone I	Ss, S1 depend on location
0.3 for Zone B	0.16 for Zone II
0.35 for Zone C	0.24 for Zone III
0.4 for Zone D	0.36 for Zone IV
clause 4.1.4	clause 4.1.4

2.2. Importance Factor

Table 3, shows Importance factor specified in various seismic code.

Table 3. Importance Factor specified in various seismic design codes.

NBC 105:2020	IS1893:2016	ASCE7-22
For ordinary structures I = 1	For Ordinary structures I = 1	For ordinary structures (I), Ie = 1
For important structures = 1.25	Commercial structure I = 1.2	Structures not in occupancy categories I, III or IV (II), Ie = 1
For critical structures I = 1.5	For important structures I = 1.5	For important structures (III), Ie = 1.25 For critical structures (IV),
Tables 4–6	Table 8 (Clause 7.2.3)	Ie = 1.5 Risk Category (I, II, III, IV)
Tables 4–6	Table 8 (Clause 7.2.3)	Table 1 & Table 2

2.3. Factor of Coefficient (K/R Factor)

Many seismic codes follow a force-based design approach. This involves analyzing structures using elastic models and taking into account non-linearity through force reduction factors, which consider factors such as ductility, excess strength, and other unforeseen elements not directly captured in modelling

[6]

. NBC 105:2020 ensures the adequate ductility, redundancy, and over strength of RC structures through the Ductility Factor (Rμ, Rs). Indian codes (IS 1893:2016) refer to this as the Response Reduction Factor, and ASCE 7 as the Response Modification Coefficient. Seismic codes categorize buildings into various ductility classes and specify related reduction factors

[7]

. ASCE 7 categorizes RC frame buildings into three ductility classes: Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF) with a response modification coefficient of 3, Intermediate Moment Resisting Frame (IMRF) with a coefficient of 5, and Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) with a coefficient of 8. IS 1893 separates RC frame buildings into two classes, OMRF with a factor of 3, and SMRF with a factor of 5. NBC 105:1994 has only one classification for RC frame buildings, SMRF, with a performance factor of 1. In NBC 105:2020, the classification is changed to Ductility

[8]

Table 4 shows Factor of Coefficient specified in various seismic design codes.

Table 4. Factor of Coefficient specified in various seismic design codes.

NBC 105:2020	IS1893:2016	ASCE7-22
Ductility Factor (Rμ, Rs) (SMRF) Rμ = 4; Rs = 1 Ωμ = 1.5; Ωs = 1.25	Response Reduction Factor (R) R = 3 (OMRF) R = 5 (SMRF)	Response Modification Coefficient (R) R = 3 (OMRF) R = 5 (IMRF) R = 8 (SMRF)
clause 5.3 & 5.4	Table 9 (clause 7.2.6)	Table 1 2 in ASCE7-22

2.4. Seismic Weight

Table 5 shows Seismic Weight specified in various seismic design codes.

Table 5. Seismic Weight specified in various seismic design codes.

NBC 105:2020

IS1893:2016

ASCE7-22

Total Dead load

60% design live load is considered for storage, 30% for other purposes,

25% design live load is considered up to 3 kPa,

50% above 3 kPa, and not considered for roofs

No consideration of live load (except storage)

Table 5 of NBC 105:2020

Clause 7.3 & 7.4, Table 10

Cl. 12.7.2

2.5. Site Classification

The design spectrum’s shape is primarily determined by the soil type and ground motion amplitude, with local sub soil significantly influencing ground motion characteristics and, consequently, governing the design response spectrum

[15]

. Seismic design codes distinguish the site based on single or multiple criteria such as SPT value (N), unconfined shear strength, average shear wave velocity, Vs etc. Relatable parameters are taken into the consideration to compare the site class of various codes and are presented in Table 2

[9]

. NBC 105 takes an account of SPT value and unconfined compressive strength for site classification whereas IS code 1893 classifies only taking an account of SPT value. How ever, ASCE 7 classification seems more advanced as it con siders Vs, SPT value, and unconfined shear strength

[16]

. The new Nepali code (NBC 105:2020) added a fourth site class, "Type D," compared to the previous code which only had three. Unlike ASCE 7–16 with five site classes, both Nepali (old) and Indian (old and new) codes only have three. This is evident in Table 2. From the table, it can be observed that NBC 105‟s Type I/Type A and IS 1893 correspond to a wide range of site classes (Type A to Type D) in ASCE 7

[10]

. Table 6, shows comparison of site classification specified in different seismic design code.

2.6. Load Combination

There are altogether four load cases considered for the structural analysis and are mentioned as below:

Dead load (DL)

Live load (LL)

Earthquake load in X-direction (EQX)

Earthquake load in Y-direction (EQY)

Table 7 shows the Load Combinations for Different Codes.

Table 6. Comparison of site classification specified in different seismic design codes.

NBC 105:2020		IS1893:2016		ASCE7-22
Site class	N Value	Site Class	N Value	Site Class	Shear Velocity	N value
Type A	>30	Type I	>30	Type A	>1524	N/A
(Stiff or Hard Soil)		Rock and Hard soil		Hard Rock
Type B	10 to 30	Type II Medium Soil	10 to 30	Type B	762 to 1524	N/A
(Medium soil)	10 to 30	Type II Medium Soil	10 to 30	Rock	762 to 1524	N/A
Type C	4 to 10	Type III Soft Soil	<30	Type C	366 to 762	>50
(Soft soil)	4 to 10	Type III Soft Soil	<30	Very Dense soil and soft rock	366 to 762	>50
Type D	<4			Type D	183 to 366	15 to 50
(Very soft soil)	<4	Table 1 (clause 6.3.5.2)		Stiff Soil	183 to 366	15 to 50
clause 4.1.3		&		Type E Soft Clay Soil	<183	<15
clause 4.1.3		Table 4 (clause 6.4.2.1)		Table 2 0 of ASCE7-22

Table 7. Load Combinations for Different Codes.

NBC 105:2020	IS 1893:2016	ASCE 7-22
1. 1.2DL + 1.5LL	1. 1.2 (DL + LL + EQX)	1. 1.4DL
2. DL + 0.3LL + Ex	2. 1.2 (DL + LL – EQX)	2. 1.2DL+1.6LL
3. DL + 0.3LL -Ex	3. 1.2 (DL + LL + EQY)	3. 1.40DL+0.5LL+(EQ_X+0.3EQ_Y)
4. DL + 0.3LL +Ey	4. 1.2 (DL + LL – EQY)	4. 1.40DL+0.5LL+(EQ_X-0.3EQ_Y)
5. DL + 0.3LL - Ey	5. 1.5 (DL + LL)	5. 1.40DL+0.5LL-(EQ_X+0.3EQ_Y)
	6. 1.5 (DL + EQX)	6. 1.40DL+0.5LL-(EQ_X-0.3EQ_Y)
	7. 1.5 (DL - EQX)	7. 1.40DL+0.5LL+(EQ_Y+0.3EQ_X)
	8. 1.5 (DL + EQY)	8. 1.40DL+0.5LL+(EQ_Y-0.3EQ_X)
	9. 1.5 (DL – EQY)	9. 1.40DL+0.5LL-(EQ_Y+0.3EQ_X)
	10. 0.9 DL + 1.5 EQX	10. 1.40DL+0.5LL-(EQ_Y-0.3EQ_X)
	11. 0.9 DL - 1.5 EQX	11. 0.70DL+(EQ_X+0.3EQ_Y)
	12. 0.9 DL + 1.5 EQY	12. 0.70DL+(EQ_X-0.3EQ_Y)
	13. 0.9 DL - 1.5 EQY	13. 0.70DL-(EQ_X+0.3EQ_Y)
		14. 0.70DL-(EQ_X-0.3EQ_Y)
		15. 0.70DL+(EQ_Y+0.3EQ_X)
		16. 0.70DL+(EQ_Y-0.3EQ_X)
		17. 0.70DL-(EQ_Y+0.3EQ_X)
		18. 0.70DL-(EQ_Y-0.3EQ_X)

3. Modelling

A linear model of the selected representative building was created in ETABS v19 (a structural software that facilitates modelling, analysis, and design of structures). Few assumptions were made during the modelling, such as:

The structure was treated as fixed at the plinth level.

The model was constructed using a "Bare Frame" approach, which neglects the contribution of stiffness from the brick walls. The analysis involved isolating the infill walls from the frame system, thus treating the wall load as a purely dead load on the building

[14]

. Consequently, the lateral rigidity of the infill wall was deemed negligible in the model

[11]

The floor diaphragms are assumed to be rigid.

Damping is considered as 5%

[12]

4. Analysis

Equivalent Lateral Force method is used in the analysis of the case study building

5. Result and Description

Table 8. Building Description.

Building	Type	No. of Story	Height	Type of Soil
1	Commercial	G+6 STOREY	24	type D
2	Residential	G+4 STOREY	18	NBC 105:2020
3	Residential	G+3 STOREY	15	(CL.4.1.3.4)
4	Residential	G+2 STOREY	12

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 1. 3D and Plan of Building 1.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 2. 3D and Plan of Building 2.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 3. 3D and Plan of Building 3.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 4. 3D and Plan of Building 4.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 5. 3D and Plan of Building 5.

5.1. Base Shear

Table 9. Base Shear Results for Building 1.

Code	Base Shear
NBC105:2020	1299.15(SLS)
NBC105:2020	1350.7(ULS)
IS 1893:2016	758.0079kN
ASCE7-22	1259.23kN

Table 10. Base Shear Results for Building 2.

Code	Base Shear
NBC105:2020	1354.52kN ULS
NBC105:2020	1302.82kN SLS
IS 1893:2016	684.0483kN
ASCE7-22	1250.8 kN

Table 11. Base Shear Results for Building 3.

Code	Base Shear
NBC105:2020	1058.04kN ULS
NBC105:2020	1017.65kN SLS
IS 1893:2016	598.651kN
ASCE7-22	1019.672kN

Table 12. Base Shear Results for Building 4.

Code	Base Shear
NBC105:2020	837.337 kN (SLS)
NBC105:2020	805.377 kN (ULS)
ASCE7-22	774.38
IS 1893-2016	570.881

Table 13. Base Shear Results for Building 5.

Code	Base Shear
NBC105:2020	666.925 kN (SLS)
NBC105:2020	693.391 kN (ULS)
IS 1893:2016	472.625 kN
ASCE7-22	641.021 kN

The graphs comparing base shear for residential and commercial buildings is shown in Figure 6.

The Base Shear parameter of a structure is majorly dependent on the time period of vibration. This research has found that time period is more in NBC 105: 2020 as compared to IS 1893-2016 code and ASCE 7-22 which shows that NBC 105: 2020 creates more seismic resistant structures in both residential and commercial structures

[13]

The value of base shear is higher by 43.1%, 6.78%, in NBC 105:2020(ULS) than IS 1893:2016 and ASCE 7-22 respectively in commercial building 1 and the value of base shear is higher by 31.82%, 7.52% in NBC 105:2020(ULS) than IS 1893:2016, ASCE 7-22 respectively in residential building (4).

5.2. Displacement

Table 14. Displacement Results for Building 1.

Code	Direction	Displacement
NBC105:2020	X SLS	80.396
	Y SLS	70.594
	X ULS	83.586
	Y ULS	66.300
IS 1893:2016	X	51.478
IS 1893:2016	Y	42.592
ASCE7-22	X	78.207
ASCE7-22	Y	68.471

Table 15. Displacement Results for Building 2.

Code	Direction	Displacement
NBC105:2020	X SLS	50.0158
	Y SLS	44.616
	X ULS	52
	Y ULS	40.387
IS 1893:2016	X	29.136
IS 1893:2016	Y	25.974
ASCE 7-22	X	48.127
ASCE 7-22	Y	42.767

Table 16. Displacement Results for Building 3.

Code	Direction	Displacement
NBC105:2020	X SLS	47.152
	Y SLS	42.949
	X ULS	49.023
	Y ULS	44.654
IS 1893:2016	X	31.218
IS 1893:2016	Y	28.425
ASCE 7-22	X	47.532
ASCE 7-22	Y	43.321

Table 17. Displacement Results for Building 4.

Code	Direction	Displacement
NBC105:2020	X SLS	39.988
	Y SLS	37.016
	X ULS	41.576
	Y ULS	38.543
ASCE7-22	X	38.345
ASCE7-22	Y	35.542
IS 1893-2016	X	32.353
IS 1893-2016	Y	29.991

Table 18. Displacement Resultss for Building 5.

Code	Direction	Displacement
NBC105:2020	X SLS	33.396
	Y SLS	30.991
	X ULS	34.721
	Y ULS	32.22
IS 1893:2016	X	26.8157
IS 1893:2016	Y	24.9025
ASCE7-22	X	30.727
ASCE7-22	Y	28.506

Figure 7 and Figure 8, shows graph of Displacement comparison in x and Y direction. The displacement obtained in NBC 105:2020(ULS) in commercial buildings (building 1) was found to be higher by 6.44% and 38.41% in x- direction and NBC 105:2020(SLS) in commercial buildings was found to be higher by 3% and 39.66% in y direction than ASCE7-22 and IS 1893:2016. Similarly, Displacement obtained in NBC 105:2020(ULS) in residential buildings (building 4) was found to be higher by 7.77%, 22.18% in x-direction and 4.9%, and 22.19% in y direction than ASCE 7-22 and IS 1893:2016.

5.3. Drift

Table 19. Drift Results for Building 1.

Code	Direction	Drift
NBC105:2020	X SLS	0.004955
	Y SLS	0.004232
	X ULS	0.005152
	Y ULS	0.004196
ASCE7-22	X	0.00438
ASCE7-22	Y	0.00411
IS 1893-2016	X	0.00304
IS 1893-2016	Y	0.00262

Table 20. Displacement Result for Building 2.

Code	Direction	Drift
NBC105:2020	X SLS	0.003635
	Y SLS	0.003251
	X ULS	0.00378
	Y ULS	0.00338
IS 1893:2016	X	0.001996
IS 1893:2016	Y	0.001767
ASCE7-22	X	0.003503
ASCE7-22	Y	0.003122

Table 21. Displacement Result for Building 3.

Code	Direction	Drift
NBC105:2020	X SLS	0.004036
	Y SLS	0.003624
	X ULS	0.004196
	Y ULS	0.003767
IS 1893:2016	X	0.00251
IS 1893:2016	Y	0.00224
ASCE7-22	X	0.004057
ASCE7-22	Y	0.00364

Table 22. Displacement Result for Building 4.

Code	Direction	Drift
NBC105:2020	X SLS	0.004089
	Y SLS	0.003737
	X ULS	0.004251
	Y ULS	0.003885
ASCE7-22	X	0.003939
ASCE7-22	Y	0.003597
IS 1893-2016	X	0.003131
IS 1893-2016	Y	0.002848

Table 23. Displacement Result for Building 5.

Code	Direction	Drift
NBC105:2020	X SLS	0.003796
	Y SLS	0.00365
	X ULS	0.004191
	Y ULS	0.004031
IS 1893:2016	X	0.003138
IS 1893:2016	Y	0.002827
ASCE7-22	X	0.003754
ASCE7-22	Y	0.0034

Figure 9 Shows Drift comparison in x direction and Figure 10 shows Drift comparison in x direction.

The inter-storey drift obtained in NBC 105:2020(ULS) in residential building (building 4) was found to be higher by 7.32%, 26.33% in x-direction and 7.53%, 26.78%, in y-direction than ASCE 7-22 and IS 1893:2016.

Similarly. The inter-storey drift obtained in NBC 105:2020(ULS) in commercial building (building 1) was found to be higher by 14.98% and 40.99% in x- direction and 2.03% and 35.36% in y-direction than ASCE 7-22 and IS 1893:2016.

5.4. Fundamental Time Period

Table 24. Fundamental Time Period.

Code	Commercial		Residencial
Code	Building1	Building2	Building3	Building4	Building5
NBC 105:2020	1.016	0.919	0.819	0.715	0.604
ASCE 7-22	0.813	0.736	0.655	0.572	0.48
IS 1893:2016	0.814	0.722	0.628	0.533	0.436

Figure 11, Shows Fundamental time period comparison. The Base Shear parameter of a structure is majorly dependent on the time period of vibration. This research has found that time period is more in NBC 105: 2020 as compared to IS 1893-2016 code and ASCE 7-22 which shows that NBC 105: 2020 creates more seismic resistant structures in both residential and commercial structures.

5.5. Percentages of Reinforcement

Table 25. Percentages of Reinforcement

Code	Commercial		Residencial
Code	Building1	Building2	Building3	Building4	Building5
NBC 105:2020	1.80%	1.82%	1.76%	2.78%	2.19%
ASCE 7-22	1.81%	1.83%	1.76%	2.79%	2.47%
IS 1893:2016	2.76%	2.70%	1.89%	2.99%	2.57%

Figure 12, Shows Longitudinal Reinforcement percentage comparison

The Percentage of reinforcements in Column is lower by 0.36% and 7.55% than NBC 105:2020(ULS) in IS 1893:2016, ASCE 7-22 respectively in residential building (4) and the value of Percentage of reinforcements in Column is lower by 0.56% and 53.33% in NBC

105:2020(ULS) than IS 1893:2016, ASCE 7-22 respectively in commercial building (1).

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 6. Base shear comparison.

Y-axis -Base Shear in KN

X-axis -Codes

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 7. Displacement comparison in x direction.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 8. Displacement comparison in y direction.

Y-axis -Displacement

X-axis -Codes

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 9. Drift comparison in x direction.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 10. Drift comparison in y direction.

Y-axis -Drift

X-axis -Codes

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 11. Fundamental time period comparison.

X-axia (Time period)

Y-axis (Code)

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 12. Longitudinal Reinforcement percentage comparison.

Y-axis -Percentage of reinforcement

X-axis -Codes

Abbreviations

NBC	Nepal Building Code
IS	Indian Standard
ASCE	American Society of Civil Engineering
GF	Ground Floor
MRF	Moment Resisting Frame
IBC	International Building Code
USGS	United State Geological Survey

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	United States Geological Survey. USGS: ASCE Hazard Tool. Available from: https://ascehazardtool.org/ (accessed 06 February 2025).
[2]	Dhanvijay, Vinit; Telang, Deepa; Nair, Vikrant (2015). Comparative Study of Different Codes in Seismic Assessment. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol. 02, Issue 04, July 2015, pp. 1371-1381. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371956633_Comparative_Study_of_Different_Codes_in_Seismic_Assessment
[3]	Shah, Devendra & Chalotra, Shakshi. (2022). Comparative Study of RC Frame Building with NBC 105: 2020 and IS Code 1893: 2002. International Journal of Innovative Research in Engineering & Management (IJIREM), Vol. 9, Issue 4, pp. 68-73. https://doi.org/10.55524/ijirem.2022.9.4.11
[4]	Sapkota, A., Sapkota B., Poudel, J., and Giri, S., (2024) “Comparative study on the seismic performance of a typical low-rise building in Nepal using different seismic codes” Article in Asian Journal of Civil Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-024-01053-5
[5]	Pandit, P., and Vasudev, M., (2019) “Comparative Analysis of NBC 105: 1994 And IS 1893: 2016 Seismic Codes With G+21 RC Building”, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET). Vol. 6, No. 11, PP. 1995-2000. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajce.20251303.12
[6]	Shrestha, J., Paudel, N., Koirala, B., Giri, B., and Lamichhane, A., (2021) “Impact of Revised Code NBC105 on Assessment and Design of Low Rise Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Nepal” Journal of Institute of Engineering. Vol 16, No. 1 PP. 1-5. https://doi.org/10.3126/jie.v16i1.36527
[7]	Islam, J., Abass, I., Meena, V., Kakrora, N., and Meena S., (2021) “Comparison of Storey Drift, Storey Displacement & Base Shear for Different Structural Systems”, International Journal of Engineering Development and Research. Vol 9, No. 1 PP. 140-146. Available: https://www.irjmets.com/uploadedfiles/paper/issue_3_march_2022/20234/final/fin_irjmets1648370009.pdf
[8]	Banjara, R., Thapa D., Adhikari, S., and Katuwal, K., (2021) “Seismic Behaviour of Buildings as per NBC 105: 1994, NBC. 105: 2020 and IS 1893: 2016” Proceedings of 10th IOE Graduate Conference. Vol 10, PP. 1461-1471. https://doi.org/10.54105/ijse.C4006.053123
[9]	American Society of Civil Engineers. (2017). Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412916
[10]	Bureau of Indian Standards. (2000). IS 456: 2000 - Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete. Bureau of Indian Standards. Available: https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.456.2000.pdf
[11]	Bureau of Indian Standards. (2002). Indian Standard Code (IS 1893). Part I: Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures: General provisions and buildings. Available: https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.1893.1.2002.pdf
[12]	Bureau of Indian Standards. (2016). Indian Standard Code (IS 1893). Part I: Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures: General provisions and buildings. Available: https://www.cracindia.in/admin/uploads/IS-1893---part-1.pdf
[13]	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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.10.036
[14]	Chaulagain, H., Rodrigues, H., Spacone, E., & Varum, H. (2015). Seismic response of current RC buildings in Kathmandu valley. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 53(4), 791-818. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2015.53.4.791%20Theory%20and%20Applications%20to%20Earthquake%20Engineering%20A.K.%20Chopra_NNN_bb.pdf
[15]	Department of Urban Development and Building Construction, M. of U. D. (DUDBC), G. of N. (GoN). (2019). Nepal National Building Code (NBC 105) commentary: Seismic design of buildings in Nepal.
[16]	Giri, P., Bhatt, A. D., Gautam, D., & Chaulagain, H. (2019). Comparison between the seismic codes of Nepal, India, Japan, and EU. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 20(2), 301-312. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-018-0102-8
[17]	International Code Council. (2015). International Building Code (IBC). Falls Church, VA: International Code Council. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8180-4

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Chaisir, G. S., Chaulagain, K., Yadav, A. K., Sah, G. K., Khanal, N., et al. (2026). Comparison of Seismic Parameter in RC Building Using NBC 105:2016, IS 1893:2016 and ASCE 7-22. Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, 11(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.larp.20261101.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Chaisir, G. S.; Chaulagain, K.; Yadav, A. K.; Sah, G. K.; Khanal, N., et al. Comparison of Seismic Parameter in RC Building Using NBC 105:2016, IS 1893:2016 and ASCE 7-22. Landsc. Archit. Reg. Plan. 2026, 11(1), 1-12. doi: 10.11648/j.larp.20261101.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Chaisir GS, Chaulagain K, Yadav AK, Sah GK, Khanal N, et al. Comparison of Seismic Parameter in RC Building Using NBC 105:2016, IS 1893:2016 and ASCE 7-22. Landsc Archit Reg Plan. 2026;11(1):1-12. doi: 10.11648/j.larp.20261101.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.larp.20261101.11,
author = {Gokaran Singh Chaisir and Kishor Chaulagain and Amit Kumar Yadav and Gautam Kumar Sah and Navraj Khanal and Arjun Paudel and Abhinesh Khatri},
title = {Comparison of Seismic Parameter in RC Building Using NBC 105:2016, IS 1893:2016 and ASCE 7-22},
journal = {Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning},
volume = {11},
number = {1},
pages = {1-12},
doi = {10.11648/j.larp.20261101.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.larp.20261101.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.larp.20261101.11},
abstract = {This work aims to compare three codes; ASCE 7-22, IS 1893:2016 and NBC 105:2020 in terms of lateral effect on RC building, focusing on the seismic force effect. Since all of the codes have different standards and factors, therefore it is expected that there will be some differences in the structural behavior. This research will contain analysis of building consisting of 5 RC buildings and comparison of several provisions. This research study will investigate the difference between seismic results between the all codes and if there might be any differences in the structural elements reinforcement percentage. In order to illustrate a real and accurate comparison, all these structures have been compared in similar circumstances; all of them were assumed to be designed in Nepal. This analysis has been performed using ETABS software. The ETABS software will be used in analysis. In this study building was analyzed to compare the base shear, storey displacement, storey drift, percentages of reinforcement and fundamental time period in accordance with Nepal National Building Code, Indian Standard and American Society of Civil Engineers guidelines. The analysis results indicated that NBC 105:2020 showed a higher value of base shear compared to the other codes. NBC 105:2020 showed higher inter storey drift than other two codes. The displacement obtained in NBC 105:2020 is found to be higher than other two codes. Fundamental time period is more in NBC 105:2020 than other two codes. The investigation revealed that the revised NBC 105:2020 displayed higher values for all response parameters analyzed. Based on the design outcomes, the ASCE codes exhibited the highest percentage of longitudinal rebar, while NBC 105:2020 depicted the lowest. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the adherence to building code regulations during construction. The findings of this study aim to equip designers with comprehensive knowledge regarding seismic provisions and standards to facilitate informed decision- making in their design activities.},
year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of Seismic Parameter in RC Building Using NBC 105:2016, IS 1893:2016 and ASCE 7-22
AU - Gokaran Singh Chaisir
AU - Kishor Chaulagain
AU - Amit Kumar Yadav
AU - Gautam Kumar Sah
AU - Navraj Khanal
AU - Arjun Paudel
AU - Abhinesh Khatri
Y1 - 2026/01/26
PY - 2026
N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.larp.20261101.11
DO - 10.11648/j.larp.20261101.11
T2 - Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning
JF - Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning
JO - Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning
SP - 1
EP - 12
PB - Science Publishing Group
SN - 2637-4374
UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.larp.20261101.11
AB - This work aims to compare three codes; ASCE 7-22, IS 1893:2016 and NBC 105:2020 in terms of lateral effect on RC building, focusing on the seismic force effect. Since all of the codes have different standards and factors, therefore it is expected that there will be some differences in the structural behavior. This research will contain analysis of building consisting of 5 RC buildings and comparison of several provisions. This research study will investigate the difference between seismic results between the all codes and if there might be any differences in the structural elements reinforcement percentage. In order to illustrate a real and accurate comparison, all these structures have been compared in similar circumstances; all of them were assumed to be designed in Nepal. This analysis has been performed using ETABS software. The ETABS software will be used in analysis. In this study building was analyzed to compare the base shear, storey displacement, storey drift, percentages of reinforcement and fundamental time period in accordance with Nepal National Building Code, Indian Standard and American Society of Civil Engineers guidelines. The analysis results indicated that NBC 105:2020 showed a higher value of base shear compared to the other codes. NBC 105:2020 showed higher inter storey drift than other two codes. The displacement obtained in NBC 105:2020 is found to be higher than other two codes. Fundamental time period is more in NBC 105:2020 than other two codes. The investigation revealed that the revised NBC 105:2020 displayed higher values for all response parameters analyzed. Based on the design outcomes, the ASCE codes exhibited the highest percentage of longitudinal rebar, while NBC 105:2020 depicted the lowest. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the adherence to building code regulations during construction. The findings of this study aim to equip designers with comprehensive knowledge regarding seismic provisions and standards to facilitate informed decision- making in their design activities.
VL - 11
IS - 1
ER -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Gokaran Singh Chaisir

Department of Civil Engineering, Kantipur Engineering College, Lalitpur, Nepal

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0002-7342-3090
Kishor Chaulagain

Department of Civil Engineering, Kantipur Engineering College, Lalitpur, Nepal

http://orcid.org/0009-0004-1757-3048
Amit Kumar Yadav

Department of Civil Engineering, Kantipur Engineering College, Lalitpur, Nepal

http://orcid.org/0009-0009-5011-7585
Gautam Kumar Sah

Department of Civil Engineering, Kantipur Engineering College, Lalitpur, Nepal

http://orcid.org/0009-0002-0182-811X
Navraj Khanal

Department of Civil Engineering, Kantipur Engineering College, Lalitpur, Nepal

http://orcid.org/0009-0004-5345-4054
Arjun Paudel

Department of Civil Engineering, Kantipur Engineering College, Lalitpur, Nepal

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1353-0417
Abhinesh Khatri

Department of Civil Engineering, Kantipur Engineering College, Lalitpur, Nepal

http://orcid.org/0009-0004-2554-1935

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Chaisir, G. S., Chaulagain, K., Yadav, A. K., Sah, G. K., Khanal, N., et al. (2026). Comparison of Seismic Parameter in RC Building Using NBC 105:2016, IS 1893:2016 and ASCE 7-22. Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, 11(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.larp.20261101.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Chaisir, G. S.; Chaulagain, K.; Yadav, A. K.; Sah, G. K.; Khanal, N., et al. Comparison of Seismic Parameter in RC Building Using NBC 105:2016, IS 1893:2016 and ASCE 7-22. Landsc. Archit. Reg. Plan. 2026, 11(1), 1-12. doi: 10.11648/j.larp.20261101.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Chaisir GS, Chaulagain K, Yadav AK, Sah GK, Khanal N, et al. Comparison of Seismic Parameter in RC Building Using NBC 105:2016, IS 1893:2016 and ASCE 7-22. Landsc Archit Reg Plan. 2026;11(1):1-12. doi: 10.11648/j.larp.20261101.11

Copy | Download

Copy | Download