Subedi, J; Ghimire, R M; Neupane, R P and Amatya, S (2016) Cost difference of buildings in Kathmandu constructed with and without earthquake safer features. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(5), pp. 444-459. ISSN 1759-5916
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to investigate increase in the cost of reinforced concrete buildings in Kathmandu valley constructed using earthquake safer features in comparison with that of buildings constructed using conventional approach without earthquake safety features. Design/methodology/approach: Five buildings constructed using earthquake safer features and five buildings constructed without using these features are selected. A cost comparison of both types of buildings is done, and the total cost is also compared for structural, nonstructural and service components in the buildings. Findings: The cost analysis of buildings constructed in Kathmandu valley shows that there is 10 per cent increase in cost for earthquake safer construction in comparison to construction using conventional approach. This increase in cost can be a deterrent factor for house owners to switch to safer construction practices which ultimately leads to lack of compliance from house owners. A successful implementation of building code in a country like Nepal, where most of the buildings are constructed from informal sector, requires compliance of the code from all stakeholders. Awareness raising can be a deciding factor for success in building code enforcement. Research limitations/implications: The study is done for only two types of constructions prevalent in Kathmandu: one using simplified codal method and another using conventional method. Only five samples of each types are taken into consideration. The building sample, however, is typical and representative of the two types of the construction practice. Practical implications: The information from this study will be useful for making policy decisions for enforcement of building codes and also for assessment of economic loss in future earthquakes. Social implications: This research output will help to redesign building code enforcement projects in Nepal and other countries in the region with similar issues. Originality/value: The building samples, analysis and output are original contribution of authors, and it contributes to fulfill the gap for such study.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building code; cost increase; earthquake safer buildings; kathmandu valley; mrt; reinforced concrete buildings with infill |
| Index terms: | owner, enforcement, implementation, redesign, reinforced concrete buildings with infill, earthquake, Nepal, research output, Kathmandu valley, compliance, cost analysis, building code, informal sector, cost increase, methodology, reinforced concrete |
| Subjects: | design methods, financial and cost management, contractual arrangements, research products and data, building materials, Geography, health safety and environment, research methods, economics, physical geography and landforms, environmental hazards, regulatory law, industry analysis, sociology |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Design Practice, Health and Safety, Cost Management, Construction Materials, Information Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here