The Eighth East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction

5-7 December 2001, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Paper No.: 1443

A COMPARISON OF BNBC-93 WITH OTHER BUILDING CODES WITH

RESPECT TO EARTHQUAKE AND WIND ANALYSIS

F. Atique 1 and Z. Wadud 1

ABSTRACT: Bangladesh lies well within an active seismic zone and is prone to earthquakes. To determine
earthquake forces on a structure, static analysis has gained popularity in the country and also in many other
countries because of the simplicity of the method. This calls for the use of an established and tested building
code so as to ensure the safety of the structure and its occupants against the natural hazard. This paper aims at the
comparison of various provisions for earthquake and wind analysis as given in building codes of different
countries. Primarily Bangladesh National Building Code, 1993 (BNBC-93) has been studied and compared with
Uniform Building Codes, 1991 and 1997 (UBC-91 and UBC-97), National Building Code of India, 1983 (NBC-
India-83), and Outline Code of Bangladesh, 1979. The study revealed that the developed countries have
increased the factor of safety against earthquake by suggesting higher values of base shear. But BNBC is the
least conservative as compared to other codes and practices. This may have serious implications in case of a
major earthquake in the country. Wind analysis of BNBC is quite similar to those of other codes.

KEYWORDS: Earthquake forces, wind analysis, static analysis, base shear, base moment, building codes,
structural systems

1. INTRODUCTION

Earthquake hazards have been the prime concern of structural engineers for many years. Advanced
research has been and is being carried out throughout the world to make structures earthquake
resistant. Bangladesh lies in the vicinity of world’s loftiest mountain range, the Himalayas and is well
within an active tectonic zone. Therefore the country is prone to major earthquakes. Because of lack of
advanced modeling and computational facilities in Bangladesh and other developing countries,
earthquake and wind analysis are carried out by static analysis method, within the bounds of building
codes and practices of respective countries. As the number of high rise buildings is increasing, the
code to be followed for building design, detailing and construction is becoming an important aspect.
This paper is aimed to review and compare some of the current seismic design provisions dealing with
the specification of seismic design forces. In addition, building codes for wind analysis have been
compared. Also, seismic and wind forces on a typical building have been compared.

2. EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS IN BANGLADESH

Due to the lack of sophisticated earthquake monitoring equipment and facilities in Bangladesh, the
level of earthquake activities is poorly defined. As a result, data on micro- seismicity is totally missing,
although such activities are quite frequent. The distribution of all major earthquakes recorded and
reported in and around Bangladesh is presented in table 1. The table shows that there has not been any
major earthquake in Bangladesh for the last 50 years.

The return period of a major earthquake with a magnitude of 6.8 is 50 years, while that of a magnitude
7.4 is 100 years. The probabilities of occurrence of such tremors are 98 and 99 per cent respectively.
An earthquake of such magnitude is forecast in Bangladesh by 2003. Major seismic sources for the
region are Assam fault zone, Tripura fault zone, Sub- Dauki fault zone and Bogra fault zone. These
faults are capable of producing earthquakes of magnitudes 8.0, 7.0, 7.3 and 7.0 Richter respectively.

1
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh, B.Sc.
Table 1. List of major earthquakes affecting Bangladesh
Date Name of the earthquake Magnitude Epicentral distance
(Richter) from Dhaka (km)
January 10, 1869 Cachar Earthquake 7.5 250
July 14, 1885 Bengal Earthquake 7.0 170
June 12, 1897 Great Indian Earthquake 8.7 230
July 8, 1918 Srimongol Earthquake 7.6 150
July 3, 1930 Dhubri Earthquake 7.1 250
January 15, 1934 Bihar-Nepal Earthquake 8.3 510
August 15, 1950 Assam earthquake 8.5 780

3. COMPARISON OF SEISMIC CODES

Analysis of a structure for earthquake can follow two methods: firstly dynamic analysis through
simulation of the structure in computer or static analysis assuming the earthquake forces to be static
forces. Dynamic analysis is more accurate but involves the cumbersome modeling of the structure and
earthquake forces. On the other hand, static analysis is rather simple and easier to perform. Because of
its simplicity, static analysis is preferred for high-rise buildings in Bangladesh.

Most of the current building codes have provisions for dynamic analysis, but they also allow
equivalent static force procedure to determine the earthquake forces on a building. All these codes
consider the earthquake force as a lateral force. The forces are determined on the basis of a base shear.
It is the total design lateral force acting at the bottom of a structure. The base shear is assumed to
depend on all or some of the following factors:
1. Seismic activity of the region
2. Importance of the structure
3. Type of structural system employed
4. Soil profile
5. Weight of the structure
6. Time period

The base shear is then reallocated to various floor levels on the basis of the load on that floor and the
height of the floor from the base. In addition, a concentrated force is assumed to act at the roof level.
During analysis phase these lateral forces are considered to be live loads. The following codes have
been reviewed and compared in this work:
1. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997
2. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1991
3. National Building Code of India (NBC-India) 1983
4. Outline Code of Bangladesh 1979
5. Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC) 1993

In general, the lateral force provisions for earthquake in various codes have been presented in table 2.
It may be mentioned that UBC-97 specifies a minimum and a maximum value of base shear to be
considered for earthquake, but no other code specifies such a closed spectrum. The seismic design
provisions of these codes can be related to one another because of the same approach followed in all
codes. BNBC-93 is similar to UBC-91 except that the coefficient expressing seismic zone are based on
local seismological information. NBC-India-83 has been included in the study because India is the
closest neighbor to Bangladesh and shares the same tectonic zone. Earthquake Code of Bangladesh-79
has been included to determine the differences with the BNBC-93.

A comparison of base shear is the simplest way to compare the final result. Only RC structures have
been dealt with, because of the wide use of RC structures in Bangladesh. Two types of RC structures
have been considered: RC ductile moment resisting framed building and frame shear wall building. An
office building of 51 ft ×51 ft (15.6m×15.6m) plan has been considered for all computations. The
Table 2: Various earthquake codes in a nutshell
BNBC-93 Bangladesh-79 NBC-India-83 UBC-91 UBC-97
Base shear ZICW/Rw ZIKSCW KCβIα0 W ZICW/Rw Cv IW/RT
α0 = basic Cv = seismic
Seismic Z = seismic zone Z = seismic horizontal Z = seismic coefficient
factor factor zone factor seismic zone factor f(zone factor Z
coefficient & soil type)
I = importance I = importance I = importance I = importance
Importance
factor factor - factor factor
of structure
f(occupancy) f(occupancy) f(occupancy) f(occupancy)
K= structural
K= horizontal performance
Structural Rw = coefficient Rw = coefficient R= coefficient =
force factor factor
system = f (structural = f (structural f(structural
= f (structural C = f (T)
factor system) system) system)
system) = f (structure
type)
W = total dead W = total dead W = total dead W = total dead
Effective W = total
load + specified load + specified load + load + specified
weight of seismic dead
portions of other portions of other appropriate live portions of other
structure load
loads loads load loads
C = 1.25S/T 2/3 S = f(soil type) C = 1.25S/T 2/3
β,I=coefficients
Soil S = f(soil type) C = 1/(15T 1/2 ) S = f(soil type) T = time period
= f (soil-
structure T = time period T = time period T = time period = f (structure
foundation
interaction =f (structure = f (structure =f (structure type)
system)
type) type) type)

building is assumed to be located in seismic zone-3 (UBC) of USA, zone V (NBC-India-83) of India
and zone 3 (BNBC-93) of Bangladesh. These zones share same seismic activity. Dense soil conditions
have been assumed. Building height has been varied and consequently 10, 15, 20 and 25 storied
structures have been considered for the purpose of comparison. Live load per floor has been taken as
160 kip and dead load 500 kip.

The base shear values are presented as a graphical plot. Figure 1 refers to RC ductile moment resisting
frame and figure 2 depicts frame shear wall building. It is seen that the Outline Code of Bangladesh-79
gives the lowest value for base shears for both type of buildings, which is why it was later revised to
incorporate more safety. However, despite the revision of the code, BNBC-93 is still the least
conservative for RC ductile moment resisting frames. For a 10 story building BNBC-93 is even less
conservative than its predecessor, Outline Code of Bangladesh-79. The NBC-India-83 is more
conservative at lower building heights than the UBC-91. Although the BNBC-93 follows UBC-91 in
many aspects, the difference in base shear values between UBC-91 and BNBC-93 is due to the
difference in the zonal factor, Z. For the same level of seismicity, the zonal factor in BNBC-93 is
lower than UBC-91. After the Kobe earthquake in 1995, UBC was made more conservative and hence
UBC-97 is the most conservative of all, providing almost double safety than the UBC-91. UBC-97 is
also 2.23 times more conservative than the BNBC-93 for RC ductile moment resisting frames.

Barring Outline code of Bangladesh-79, BNBC-93 and NBC-India-83 both are least conservative,
giving almost the same base shear for frame shear wall buildings. BNBC-93, though, gives more
conservative values for higher stories. UBC-91 is more conservative than both these codes. UBC-97 is,
as usual, the most conservative. On an average, UBC-97 is 2.61 times more conservative than the
BNBC-93 for framed shear wall buildings. The higher factor of safety as compared to RC ductile
moment resisting frames can be attributed to the fact that frame shear wall buildings are more rigid and
their collapse is more critical. Therefore, BNBC-93, suggests the least conservative base shear values
and is designed for only 38% to 45% seismic load specified by the UBC-97. While developed
countries are going for more conservative design, this contradiction of BNBC-93 could be suicidal.
Some modifications need be made in this respect.
 0.07
UBC-91
Bangladesh-79
0.06

Base Shear/Weight of Building

NBC-India-83
BNBC-93
0.05 UBC-97

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01
10 15 20 25

Number of Stories

Figure 1. Seismic base shear comparison for RC ductile moment resisting frames

0.16 UBC-91
Bangladesh-79
Base Shear/Weight of Building

0.14 NBC-India-83
BNBC-93
0.12
UBC-97

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02
10 15 20 25

Number of Stories

Figure 2. Seismic base shear comparison for shear wall frame buildings

4. COMPARISON OF WIND CODES

Apart from the small hilly region in the south east and the north east, Bangladesh is a vast plain land
adjacent to the Bay of Bengal. The estimated basic wind velocity in the capital Dhaka, located at the
geographic center of the country, is as high as 210 km. Beside this high natural wind, the country is
also affected by adverse cyclonic action. Specially, the coastal areas are prone to severe cyclonic
weather. This is why wind force analysis is also very important for high rise buildings in the country.

For wind pressure, BNBC-93 has been compared with UBC-97 and NBC-India-83. Basic features of
these codes are presented in table 3. In BNBC-93, calculation of design wind pressure is a two-step
process. In the first step, the sustained wind pressure is calculated on the basis of importance of
structure, height and exposure condition and basic wind speed, which in turn depends on the region the
structure is located in. The exposure of the structure to wind forces is a function of terrain type,
vegetation and built up environment in the surrounding. The sustained wind pressure is then converted
to design wind pressure by multiplication with the gust coefficient and pressure coefficient for the
structure. Pressure coefficient considers the direction of wind relative to the structure and roof slope.

In NBC-India-83, the design wind speed at various heights are determined first on the basis of risk
level, terrain roughness, height and size of structure and local topography. The terrain factor refers to
exposure category. In addition another factor describes the local topography e.g. hills, valleys, cliffs,
 Table 3: Comparison of building codes with respect to wind force determination
BNBC-93 NBC-India-83 UBC-97
Qz =Cc CI Cz Vb 2 Vz = Vb k1 k2 k3 P = Ce Cq q s Iw
q z = sustained wind pressure at Vz = design wind speed at any P = design wind pressure
height z, kN/m2 height z in m/s Ce = combined height , exposure
CI = structure importance Vb = basic wind speed in m/s and gust coefficient
coefficient k1 = probability factor Cq = pressure coefficient for the
Cc = velocity to pressure k2 = terrain height and structure structure
conversion = 47.2 x 10-6 size factor Iw = importance factor
Cz = combined height and k3 = topography factor q s = wind stagnation pressure at
exposure coefficient the standard height of 33 feet.
Vb = basic wind speed in km/h

Pz = CG Cp q z p z = 0.6 Vz2
Pz = design wind pressure at p z = design wind pressure in N/m2
height z,kN/m2 at height z
CG = gust coefficient
Cp = pressure coefficient
Vb = 180 km/hr Vb = 50 m/s q s = 1.535 kN/m2 [Vb =180 km/hr]
CI = 1.00 K1 = 1.0 Ce = 1.76
Cz = 1.539 (at 45 m) K2 = 1.075 Cq = 0.8
Pz = CG Cp q z K3 = 1.0 Iw =1.0
CG = 1.133 Vz = 53.75 m/s
Cp = 0.8 Pz= 0.6 Vz2
Pz= 2.13 kN/m2 Pz = 1.73 kN/ m2 P = 2.16 kN/m2

ridges etc. In the second step, design wind speed is converted to pressure by a simple conversion
factor. In UBC-97, the calculations have been made simpler, giving the design wind pressure in one
direct step. Design wind pressures for buildings and structures is determined for any height on the
basis of height, exposure and gust, direction of wind relative to structure, roof slope, importance of the
structure and wind stagnation pressure. Wind stagnation pressure is again a function of basic wind
speed.

The definition of basic wind speed is same for all these codes: it is the fastest-mile wind speed
associated with an annual probability of 0.02 measured at a point 33 ft above the mean ground level in
a flat and open terrain. The exposure category has been defined slightly differently in UBC-97 and
BNBC-93. For same condition, the comparison of codes reveals that BNBC-93 is more conservative
than NBC-India-83. There is not much difference between BNBC-93 and UBC-97.

5. COMPARISON OF WIND AND SEISMIC LOAD AS PER BNBC-93

It is a common practice among design engineers in Bangladesh to use earthquake forces for designing
buildings ranging from 8 to 20 stories, and wind for buildings higher than 20-stories. Engineers neglect
the combination of earthquake and wind load on account of the assumption that the earthquake and
severe wind will not act simultaneously on the structure. To check the validity of the assumption, 2
types of buildings, ie. RC moment resisting frames (R= 12) and framed shear wall (R= 8) buildings
have been considered. It may be mentioned that the type of structural system affects only the
earthquake forces, wind forces remain unaffected by the structural system of the building, unless the
structure exhibits a wind-breaking mechanism. The location of the building is capital Dhaka. The
result of the study is presented in figure 3 for base shear and figure 4 for base moment. Base shear
computations indicates that seismic forces govern the design of the rigid frame shear wall structure
upto 23 stories, wind load taking over beyond that. For RC moment resisting frames, wind forces
govern at 10 stories and above. Moment at base also suggests the same trend, only difference is that
the wind forces start governing at a higher altitude.
 460
440 seismic (RC moment resisting frame)
420
seismic (frame shear wall)
400
380 wind
360
340

Base shear (k)

320
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

No. of stories in building

Figure 3. Comparison of base shear for wind and seismic force in a typical building at Dhaka
75000
70000 seismic (RC moment resisting frame)
65000 seismic (frame shear wall)
60000 wind
55000
Base moment (k-ft)

50000
45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

No. of stories in building

Figure 4. Comparison of base moment for wind and seismic force in a typical building at Dhaka

6. CONCLUSION

Bangladesh lies on an active seismic zone and is prone to major earthquakes. But the earthquake
design provisions in BNBC-93 is the least conservative among the current codes compared in this
paper. This may hamper the integrity of the structure and cause serious loss of life and properties in
case of a major earthquake. This calls for a more conservative approach in the seismic design of the
buildings in Bangladesh. Also, wind loads should not be ignored and should to be properly catered for
in the design of medium to high-rise structures.

7. REFERENCES

[1] ICBO, Uniform Building Code, California, 1991

[2] ICBO, Uniform Building Code, California, 1997
[3] ISI, National Building Code of India, 1983
[4] HBRI and BSTI, Bangladesh National Building Code, Dhaka, 1993
[5] Bari, M.S. and Khondoker, J.U., “ Seismic forces on buildings: A comparative study of different
codes”, Journal of Civil Engineering, Institution of Engineers, Bangladesh, Vol. CE 27, No.
2,1999