research

1. Status of Building Code Compliance: A case
study in Karyavinayak Municipality
Srijana G. SHRESTHA1
, Suman PRADHAN2
, Surya N. SHRESTHA3
1
Strutural Engineer, NSET-Nepal, sgurung@nset.org.np
2
Program Manger, BCIPN, NSET-Nepal, spradhan@nset.org.np
3
Deputy Executive Director, NSET-Nepal, sshrestha@nset.org.np
ABSTRACT
This paper is outcome of building code compliance observations on the building designs
that were filed in for approval at Karyavinayak municipality. On the request from
municipality, National Society for Earthquake Technology (NSET) – Nepal has been
providing technical support and suggestions for the correction to be made. In a period
of six months (November 2014 – April 2015), 200 building drawings and reports have
been checked. Out of the designs, 78% of the buildings are C class that can be designed
as per Nepal Building Code (NBC):205 while the rest are B class that require detail
analysis and design accordingly. Most of the building designs of both class have
ductility related problems like stirrups spacing, anchorage of bars, number of bars in
column, detailing in staircase and bar diameter. Also, the configuration related
problems like short columns, columns not in grid lines, and discontinuous beam were
commonly observed deficiencies in both type of building drawings. However, most of the
buildings were compliant to strength related checks like size of column, beam, slab
thickness and concrete grade. The study concludes that designers should focus more on
configuration and ductility criteria of building and their implications. Efforts as this not
only help in timely correction of faulty building designs, but also raises awareness and
highlights the importance of compliance with building code especially in urban areas
lacking technical support.
Keywords: building code, municipality, ductility, configuration, strength
1. INTRODUCTION
In Nepal, earlier the building permit system generally required only the architectural
drawings of building in most of the village development committees (VDCs) and
municipalities. It has been more than a decade now that government has enforced the
building code in Nepal. However due to lack of technical team and proper policy,
municipalities and VDCs are struggling to effectively implement the building code.
Karyavinayak is one of such municipality which is in its struggling phase to incorporate
building code in its building permit system. Since, the Karyavinayak has recently been
municipality from VDC, there lacks the technical capacity to effectively implement the
building code. Therefore, under the program BCIPN (Building Code Implementation
Program in Nepal) implemented by National Society for Earthquake Technology
(NSET) with funding support from USAID/OFDA, provided technical support to check
building drawings that come in municipality. BCIPN is the program which focuses on

2. October 2015, Kathmandu, Nepal
New Technologies for Urban Safety of Mega Cities in Asia
assisting the municipal governments in Nepal in enhancing their capacities to develop
and administer the building permits and control system for ensuring improved seismic
performance of all new building constructions.
Objectives of this study are
- To understand the major problems in building designs and preparation of construction
drawing.
- To get the idea of scenario of building code implementation in newly established
municipality.
- To identify the solutions for code compliant building drawings documents.
2. METHODOLOGY AND DATA
2.1 Study area
Since, November 2014 NSET has been providing technical assistance on the building
drawings check in the Karyavinayak Municipality under the program BCIPN of NSET.
Karyavinayak is located at southeast part of Kathmandu valley, very close to the capital
city Kathmandu of Nepal. Its administrative status had been recently moved up the
ranks from VDC to municipality in April 7, 2015. Owing to its influencing proximity to
the metropolis, the place bears high scope for new settlements. In recent years, the rate
of building construction has been quite alarming and so is the inflow of building
drawings for construction permit at the municipality with around 24 building drawing
per month.
2.2 Research gap
Every building construction require permission from the local government authorities.
Building permit system demands construction documents and building drawing is an
important part of it. Building drawing such submitted should be guided by the principle
of building code (A Guide to Creating Building Code Compliant Documents n.d.)
Though the government has enforced the building code, the code compliant status of
building drawing that comes in municipality have not been studied/addressed till now.
This paper presents the non-compliancy issues observed in building drawings. In order
to understand the major problems in building drawings, regular observations and review
of the drawings that come in municipality were done and the kind of errors and
negligence were recorded.
The present owner-designer situation in Karyavinayak is such that the house owner
consults engineer for building drawing. Engineer prepares the drawing and house
owner/designer submit it in the municipality for building permit. Most of the drawings
even designed by the engineers are observed non-compliant to building code. The
building drawings often lack lintel and sill band details, lacks the detailing of beam
column joint, foundation tie beam. Irregular building plan and buildings with
discontinuous beam which require structural analysis are being designed using thumb
rule of simple buildings. This indicates engineers and designers should update
themselves on seismic design requirements of buildings. However, it’s hard expecting a
compliant building drawing because:
- The designers/engineers are not up-to-date with the current building code

3. Status of Building Code Compliance: A case study in Karyavinayak Municipality
- Implementation of building code in building permit system without prior awareness,
training programs and guidelines creates frustration and confusions among the
regular designers as well as house owners.
- House owners are not aware about the importance of assessment of their building
drawing plan that it is usually cheaper and easier to correct a non-code compliant
condition in the design phase than construction phase.
- There is no technical person in municipality and VDCs to check the building
compliance check of drawings.
Many works are being done to implement the building drawing, however the analysis of
current situation of municipality regarding the building code implementation and
common problems not yet addressed. This study aims to conclude the common
mistakes/ mal practice trends in building drawings and brew suggestions for the
stakeholders of building code implementation.
Figure 1: Analysis of research gap for building code compliance in Karyavinayak
municipality
In order to effectively implement building code there require technical person in
municipality to check the building code compliancy of the building drawing that inflow
in municipality. Since there was lack of technical personnel in Karyavinayak
municipality for building code compliancy check, this technical gap was fulfilled by
technical assistance from NSET.
2.3 Methodological framework
NSET technical assistance in co-ordination with municipality is within the building
permit system and allows the NSET technical personnel to approve or disapprove
building drawing as per building code. However this study is a just a part of this
process.

4. October 2015, Kathmandu, Nepal
New Technologies for Urban Safety of Mega Cities in Asia
Figure 2: NSET’s contribution in building compliance in Karyavinayak municipality;
Framework of methodology (dashed box)
Step wise brief description of methodology of the study
1. NSET technical person scrutinize the building drawing according to codal
provisions and conceptual requirements of earthquake engineering.
2. If the drawing neglects or violates any of the building code compliancy check and
doesn’t meet the seismic requirements then those issues were recorded in a database.
Along with that corrections to be made are suggested to the designer of the drawing.
3. Categorization of the mistakes/errors/negligence were done from the database into
different parameters of building code checks.
4. Analysis of those categorization were done to identify the major and common issues
observed in building drawings regarding the building code compliancy.
5. From the analysis the degree and frequency of shortcomings in building drawings
were known which helps to visualize the situation of building code implementation
in one of the municipality of Kathmandu valley. This brew the suggestions for
effective implementation of building code and issues to be focused on.
2.4 Compliance parameters
For systematic checking of building drawings a checklist has been prepared. This
includes different provisions of building code and other attributes affecting the seismic
performance of the building. The four major conceptual parameters of seismic resistant
building were considered in the compliance check. (Scawthorn, et al. 1988), (Hom and

5. Status of Building Code Compliance: A case study in Karyavinayak Municipality
Poland 2004). The Table 1 summarizes the compliance check parameters considered for
building drawing check in the municipalities.
Table 1: Compliance check parameters
A. Configuration checks
Length/Breadth ratio of building Redundancy Beam discontinuity
Length of wings of building Setback Vertical discontinuity
Length of cantilever Torsion Short column
B. Strength check
Size of beam Thickness of slab Strong column weak beam
Size of column Grade of concrete Size of shear RC wall(if any)
C. Ductility Check
Minimum number of bars in
column
Shape of stirrups Detailing of staircase
Spacing of stirrups in column
and beam
Beam column joint
detailing
Detailing of slab
Bar splice detailing in column
and beam
Anchorage length Bars in beam
D. Connection Check
Wall connection
- Lintel/sill band
- Parapet wall band
Foundation connection
- Tie beam
- Strap/combined footing in eccentric footing
Apart from this building drawing is also checked if there is any missing documents or
incomplete drawing. For building Class B, software analysis and structural report are
also checked.
2.5 Compliance check
Buildings are checked on the basis of the building class type. Nepal Building code NBC
000-1994 addresses the four level of design and construction. (Nepal Building Code
000, 1994)
1 International state-of-art (A class building): Such buildings which are designed
using sophisticated design philosophies analytical techniques reflected in the codes
of wealthy counties are taken into consideration of International State-of-the-Art.
2 Professionally engineered structures (B class building): Building whose plinth area
is greater than 1000 square feet / storey greater than 3 / the building having no
redundancy in any one direction / the building with structural irregularity / cantilever
greater than 1 meter is classified as B class building. This type of building need to
be analyzed and designed by professional engineers.
3 Buildings of restricted size designed to simple rules-of-thumb (C class building):
Building with regular configuration, cantilever not greater than 1 m, plinth area less
than 1000 square feet and number of storey up to 3 as well as beam not spanning
greater than 4.5m are classified as C class building. Mandatory Rule of Thumb has
been provided in NBC 205 for design of such buildings.
4 Remote rural buildings where control is impractical (D class building): Low strength
masonry and Earthen buildings designed as per the guidelines
All the buildings in Karyavinayak were found to be either of B or C class. C class
building design drawings were checked on the basis of NBC 205. Whereas B class

6. October 2015, Kathmandu, Nepal
New Technologies for Urban Safety of Mega Cities in Asia
building drawings were checked on the basis of analysis and structural report submitted
with drawings.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Figure 3: Pie charts showing proportion of the building classes (middle) and the
proportion of the compliant and non-complaint of B class (left) and C class (right)
buildings design drawings.
Out of the building design applications assessed, the proportion of B class building is
significantly less than C class buildings in Karyavinayak municipality (refer Figure 3).
As per the building compliance rules, B class building application requires analysis and
the supporting reports making it a rigorous task for the designers. C class building
application on the contrary can be designed as per mandatory rule of thumb provided in
NBC 201 & 205 wherein the configurations and design are simpler. This serves as the
major reason for the existing trend in the designer community for bypassing the extra
effort and time requirement. Designers recommend C class building design application
to the owners who in turn get lured by simple and quick building compliance check
procedure. Lack of technical support at the municipality had been adding furthermore to
this decision among the applicants.
The status of building code compliance of B and C class buildings permit applications
as checked by NSET has been illustrated in Figure 3. More than 4/5th
of the B class
building permit applications and almost 3/4th
of the C class building application have
been assessed to be non-compliant during NSET’s current tenure at the Municipality.
Thus it is evident that significanlty large numbers of non-compliant designs applications
get collected at Karyavinayak Municipality. The following paragraphs and the rest of
the paper analyze the details of the non-compliance and provide suggestions. However,
it is up to the stakeholder entities to devise mechanisms based on these suggestions and
timely improvement of this situation.

7. Status of Building Code Compliance: A case study in Karyavinayak Municipality
Figure 4: Radar Plot of Performance of B Class Building for various Compliance
Parameters
From the radar plot below (Figure 4) it is seen that more than half of the non-compliant
B class building applications were ill designed in ductility department. Common
shortcomings include insufficient number of bars, improper lap detailing, and
insufficient development and anchorage length. The compliance negligence in ductility
(and other criteria) is attributed to the fact that even after many years of professional
practice, most of the designers are still not updated on what the building code demands
for compliance. In contrast to the ductility parameter, building drawings fulfill strength
criteria in most of the cases.
Strength criteria such as size of the column and beam, thickness of slab, etc. are better
understood and practiced by designers as its compliancy was observed in most of the
drawings. From these two contrasting practice it can be said that during the design, the
designers prioritize the size of the structural elements rather than the detailing within.
The proportion of B class building seems quite fewer than C class buildings. The major
reason is that the B class building require analysis and the supporting reports whereas C
class building can be designed as per mandatory rule of thumb provided in NBC 201
&205. It’s been observed that most of the designers or consultants don't want to analyze
and design the building since it require extra effort and consumes more time than that
for C class building. Also, there are not enough technical persons available for analysis
of buildings. C class building is quite simpler in configurations and its design too is
quite simpler there fore most of the designers prefer going for C class buildings.

8. October 2015, Kathmandu, Nepal
New Technologies for Urban Safety of Mega Cities in Asia
Figure 5: Radar Plot of Satus of C Class Building Drawings for various Compliance
Parameters
The radar chart below (Figure 5) deals with the compliancy status of C class buildings.
Like the B class buildings the major shortcomings in C class building drawings were
mostly of ductility parameters like number of bars, spacing of stirrups, anchorage of
bars, lap detailing etc. It’s been observed that majority of the designers involved in C
class building types are mostly sub-engineers (Diploma level engineer). The ductility
criteria are mostly neglected and only concerned in strength parameters like size of the
column and beams. Such drawings mostly lacks the lap detail of bars in column and
beams, insufficient number of bars in columns and beams, improper detailing in
staircase etc. Another shortcomings were observed in configuration criteria. Though the
code restrict improper configuration in C class buildings, the drawing often seems
violating the configuration criteria. This has been observed mostly due to irregular
shape and size of proposed building land. Therefore, designers end up designing the
building with irregular configurations to match up the land plot.
4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This paper is based on the experience of building drawing check in Karyavinayak. Out
of 200 building drawings checked, 22% were B class buildings and the rest were C class
buildings. In both category, building drawings were mostly non-compliant to ductility
related checks. However, strength related check was found compliant except in 15%
building drawings. Configuration problems were also another parameter neglected in
most of the drawings. Configuration problems were observed mainly due to irregular
shape of land plot.
Extent of non-compliant building drawings coming in municipality indicates an urgent
need for capacity building of engineers and sub engineers as well the implementation
authorities. In this context, training for different level of engineers for different class of
buildings seems necessary. Training for B class building design should focus on
structural analysis of the building whereas, for C class building designers training

9. Status of Building Code Compliance: A case study in Karyavinayak Municipality
should focus on how to use the mandatory rule of thumb from the updated NBC 205.
Since in most of the buildings the very common negligence were seen in ductility and
configurations related check, training should focus on parameters that influence ductility
of the buildings. Fancy buildings which often lacks the proper configurations must be
guided by the principles addressed in the applicable building code volumes. This study
also suggests to develop a guide to creating building code compliant document which
help the designers understand the information that needs to be included in a code
compliant set of construction documents.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work described in this paper is a part of the Building Code Implementation Program
in Nepal (BCIPN) project at NSET, which is funded by United States Agency for
International Development (USAID).
REFERENCES
A Guide to Creating Building Code Compliant Documents. BOAF / AIA‐Florida /
FES Joint Task Force, n.d.
Hom, Darrick B. , and Chris D. Poland. Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings(31-03).
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2004.
Nepal Building Code. DUDBC, Ministry of Physical Planning and Works, Government
of Nepal, 1994.
Scawthorn, C., T. Anagnos, K. Wong, and C. Poland. Rapid Visual Screening of
Building for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, FEMA 154,. Washington, DC:
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),, 1988.