Professional Documents
Culture Documents
: 39/-10 03 2016
: ,39
..............................................................................................................................................................................
:
1
2 39
3
(),
:
39(7975)WC 1
(IS 1893 (1) )
:15 2016
sak@bis.org.in
www.bis.org.in
,
( )
:
( )
MANAK BHAVAN, 9 BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI 110002
Phone: + 91 11 23230131, 23233375, 23239402 Extn 4434; Fax: + 91 11 23235529
Addressed to:
1 All Members of the Civil Engineering Division Council, CEDC
2 All Members of the Earthquake Engineering Sectional Committee, CED 39 and
its sub-committees and Panels, CED 39:4, CED 39:10, CED 39:4/P-1 and CED 39/P1
3 All others interested
Dear Sir/Madam,
Kindly examine the draft and forward your views stating any difficulties which you
are likely to experience in your business or profession, if this is finally adopted as National
Standard.
Last Date for comments: 15 April 2016
Comments if any, may please be made in the format as attached and mailed to the
undersigned at the above address. You are requested to send your comments preferably
through e-mail to sak@bis.org.in.
In case no comments are received or comments received are of editorial nature,
you will kindly permit us to presume your approval for the above document as finalized.
However, in case of comments of technical in nature are received then it may be finalized
either in consultation with the Chairman, Sectional Committee or referred to the Sectional
Committee for further necessary action if so desired by the Chairman, Sectional
Committee.
The document is also hosted on BIS website, www.bis.org.in.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(B.K. Sinha)
Head (Civil Engg.)
Encl: As above
FORMAT FOR SENDING COMMENTS ON THE DOCUMENT
[Please use A4 size sheet of paper only and type within fields indicated. Comments on each clause/sub-
clause/ table/figure, etc, be stated on a fresh row. Information/comments should include reasons for
comments, technical references and suggestions for modified wordings of the clause. Comments through
e-mail in MS WORD format to sak@bis.org.in shall be appreciated.]
Doc. No.:CED 39(7975)WC BIS Letter Ref: CED 39/T-10 Dated: 03 Feb 2016
Foreword
1
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
The Fourth Revision, brought out in 1984, modified some provisions of the standard
as a result of experience gained with the use of the standard. In this revision,
important basic modifications were introduced with-respect to load factors, field
values of N, base shear and modal analysis. A new concept was incorporated of
performance factor, which depended on structural framing system employed in
design and ductility incorporated in construction. Fig. 3 for design acceleration
spectra was modified; a curve was introduced for zero percent damping.
In the Fifth Revision brought out in 2002, the Sectional Committee decided to
present the provisions for different types of structures in separate parts, to keep
abreast with rapid developments and extensive research carried out in earthquake-
resistant design of various structures. Hence, IS 1893 was split into five parts,
namely:
(1) Seismic zone map was revised with only four zones, instead of five.
Erstwhile Zone I was merged to Zone II. Hence, Zone I did not appear in
the new zoning, and only Zones II, III, IV and V did.
(2) Values of seismic zone factors were changed; they reflected more realistic
values of effective peak ground acceleration of the Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE).
(3) Response Design Acceleration spectra were specified for three types of
founding strata, namely (a) rocky or hard soil, (b) medium or stiff soil, and
(c) soft soil.
(4) Empirical expression were revised for estimating the fundamental natural
period Ta of multi-storeyed buildings with regular moment resisting frames.
(5) A revised approach was adopted in seismic design. First, the actual
earthquake force was to be estimated, which may be induced in the
structure during the MCE, if it were to remain elastic. Then, the design
earthquake force was to be estimated, by dividing this induced elastic
force by a Response Reduction Factor R; R explicitly accounted for ductile
deformation, overstrength, redundancy, and replaced the earlier
2
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
performance factor.
(6) A lower bound was specified for the design base shear of buildings, based
on empirical estimate of the fundamental natural period, Ta.
(7) Soil-foundation system factor was dropped. Instead, a clause was
introduced to restrict the use of foundations vulnerable to differential
settlements in severe seismic zones.
(8) Torsional eccentricity values were revised upwards in view of serious
damages observed in buildings with irregular plan configurations.
(9) Modal combination rule was revised in dynamic analysis of buildings.
(10) Other clauses were redrafted, where necessary, for more effective
implementation.
Structures designed as per this standard are expected to sustain structural damage,
but are not expected to collapse during strong earthquake ground shaking. In
seismically active areas, construction should be avoided of structures, which may
result in heavy debris and consequent loss of life and property, such as un-
reinforced masonry (for example, adobe, stone or brick masonry in mud mortar, and
random rubble stone masonry).
Earthquake can cause damage not only on account of the shaking which results
from them, but also due to other chain effects, like landslides, floods, tsunamis, fires
and disruption to communication. Therefore, it is important to take necessary
precautions in the siting, planning and design of structures, so that they are safe
against such secondary effects also.
The provisions of this standard are intended for earthquake resistant design of only
normal structures. This standard is not applicable for the earthquake hazard estimate
and earthquake resistant design of special structures (such as large and tall dams,
long-span bridges and major industrial projects). Such projects require rigorous, site-
specific investigation to arrive at the earthquake hazard assessment. Also, the higher
earthquake performance expectation from the special structures may require
designers to depart from the general principles of earthquake-resistant design
enunciated for normal structures in Parts 1 to 5 of this standard.
The Sectional Committee recognizes the urgent need for a quantitative basis for
earthquake zoning and earthquake hazard assessment. But, arriving at a
quantitative earthquake zoning for India is not possible currently, owing to a number
of factors, including the scant availability of instrument recorded data. Thus, the
current earthquake zone map of India is based on maximum earthquake intensity
sustained by each location during the past earthquakes in India.
3
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
Though the magnitudes of different earthquakes which have occurred in the past are
estimated reasonably well, the maximum intensities of ground shaking at different
places caused by these earthquakes have so far been estimated mostly by post-
earthquake field damage surveys; there is little instrumental evidence to corroborate
the conclusions so arrived at. Thus, a zoning map, which is based on the maximum
intensities arrived at each location in the nation, is likely to lead to incorrect
conclusions in view of (a) possible human errors in judgment during the damage
survey for assessment of intensities, and (b) variation in quality of design and
construction of structures causing variation in type and extent of damage to the
structures for the same intensity of shaking. Therefore, the Sectional Committee has
considered that an interim rational approach to arrive at an earthquake zoning map
would be one based on the maximum intensities at each location as recorded from
damage surveys after past earthquakes, modified to account for:
(a) known magnitudes and the known epicentres (see Annex A) assuming all
other conditions as being average, and
(b) tectonics (see Annex B) and lithology (see Annex C) of each region.
Also, the Committee reviewed the map so arrived at with the past history, and drew
lines demarcating the different zones so as to be clear of important towns, cities and
industrial areas, to address economics of projects in such areas. Maps shown in
Figure 1 and Annexes B & C were prepared based on the information available upto
1993. However, Annex A is prepared based on information available from January
1505 to December 2013.
The Sectional Committee has attempted to include a Seismic Zoning Map (Fig. 1) for
this purpose. The object of this map is to classify the area of the country into a
number of zones in which one may reasonably expect earthquake shaking of more
or less same maximum intensity in future. The intensity as per 1964 MSK Intensity
Scale (see Annex D) broadly associated with the various zones is VI (or less), VII,
VIII and IX (and above) for Zones II, III, IV and V respectively. The maximum seismic
ground acceleration in each zone has not been predicted with accuracy either on a
deterministic or on a probabilistic basis. The Seismic Zone Factors included herein
are considered values of normalized effective peak ground accelerations to be
adopted in the design of various structures covered in this standard. Seismic Zone
Factors for some important towns are given in Annex E.
In the 2002 Seismic Zone Map, Zones I and II of the 1970 Seismic Zone Map were
merged and assigned the level of Seismic Zone II. Considering the seismicity in
southern India,
(a) the region that was affected by the 1993 Killari earthquake was included in
Zone III;
(b) the Bellary isolated zone was removed; and
(c) in parts of east coast areas showing hazard similar to that of the Killari
area, the level of Zone II was enhanced to Zone III and connected with
Zone III of Godavari Graben area.
The seismic hazard level goes on progressively increasing from southern peninsular
4
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
portion to the Himalayan main seismic source. The revised seismic zoning map gave
status of Zone III to Narmada Tectonic Domain, Mahanadi Graben and Godavari
Graben. This is a logical normalization keeping in view the apprehended higher
strain rates in these domains on geological consideration of higher neo-tectonic
activity recorded in these areas.
Attention is particularly drawn to the fact that the intensity of ground shaking due to
an earthquake could vary locally at any place due to variation in soil conditions.
Earthquake response of systems would be affected by different types of foundation
system in addition to variation of ground motion due to various types of soils.
Considering the effects in a gross manner, the standard gives guidelines for arriving
at design seismic coefficients based on stiffness of base soil reflected by the
corrected SPT values.
The design horizontal acceleration coefficient specified in this standard for the
design of a structure, is dependent on many factors. It is an extremely difficult task to
determine the exact design horizontal acceleration coefficient in each given case.
Therefore, it is necessary to indicate broadly the design horizontal acceleration
coefficients that could be adopted generally in different parts or zones of the country,
though, of course in the case of all important projects, rigorous analyses shall be
performed considering all factors involved, to arrive at suitable design horizontal
acceleration coefficients. The effects of the maximum credible earthquake in the four
seismic zones may be taken to be twice that of the effects of the design seismic
coefficient specified in this standard for the respective seismic zones.
Though the basis for the design of different types of structures is covered in this
standard, it is not implied that detailed dynamic analysis should be made in every
case.
Base isolation and energy absorbing devices may be used for earthquake resistant
design. Only standard devices having detailed experimental data on the performance
should be used. The designer must demonstrate by detailed analyses that these
devices provide sufficient protection to the buildings and equipment as envisaged in
this standard. Performance of all assembled isolation and energy absorbing devices
should be evaluated experimentally, and duly approved by the competent authority
identified by the client owner of the structure, before such devices are used in
practice. Design of buildings and equipment using such device should be reviewed
by a competent authority. In general, base isolation systems are found useful for
short period structures, say those with fundamental periods, including soil-structure
interaction less than 0.7s.
To control the serious loss of life and economic loss, the technique of base isolation
can be an alternate damage control strategy, which should be promoted or
encouraged in Seismic Zones III, IV and V. The commonly used seismic isolators
are:
(i) laminated natural rubber bearings,
(ii) high damping rubber bearings,
(iii) laminated lead rubber bearings, and
(iv) sliding bearings.
5
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
In the preparation of this standard, effort has been made to coordinate with
standards and practices prevailing in different countries in addition to relating it to the
practices in the field in this country. Assistance has particularly been derived from
the following publications:
(a) IBC 2015, International Building Code, International Code Council, USA, 2015;
(b) NEHRP 2009, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
New Buildings and Other Structures, Report No. FEMA P-750, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA, 2009;
(c) ASCE/SEI 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,
American Society of Civil Engineers, USA, 2010; and
(d) NZS 1170.5: 2004, Structural Design Actions, Part 5: Earthquake Actions New
Zealand, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, 2004.
For the guidance of users, informative annexes have been included on performance
based design and design of slab-column systems at Annex G and Annex H
respectively.
The units used with the items covered by the symbols shall be consistent throughout
this standard, unless specifically noted otherwise.
The Sectional Committee is currently deliberating on the following subjects for possible
standardization:
6
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
7
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
1 SCOPE
1.1 This standard primarily deals with earthquake hazard assessment for
earthquake-resistant design of (1) buildings, (2) liquid retaining structures,
(3) bridges, (4) embankments and retaining walls, (5) industrial and stack-like
structures, and (6) concrete, masonry and earth dams. Also, this standard [IS 1893
(Part 1)] deals with earthquake-resistant design of buildings; earthquake-resistant
design of the other structures is dealt with in IS 1893 (Parts 2 to 5).
1.3 This standard does not deal with construction features relating to earthquake-
resistant buildings and other structures. For guidance on earthquake-resistant
construction of buildings, reference may be made to the latest revisions of the
following Indian Standards: IS 4326, IS 13827, IS 13828, IS 13920, IS 13935 and
IS 15988. Also, this standard is not applicable for seismic design of critical and
special facilities, like nuclear power plants, petroleum refinery plants, and large
dams.
2 REFERENCES
The standards listed below contain provisions, which, through reference in this text,
constitute provisions of this standard. At the time of publication, the editions
indicated were valid. All standards are subject to revision, and parties to agreements
based on this standard are encouraged to investigate the possibility of applying the
most recent editions of the standards indicated below:
IS No. Title
456: 2000 Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete (Fourth Revision)
800: 2007 Code of Practice for General Construction in Steel (Second revision)
875 Code of Practice for Design Loads (other than earthquake) for Buildings
and Structures:
8
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
Part 1: 1987 Dead Loads - Unit weights of building material and stored materials
(Second Revision)
Part 2: 1987 Imposed Loads (Second Revision)
Part 3: 2015 Wind Loads (Third Revision)
Part 4: 1987 Snow Loads (Second Revision)
Part 5: 1987 Special Loads and Load Combinations (Second Revision)
1343: 2012 Code of Practice for Prestressed Concrete (Second Revision)
1498: 1970 Classification and Identification of Soils for General Engineering Purposes
(First Revision)
1888: 1982 Method of Load Test on Soils (Second Revision)
1893 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures:
Part 4:2016 Part 3: Industrial Structures including Stack-Like Structures (First
Revision) (under print)
2131: 1981 Method of Standard Penetration Test for Soils (First Revision)
2809:1972 Glossary of Terms and Symbols relating to Soil Engineering (First
Revision)
2810: 1979 Glossary of Terms relating to Soil Dynamics (First Revision)
4326:2013 Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings - Code of
Practice (Third Revision) (including its Amendment No. 1)
6403: 1981 Code of Practice for Determination of Bearing Capacity of Shallow
Foundations (First Revision)
13827:1993 Improving Earthquake Resistance of Earthen Buildings - Guidelines
13828:1993 Improving Earthquake Resistance of Low Strength Masonry Buildings
Guidelines
13920:2016 Ductile Design and Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures subjected
to Seismic Forces - Code of Practice (First Revision) (under print)
13935:1993 Repair and Seismic Strengthening of Buildings Guidelines
3 TERMINOLOGY
3.1 For the purpose of this standard, definitions given below shall apply to all
structures, in general. For definitions of terms pertaining to soil mechanics and soil
dynamics, reference may be made to IS 2809 and IS 2810, and for definitions of
terms pertaining to 'Loads', to reference may be made to IS 875 (Parts 1 to 5).
3.4 Damping
It is effect of internal friction, inelasticity of materials, slipping, sliding, etc, in reducing
the amplitude of oscillation; it is expressed as a fraction of critical damping (see 3.3).
9
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
3.9 Ductility
It is the capacity of a structure (or its members) to undergo large inelastic
deformations without significant loss of strength or stiffness.
3.10 Epicentre
It is the geographical point on the surface of earth vertically above the Focus of the
earthquake.
3.12 Focus
It is the first point of slip on the tectonic fault, at which the slip starts and from which
elastic waves originate inside the earth, which cause shaking of the ground.
3.15 Liquefaction
It is a state primarily in saturated cohesionless soils wherein the effective shear
strength is reduced to negligible value for all engineering purposes, when the pore
pressure approaches the total confining pressure during earthquake shaking. In this
condition, the soil tends to behave like a fluid mass (See Annex F).
10
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
11
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
12
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
4.1 The definitions given below shall apply for the purpose of earthquake resistant
design of buildings, as enumerated in this standard.
4.2 Base
It is the level at which inertia forces generated in the building are considered to be
transferred to the ground through the foundation. For buildings resting on pile
foundations, it is considered to be at the top of pile cap. For buildings with
basements, the base is considered at the bottommost basement level.
It is the point on the roof of a building through which when the resultant internal
resistance acts, the building undergoes: (1) pure translation in the horizontal
direction, and (2) no twist about vertical axis passing through the CR.
13
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
(1) All-floor twist definition It is the set of points on the horizontal floors of a multi-
storey building through which when the resultant internal resistances act, all
floors of the building undergo (i) pure translation in the horizontal direction, and
(ii) no twist about vertical axis passing through the CR.
(2) Single-floor twist definition It is a point on any horizontal floor of a multi-storey
building through which when the resultant internal resistances act, that floor
undergoes (i) pure translation in the horizontal direction, and (ii) no twist about
vertical axis passing through the CR, while the other floors may undergo twist.
These two definitions may give different values of design eccentricity. For multi-
storey structures with regular structural configurations, differences in responses
estimated are not substantial; either of them may be used.
4.6 Eccentricity
4.8 Diaphragm
It is a horizontal or nearly horizontal structural system (for example, reinforced
concrete floors and horizontal bracing systems), which transmits lateral forces to
vertical elements that resist earthquake-induced inertia effects.
(a) Two systems are designed to resist total design lateral force in proportion to
their lateral stiffness, considering interaction of two systems at all floor
levels; AND
(b) Moment resisting frames are designed to resist independently at least 25
percent of the design base shear.
14
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
(a) excluding the height of basement storeys, if basement walls are connected
with the ground floor slab or basement walls are fitted between the building
columns, but
(b) including the height of basement storeys, if basement walls are not
connected with the ground floor slab and basement walls are not fitted
between the building columns.
4.13 Joints
It is the portion of the column that is common to the beams and braces framing into
it.
(a) excludes the basement storeys, where basement walls are connected with
the ground floor deck or fitted between the building columns; and
(b) includes the basement storeys, when they are not so connected.
4.18 P- Effect
It is the secondary effect on shear forces and bending moments of lateral force
resisting elements generated under the action of the vertical loads, interacting with
the lateral displacement of building resulting from additional seismic effects.
15
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
4.21 Storey
It is the space between two adjacent floors.
16
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
5 SYMBOLS
The symbols and notations given below apply to the provisions of this standard:
17
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
6.1.3 Actual forces that appear on structures during earthquakes are much higher
than the design forces specified in the standard. Ductility arising from inelastic
18
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
material behavior, detailing and overstrength resulting from the additional reserve
strength in structures over and above the design strength are relied upon for the
deficit in actual and design lateral loads. In other words, earthquake resistant design
as per this standard relies on inelastic behaviour of structures. But, the maximum
ductility that can be realized in structures is limited. Therefore, structures shall be
designed for at least the minimum design lateral force specified in this standard.
6.1.6 Equipment and other systems, which are supported at various floor levels of
the structure, will be subjected to motions corresponding to vibration at their support
points. In important cases, it may be necessary to obtain floor response spectra for
design of equipment supports. For details, reference may be made to IS 1893 (Part
4).
(i) The addition shall comply with the requirements for new structures,
(ii) The addition shall not increase the seismic forces in any structural element
of the existing structures by more than 5 percent, unless the capacity of the
element subject to the increased force is still in compliance with this
standard, and
(iii) The addition shall not decrease the seismic resistance of any structural
element of the existing structure unless reduced resistance is equal to or
greater than that required for new structures.
19
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
6.2 Assumptions
When earthquake effects are considered on a structure, the loads shall be combined
as per the four sets of load combinations below:
(1) Structure built, occupied, and no earthquake shaking: 1.5 (DL + IL)
(2) Structure built, occupied, and earthquake shaking: 1.2 (DL + IL EL)
(3) Structure built, not occupied, and earthquake shaking: 1.5 (DL EL)
(4) Structure being built, and earthquake shaking: 0.9 DL 1.5 EL
where the terms DL, IL and EL stand for the response quantities due to dead load,
imposed load (including temperature load, and crane load) and equivalent static
designated earthquake load, respectively. The above seven combinations shall apply
to limit state design of reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete structures. Load
combinations given in IS 800 shall apply to plastic design of steel structures.
6.3.1.1 Even when load combinations that do not contain earthquake effects indicate
larger demands than combinations including them, it may be critical to adopt
provisions given in this standard, IS 13920 and IS 800, related to design, ductile
detailing and construction relevant for earthquake conditions.
6.3.2.1 When lateral load resisting elements are oriented along mutually orthogonal
20
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
horizontal direction, structure shall be designed for effects due to full design
earthquake load in one horizontal direction at a time, and not in both directions
simultaneously.
6.3.2.2 When lateral load resisting elements are not oriented along mutually
orthogonal horizontal directions, or when building is torsionally irregular (as per 7.1)
about both horizontal axes, structure shall be designed for effects due to full design
earthquake load in one horizontal direction plus 30 percent of design earthquake
load along other horizontal direction. Thus, the structure should be designed for the
following sets of combinations of earthquake load effects:
where X and Y are two orthogonal horizontal plan directions. Thus, EL in the four
sets of load combinations given in 6.3.1 shall be replaced by (ELX 0.3 ELY) or (ELY
0.3 ELX). This implies that the number of load combinations to be considered will
be 13 instead of 7 given in 6.3.1, as given below:
6.3.3.1 When effects due to vertical earthquake loads are to be considered, the
design vertical force shall be calculated for vertical ground motion as detailed in
6.4.5.
6.3.3.2 Where both horizontal and vertical seismic forces are taken into account,
load combination specified in 6.3.4 shall be considered.
21
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
where X and Y are orthogonal plan directions and Z vertical direction. Thus, EL in
the four sets of load combinations given in 6.3.1 shall be replaced by (ELX 0.3 ELY
0.3 ELZ), (ELY 0.3 ELZ 0.3 ELX) or (ELZ 0.3 ELX 0.3 ELY,). This implies that
the number of load combinations to be considered will be 25 instead of 7 given in
6.3.1, as given below:
6.3.4.2 As an alternative to the procedure in 6.3.4.1, the net response (EL) due to
the combined effect of the three components can be obtained by
6.3.4.3 Procedure for combining shaking effects given by 6.3.4.1 and 6.3.4.2 apply to
the same response quantity (say, bending moment in a column about its major axis,
or storey shear force in a frame) due to different components of the ground motion.
6.3.4.4 When components corresponding to only two ground motions (say one
horizontal and one vertical, or only two horizontal) are combined, the equations in
6.3.4.1 and 6.3.4.2 should be modified by deleting the term representing the
response due to the component of motion not being considered.
6.3.5.1 When earthquake forces are included, allowable bearing pressure in soils
shall be increased as per Table 1, depending on type of foundation of structure and
type of soil.
22
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
6.3.5.2 In soil deposits consisting of submerged loose sands and soils falling under
classification SP with corrected standard penetration test N values less than 15 in
seismic zones III, IV and V, and less than 10 in Seismic Zone II, the shaking caused
by earthquake ground motion may cause liquefaction or excessive total and
differential settlements. Such sites should preferably be avoided for locating new
settlements or important projects. Otherwise, this aspect of the problem needs to be
investigated, and appropriate methods adopted of compaction or stabilization to
achieve N values indicated in Note 3 under Table 1. Alternatively, deep pile
foundation may be provided and taken to depths well into the layer, which is not
likely to liquefy. Also, marine clays and other sensitive clays are known to liquefy due
to collapse of soil structure, and will need special treatment according to site
condition. Specialist literature may be referred for determining liquefaction potential
of a site. A simplified method for evaluation of liquefaction potential is given in Annex
F.
23
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
6.4.1 For the purpose of determining design seismic force, the country is classified
into four seismic zones as shown in Fig. 1.
24
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
25
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
3.0
Type I: Rock or Hard Soil
2.5
Type II: Medium Soil
2.0 Type III: Soft Soil
Sa/g
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Natural Period T (s)
26
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
Sl Structure /
No.
1. Important service and community buildings or structures (for example, critical 1.5
governance buildings, schools), signature structures, monument structures, lifeline and
emergency structures (for example, hospitals, telephone exchanges, television
stations, radio stations, bus stations, metro rail structure and metro rail stations,
railway stations, airports, water main lines and water tanks, food chain structures, fuel
stations, electricity stations, fire stations, and bridges), and large community halls (for
example, cinema halls, shopping malls, assembly halls and subway stations) and
power stations.
2. Residential or commercial buildings or structures, with occupancy more than 200 1.2
persons
3. All other buildings or structures 1.0
NOTES
1 Owners and design engineers of buildings or structures may choose values of importance factor I more
than those mentioned above.
2 Buildings and structures not covered in items 1 and 2 above may be designed for higher value of
Importance Factor I, depending on economy and strategy (for example, multi-storey buildings having
several residential units).
3 This table does not apply to temporary structures (for example, excavations, and scaffolding) that are
intended to be in operation only for a short duration.
4 For industrial structures, including those containing hazardous materials, Importance Factor, I shall be
taken as per IS 1893 (Part 4).
In this standard, Equivalent Static Method, Response Spectrum Method and Time
History Method are adopted. Equivalent static method is applicable only for
preliminary analysis of any structure, and for analysis of short period structures.
27
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
6.4.6 The design acceleration spectral value Av for vertical motions, when required,
may be taken as two-thirds of design acceleration spectral value Ah for horizontal
motions specified in 6.4.2.
6.4.7 Fig. 2 shows design acceleration spectra for different soil sites corresponding
to damping value of 5 percent. The design earthquake lateral force shall be
calculated for all structures using only this spectrum, irrespective of the material of
construction of the structure. When studying earthquake behaviour of structures
under different conditions, designers may use different damping values; multiplying
factors given in earthquake literature may be used for scaling spectral values given
in this standard for 5 percent damping to obtain spectral values for other damping
values.
6.4.8 When design acceleration spectrum is developed specific to a project site, the
same may be used for design structures of the project. In such cases, the effects of
the site-specific spectrum shall not be less than those arising out of the design
spectrum specified in this standard.
7 BUILDINGS
Buildings with simple regular geometry and uniformly distributed mass and stiffness
in plan and in elevation, suffer much less damage, than buildings with irregular
configurations. A building shall be considered to be irregular for the purposes of this
standard, if any one of the conditions given in Tables 4 and 5 is applicable. Limits on
acceptable irregularities for seismic zones III, IV and V and special analysis
requirements are laid out in Tables 4 and 5.
28
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
Buildings in Seismic Zones III, IV and V with Torsional Irregularity shall be designed
adequately to avoid torsional irregularity.
(b) Re-entrant Corners
A building is said to have a re-entrant corner, when its structural configuration in
plan has a projection in a direction of size greater than 15 percent of its overall
plan dimension in that direction.
Buildings in Seismic Zones III, IV and V with re-entrant corners shall be re-designed
adequately to avoid plan configurations having re-entrant corners.
(c) Floor Slabs having Excessive Cut-Outs or Openings
Floor slabs having cut-outs or openings of area more than 50 percent of the full
area of the floor slab, have discontinuity in their in-plane stiffness.
Buildings in Seismic Zones III, IV and V with floor slabs having excessive cut-outs or
openings shall be designed adequately to avoid floor slabs with excessive cut-outs or
openings.
(d) Out-of-Plane Offsets in Vertical Elements
Out-of-plane offsets in vertical elements resisting lateral loads cause
discontinuities and detours in the load path.
Buildings in Seismic Zones III, IV and V with out-of-plane offsets in vertical elements
shall be designed adequately to avoid out-of-plane offsets in vertical elements.
(e) Non-Parallel Lateral Force System
A building is said to have non-parallel system when the vertical elements
resisting lateral force are not parallel to or symmetric about the two principal
orthogonal axes.
Buildings with non-parallel lateral force resisting system shall be analysed under load
combinations mentioned in 6.3.2.2.
29
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
maxmin
max
min
(A)
A
A
L L1
A
A A A
L L2
(B)
A0 < 0.5Atotal
Aopening
Atotal
(C)
30
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
(D)
(E)
31
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
Buildings in Seismic Zones III, IV and V with lateral stiffness irregularity in two principal
plan directions shall be designed adequately to avoid having close fundamental lateral
translational natural periods in each principal plan direction.
(b) Stiffness Irregularity (Soft Storey)
A soft storey is one in which the lateral stiffness is less than that in the storey
above.
Buildings in seismic zones III, IV and V with stiffness irregularity shall be designed
adequately to avoid soft storeys.
(c) Mass Irregularity
Mass irregularity shall be considered to exist, when the seismic weight of any
floor is more than 150 percent of that of its adjacent floors. This provision of 150
percent may be relaxed in case of roofs.
Buildings in seismic zones III, IV and V with mass irregularity shall be designed by the
Dynamic Analysis Method (as per 7.7).
(d) Vertical Geometric Irregularity
Vertical geometric irregularity shall be considered to exist, when the horizontal
dimension of the lateral force resisting system in any storey is more than 125
percent of that in its adjacent storey.
Buildings in seismic zones III, IV and V with vertical geometric irregularity shall be
designed by the Dynamic Analysis Method (as per 7.7).
(e) In-Plane Discontinuity in Vertical Elements Resisting Lateral Force
In-plane discontinuity in vertical elements resisting lateral force shall be
considered to exist, when in-plane offset of the lateral force resisting elements
is greater than the plan length of those elements.
Buildings in seismic zones III, IV and V with in-plane discontinuity in vertical elements
resisting lateral force shall be designed adequately to avoid in-plane discontinuity in
vertical elements resisting lateral force.
(f) Discontinuity in Capacity (Weak Storey)
A weak storey is one in which the storey lateral strength is less than that in the
storey above.
Buildings in seismic zones III, IV and V shall be designed adequately to avoid weak
storey.
32
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
Initial
Initial
(A)
(B)
Heavy Wi+2
Mass Wi+1 Wi < 1.5Wi+1
Wi Wi < 1.5Wi-1
(C)
33
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
A A A
A < 0.1L
L L A L A
L1 L1
L2 < 1.25L1
L2 L2
(D)
Storeys 2 and 3
Storey 1
(E)
34
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
(F)
7.2.1 Response reduction factor, R, for different building systems shall be as given in
Table 6. The values of R shall be used for design of buildings with lateral load
resisting elements, and NOT for just the lateral load resisting elements built in
isolation. Response reduction factor R is used to account for inherent system
ductility, redundancy and overstrength normally available in the buildings, if designed
and detailed as per the prevalent Indian Standards.
7.2.2 Redundancy
Redundancy means more load paths for transferring to the foundation the inertia
forces induced during seismic shaking at different levels of the building. More
redundancy in the structure leads to increased level of energy dissipation and more
overstrength. Building shall have a high degree of redundancy for lateral load
resistance. Values of R given in Table 6 for buildings are based on the assumption
that buildings have sufficient level of redundancy.
Redundancy factor r can be estimated as ratio of ultimate load to first yield load;
estimation of this factor requires detailed non-linear analyses. Buildings that
performed well in past earthquakes are observed to have redundancy values more
than 2.5. For buildings with redundancy factor r less than 2.5, (that is, in the range
1.0-2.5), design engineer shall adopt modified values Rm of response reduction
factor given by the expression:
r 1
Rm 0.5 0.5 R,
1.5
35
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
Notes
1. RC and Steel structures in Seismic Zones III, IV and V shall be designed to be ductile. Hence, this
system is not allowed in these Seismic Zones.
2. Buildings with shear walls also include buildings having shear walls and frames, but where:
(a) Frames are not designed to carry lateral loads, or
(b) Frames are designed to carry lateral loads but do not fulfill the requirements of 'Dual Systems'.
3. (a) RC OMRF and Steel OMRF are as defined in 4.15.1.
(b) RC SMRF and Steel SMRF are as defined in 4.15.2.
(c) Ordinary RC Structural Wall is as defined in 4.19.1.
(d) Ductile RC Structural Wall is as defined in 4.19.2.
4. Response reduction factor used in design, damping during extreme shaking, and redundancy
influence the nonlinear behaviour of buildings and structures during strong earthquake shaking.
Detailed study is required to understand these influences. Until such time, the values of R given in
the table above shall be used with the modification given in 7.2.2.
7.3.1 For various loading classes specified in IS 875 (Part 2), design seismic force
shall be estimated using full dead load plus percentage of imposed load as given in
36
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
Table 7.
7.3.2 For calculation of design seismic forces of buildings, imposed load on roof
need not be considered.
7.3.3 Imposed load values indicated in Table 7 for calculating design earthquake
lateral forces are applicable to normal conditions. When loads during earthquakes
are more accurately assessed, designers may alter imposed load values indicated or
even replace the entire imposed load given in Table 7 with actual assessed load
values. Where imposed load is not assessed as per 7.3.1 and 7.3.2,
(1) only that part of imposed load, which possesses mass, shall be
considered, and
(2) lateral earthquake design force shall not be calculated on contribution of
impact effects from imposed loads.
7.3.4 Loads other than those given above (for example, snow and permanent
equipment) shall be considered appropriately.
7.3.5 In regions of severe snow loads and sand storms exceeding intensity of
1.5 kN/m2, 20 percent of uniform design snow load or sand load respectively, shall
be included in the estimation of seismic weight. In case the minimum values of
seismic weights corresponding to these load effects given in IS 875 are higher, the
higher values shall be used.
7.3.6 In buildings that have interior partitions, the weight of these partitions on floors
shall be included in the estimation of seismic weight; this value shall not be less than
0.5 kN/m2. In case the minimum values of seismic weights corresponding to
partitions given in IS 875 are higher, the higher values shall be used. It shall be
ensured that the weights of these partitions shall be considered only once in
estimating inertial effects of the building.
Seismic weight of each floor is its full dead load plus appropriate amount of imposed
load, as specified in 7.3.1 and 7.3.2. While computing the seismic weight of each
floor, the weight of columns and walls in any storey shall be appropriately
apportioned to the floors above and below the storey.
37
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
Seismic weight of the whole building is the sum of seismic weights of all floors.
7.4.3 Any weight supported in between storeys shall be distributed to floors above
and below in inverse proportion to its distance from the floors.
7.5.1 Buildings and portions there of shall be designed and constructed, to resist at
least the effects of design lateral force specified in 7.6.1. But, regardless of design
earthquake forces, buildings shall have lateral load resisting systems capable of
resisting a horizontal force not less than percent of the seismic weight of the
building as shown in Table 8. This load may be applied at different floor levels in
proportion to the seismic weight of respective floors.
Table 8 At least the minimum design earthquake horizontal lateral force for
which all buildings should be designed
(Clause 7.5.1)
Seismic Zone
%)
II 0.7
III 1.1
IV 1.6
V 2.4
7.5.2 The design lateral force shall first be computed for the building as a whole. This
design lateral force shall be distributed to the various floor levels at the
corresponding center of mass. In turn, this design seismic force at each floor level
shall be distributed to individual lateral load resisting elements depending on the
floor diaphragm action.
7.5.3 The value of damping shall be taken as 5percent of critical damping for the
purposes of both Equivalent Static Method (as per 7.6) and Dynamic Analysis
Method (as per 7.7) for buildings of all materials (namely steel, reinforced concrete
or masonry).
7.6.1 The total design seismic base shear force (VB) along any principal direction of
a building shall be determined by:
38
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
VB = AhW,
where
Ah = Design horizontal acceleration coefficient value as per 6.4.2, using approximate
fundamental natural period Ta as per 7.6.2 along the considered direction of
vibration; and
W = Seismic weight of the building as per 7.4.2.
(b) all other buildings, including moment-resisting frame buildings with masonry infill
wall panels
0.09h
Ta ,
d
where
h = Height of building, in m, as defined in 7.6.2 (a); and
d = Base dimension (in m) of the building at the plinth level along the considered
direction of the lateral force.
(c) buildings with concrete structural walls or unreinforced masonry infill walls:
0.075h0.75
Ta ,
Aw
where Aw is total effective area (m2) of walls in the first storey of the building
given by
Nw Lwi
2
Aw Awi 0.2 ,
i 1
h
in which,
39
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
7.6.3 The design base shear (VB) computed in 7.6.1 shall be distributed along the
height of the building and in plan at each floor level as below:
The design base shear VB computed in 7.6.1 shall be distributed along the height
of the building as per the following expression:
2
Wi hi
Qi n VB ,
Wj h j
2
j 1
where
(b) In-Plan Distribution of Design Lateral Force at Floor i to Different Lateral Force
Resisting Elements
The Design Storey Shear in any storey shall be calculated by summing the
Design Lateral Forces at all floor above that storey. In buildings whose floors are
capable of providing rigid horizontal diaphragm action in their own plane, the
Design Storey Shear shall be distributed to the various vertical elements of lateral
force resisting system in proportion to the lateral stiffness of these vertical
elements.
7.7.1 Linear dynamic analysis shall be performed to obtain the design lateral force
40
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
(design seismic base shear, and its distribution to different levels along the height of
the building, and to various lateral load resisting elements) for the following buildings:
(a) Regular buildings: Those taller than 48 m in Seismic Zones III, IV and V, and
those taller than 70 m in Seismic Zone II. Method suggested in 7.7.4 and 7.7.5
can be used. (For buildings NOT taller than 48 m in Seismic Zones III, IV and V,
and those NOT taller than 70 m in Seismic Zone II, Equivalent Static Method
given in 7.6 may be adopted.)
(b) Irregular Buildings: Those with (i) irregularities admissible as per Tables 4 and 5,
and (ii) taller than 12 m in Seismic Zones III, IV and V, and taller than 48 m in
Seismic Zone II. Dynamic analysis is recommended for irregular buildings of
lower height, even though it may not be mandatory as above.
7.7.2 The analytical model for dynamic analysis of buildings with unusual
configuration should be such that it adequately represents irregularities present in
the building configuration. Buildings with plan irregularities, as defined in Table 4,
shall not be analyzed by the Simplified Method given in 7.7.5.4.
7.7.3 Dynamic analysis may be performed either by the Time History Method or by
the Response Spectrum Method. In either method, the design base shear VB shall
be compared with a base shear VB calculated using a fundamental period Ta, where
Ta is as per 7.6. When VB is less than VB , the force response quantities (for
example,, member forces, storey forces, storey shears and base reactions) shall be
multiplied by VB /VB .
Response Spectrum Method may be performed for any building using the design
acceleration spectrum specified in 6.4.1, or by a site-specific design acceleration
spectrum mentioned in 6.4.8.
Undamped free vibration analysis of the entire building shall be performed as per
established methods of structural dynamics using appropriate mass and elastic
stiffness of the structural system, to obtain natural periods Tk and mode shapes {}k
of those of its Nm modes of oscillation [k[1,Nm]] that need to be considered as per
7.7.5.2.
41
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
The number of modes Nm to be used in the analysis for earthquake shaking along a
considered direction, should be such that the sum total of modal masses of these
modes considered is at least 90percent of the total seismic mass.
(a) Peak response quantities (for example, member forces, displacements, storey
forces, storey shears, and base reactions) may be combined as per Complete
Quadratic Combination (CQC) Method, as below
Nm Nm
i 1 j 1
i ij j
where
= Estimate of Peak response quantity,
i = Response quantity in mode i (with sign),
j = Response quantity in mode j (with sign),
ij = Cross-modal correlation co-efficient given by
8 2 1 1.5
ij ,
1 2 2 4 2 1 2
Nm = Number of modes considered,
= Modal damping coefficient ratio shall be taken as 0.05,
j
= Natural Frequency ratio = ,
i
j = Circular Natural Frequency in mode j, and
i = Circular Natural Frequency in mode i.
If building does not have closely-spaced modes, then net peak response quantity
due to all modes considered shall be estimated as:
Nm
,
k 1
k
2
Where
42
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
* c ,
c
where
c = Peak response quantity in closely spaced mode c. The summation is for
closely spaced modes only. Then, this peak response quantity * due to
closely spaced modes is combined with those of remaining well-separated
modes by method described above.
Regular buildings may be analysed as a system of masses lumped at the floor levels
with each mass having one degree of freedom, that of lateral displacement in the
direction under consideration. In such a case, the following expressions shall hold in
the computation of the various quantities:
2
n
Wiik
Mk i n1 ,
g Wi ik 2
i 1
where
g = Acceleration due to gravity,
ik = Mode shape coefficient at floor i in mode k ,
Wi = Seismic weight of floor i of the structure, and
n = Number of floors of the structure.
(b) Mode Participation Factor: Mode Participation Factor Pk of mode k is given by:
n
W i ik
Pk n
i 1
,
W
i 1
i ik
2
(c) Design Lateral Force at Each Floor in Each Mode: Peak Lateral Force Qik at floor
i in mode k is given by:
Qik Akik Pk Wi
where
Ak = Design horizontal acceleration spectrum value as per 6.4.2 using natural
period of vibration Tk of mode k obtained from Dynamic Analysis.
(d) Storey Shear Forces in Each Mode: Peak shear force Vik acting in storey i in
mode k is given by:
43
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
n
Vik Q
j i 1
ik
(e) Storey Shear Force due to All Modes Considered: Peak storey shear force Vi in
storey i due to all modes considered, shall be obtained by combining those due to
each mode in accordance with 7.7.5.3.
(f) Lateral Forces at Each Storey due to All Modes Considered: Design lateral forces
Froof at roof level and Fi at level of floor i shall be obtained as:
Froof Vroof , and
Fi Vi Vi 1 .
7.8 Torsion
7.8.2 Provision shall be made in all buildings for increase in shear forces on the
lateral force resisting elements resulting from twisting about the vertical axis of the
building, arising due to eccentricity between the centre of mass and centre of
stiffness at the floor levels. The design forces calculated as in 7.6 and 7.7.5, shall be
applied at the displaced centre of mass so as to cause design eccentricity (as given
by 7.8.3) between the displaced centre of mass and centre of stiffness.
44
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
7.9.2 The estimation of in-plane stiffness and strength of URM infill walls shall be
based on provisions given in this Clause.
7.9.2.1 The modulus of elasticity Em (in MPa) of masonry infill wall shall be taken as:
Em 550 fm
where fm is the compressive strength of masonry prism (in MPa) obtained as per
IS 1905 or given by expression
in which
7.9.2.2 URM infill walls shall be modeled by using equivalent diagonal struts as
below:
45
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
F
wds
Lds
7.10.1 RC moment resisting frame buildings, which have parking spaces in any
storey(s) and without Unreinforced Masonry (URM) infill walls in the same storey(s),
are known to have flexible and weak storeys in the storey(s) as per Table 5. Such
moment frame buildings shall be provided necessarily with RC Structural Walls in
select bays of moment resisting frames along both plan directions as per
requirements laid down under 7.10.
7.10.3 The RC Structural Walls shall be designed (that is, the number, location,
length, thickness and detailing of the RC walls) such that the building does NOT
have
(a) Torsional irregularity in plan. In assessing this, lateral stiffness shall be included
46
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
of all elements that resist lateral actions at all levels of the building;
(b) Lateral stiffness in the open storey(s) less than 95percent of that in the storey
above; and
(c) Lateral strength in the open storey(s) less than 90percent of that in the storey
above.
7.10.4 The RC Structural Wall Plan Density sw of the building shall be at least the
values given in Table 9. The values of sw of RC Structural Walls indicated in Table 9
can be adopted even in regular buildings that do not have open storey(s).
7.10.5 RC Structural Walls in buildings located in Seismic Zones III, IV, and V shall
be designed and detailed to comply with all requirements of IS 13920.
7.11 Deformation
7.11.1.1 Storey drift in any storey shall not exceed 0.004 times the storey height, due
to specified design lateral force with partial safety factor for loads taken as 1.0 for all
load combinations given in 6.3.1.
47
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
7.12 Miscellaneous
7.12.1 Foundations
Isolated RC footings without tie beams or unreinforced strip foundations, shall not be
adopted in buildings rested on soft soils (with corrected N<10). Use of foundations
vulnerable to significant differential settlement due to ground shaking shall be
avoided in buildings located in seismic zones III, IV and V. Individual spread footings
or pile caps shall be interconnected with ties (See 5.3.4.1 of IS 4326), except when
individual spread footings are directly supported on rock, in buildings located in
seismic Zones IV and V. All ties shall be capable of carrying, in tension and in
compression, an axial force equal to Ah/4 times the larger of the column or pile cap
load, in addition to the otherwise computed forces, subject to a minimum of 5percent
of larger of column or pile cap loads. Here, Ah is as per 6.4.2.
All horizontal projections (like brackets, cornices and balconies) shall be designed
and checked for stability for five times the design vertical coefficient specified in
6.4.2.
7.12.2.3 The increased design forces specified in 7.12.2.1 and 7.12.2.2 are only for
designing the projecting parts and their connections with the main structures, and
NOT for the design of the main structure.
Compound walls shall be designed for the design horizontal coefficient of Z/2.
All small items and objects of a building shall be tied to the building or to each other
to act as single unit, except those between the separation joints and seismic joints.
These connections shall be made capable of transmitting the forces induced in them,
but not less than 0.05 times weight of total dead and imposed load reactions;
frictional resistance shall not be relied upon in these calculations.
48
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
Annex A
( Foreword )
49
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
Annex B
( Foreword )
50
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
Annex C
( Foreword )
51
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
Annex D
( Foreword and Clause 3.14)
MSK 1964 INTENSITY SCALE
Type A Building in field-stone, rural structures, un-burnt brick houses, clay houses
Type B Ordinary brick buildings, buildings of large block and prefabricated type, half timbered
structures, buildings in natural hewn stone
Type C Reinforced buildings, well built wooden structures
I Not Noticeable
(i) The intensity of the vibration is below the limits of sensibility; the tremor is
detected and recorded by seismograph only.
II Scarcely Noticeable (Very Slight)
(i) Vibration is felt only by individual people at rest in houses, especially on upper
floors of buildings.
III Weak, Partially Observed
(i) The earthquake is felt indoors by a few people, outdoors only in favorable
circumstances. The vibration is like that due to the passing of a light truck.
Attentive observers notice a slight swinging of hanging objects.
IV Largely Observed
(i) The earthquake is felt indoors by many people, outdoors by few. Here and there
people awake, but no one is frightened. The vibration is like that due to the
passing of a heavily loaded truck. Windows, doors, and dishes rattle. Floors and
52
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
walls crack. Furniture begins to shake. Hanging objects swing slightly. Liquid in
open vessels are slightly disturbed. In standing motor cars the shock is noticeable.
V Awakening
(i) The earthquake is felt indoors by all, outdoors by many. Many people awake. A
few run outdoors. Animals become uneasy. Buildings tremble throughout. Hanging
objects swing considerably. Pictures knock against walls or swing out of place.
Occasionally pendulum clocks stop. Unstable objects overturn or shift. Open
doors and windows are thrust open and slam back again. Liquids spill in small
amounts from well-filled open containers. The sensation of vibration is like that
due to heavy objects falling inside the buildings.
(ii) Slight damages in buildings of Type A are possible.
(iii) Slight waves on standing water. Sometimes changes in flow of springs.
VI Frightening
(i) Felt by most indoors and outdoors. Many people in buildings are frightened and
run outdoors. A few persons loose their balance. Domestic animals run out of their
stalls. In few instances, dishes and glassware may break, and books fall down,
pictures move, and unstable objects overturn. Heavy furniture may possibly move
and small steeple bells may ring.
(ii) Damage of Grade 1 is sustained in single buildings of Type B and in many of Type
A. Damage in some buildings of Type A is of Grade 2.
(iii) Cracks up to widths of 1cm possible in wet ground; in mountains occasional
landslips: change in flow of springs and in level of well water are observed.
VII Damage of Buildings
(i) Most people are frightened and run outdoors. Many find it difficult to stand. The
vibration is noticed by persons driving motor cars. Large bells ring.
(ii) In many buildings of Type C damage of Grade 1 is caused; in many buildings of
Type B damage is of Grade 2. Most buildings of Type A suffer damage of Grade
3, few of Grade 4. in single instances, landslides of roadway on steep slopes:
crack in roads; seams of pipelines damaged; cracks in stone walls.
(iii) Waves are formed on water, and is made turbid by mud stirred up. Water levels in
wells change, and the flow of springs changes. Some times dry springs have their
flow resorted and existing springs stop flowing. In isolated instances parts of sand
and gravelly banks slip off.
VIII Destruction of Buildings
(i) Fright and panic; also persons driving motor cars are disturbed, Here and there
branches of trees break off. Even heavy furniture moves and partly overturns.
Hanging lamps are damaged in part.
(ii) Most buildings of Type C suffer damage of Grade 2, and few of Grade 3, Most
buildings of Type B suffer damage of Grade 3. Most buildings of Type A suffer
damage of Grade 4. Occasional breaking of pipe seams. Memorials and
monuments move and twist. Tombstones overturn. Stone walls collapse.
(iii) Small landslips in hollows and on banked roads on steep slopes; cracks in ground
up to widths of several centimeters. Water in lakes become turbid. New reservoirs
come into existence. Dry wells refill and existing wells become dry. In many
cases, change in flow and level of water is observed.
IX General Damage of Buildings
(i) General panic; considerable damage to furniture. Animals run to and fro in
confusion and cry.
(ii) Many buildings of Type C suffer damage of Grade 3, and a few of Grade 4. Many
buildings of Type B show a damage of Grade 4 and a few of Grade 5. Many
buildings of Type A suffer damage of Grade 5. Monuments and columns fall.
Considerable damage to reservoirs; underground pipes partly broken. In individual
cases, railway lines are bent and roadway damaged.
53
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
(iii) On flat land overflow of water, sand and mud is often observed. Ground cracks to
widths of up to 10 cm, on slopes and river banks more than 10 cm. Further more,
a large number of slight cracks in ground; falls of rock, many land slides and earth
flows; large waves in water. Dry wells renew their flow and existing wells dry up.
X General Destruction of Buildings
(ii) Many buildings of Type C suffer damage of Grade 4, and a few of Grade 5. Many
buildings of Type B show damage of Grade 5. Most of Type A has destruction of
Grade 5. Critical damage to dykes and dams. Severe damage to bridges. Railway
lines are bent slightly. Underground pipes are bent or broken. Road paving and
asphalt show waves.
(iii) In ground, cracks up to widths of several centimetres, sometimes up to 1 m,
Parallel to water courses occur broad fissures. Loose ground slides from steep
slopes. From river banks and steep coasts, considerable landslides are possible.
In coastal areas, displacement of sand and mud; change of water level in wells;
water from canals, lakes, rivers, etc, thrown on land. New lakes occur.
XI Destruction
(ii) Severe damage even to well built buildings, bridges, water dams and railway
lines. Highways become useless. Underground pipes destroyed.
(iii) Ground considerably distorted by broad cracks and fissures, as well as movement
in horizontal and vertical directions. Numerous landslips and falls of rocks. The
intensity of the earthquake requires to be investigated specifically.
XII Landscape Changes
(ii) Practically all structures above and below ground are greatly damaged or
destroyed.
(iii) The surface of the ground is radically changed. Considerable ground cracks with
extensive vertical and horizontal movements are observed. Falling of rock and
slumping of river banks over wide areas, lakes are dammed; waterfalls appear
and rivers are deflected. The intensity of the earthquake requires to be
investigated specially.
54
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
Annex E
( Foreword )
55
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
56
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
Annex F
( Clauses 3.15 and 6.3.5.2 )
Step 1: The subsurface data used to assess liquefaction susceptibility should include
the location of the water table, either SPT blow count N (or tip resistance qc of a
standard CPT cone or Shear Wave Velocity), mean grain size D50 , unit weight,
and fines content of the soil (percent by weight passing the IS Standard Sieve
No. 75).
Step 2: Evaluate total vertical stress v and effective vertical stress 'v for all
potentially liquefiable layers within the deposit.
Step 4: Calculate Critical Stress Ratio CSR , the resistance of a soil layer against
liquefaction, induced by the design earthquake using:
a
CSR 0.65 max v rd ,
g 'v
where
v = Vertical overburden stress at depth z,
'v = Effective vertical overburden stress at depth z,
amax = Peak ground acceleration,
g = Acceleration due to gravity, and
rd = Stress Reduction Factor.
57
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
The Critical Resistance Ratio CRR is estimated from Fig. F5 using N1 60 value
representative of the deposit. Assess susceptibility of a soil to liquefaction using
CRR.
N1 60,CS N1 60 ,
58
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
where
0 1 for FC 5%
190
1.76 FC 2 FC1.5
e
0.99 for 5% FC 35% .
1000
0.5 1.2 for FC 35%
Fig. F5 shall be used to estimate CRR, where N1 60,CS shall be used instead of
N1 60 and only SPT clean sand based curve shall be used irrespective of fines
contents.
q
qC 1N CQ c ,
Pa
in which
n
Pa
CQ
'vo
qc = Measured cone tip resistance corrected for thin layers,
0.5 For Sand
n ,
1 For Clay
Ic 3.47 logQ2 1.22 log F 2 ,
n
q v Pa
Q c ,
Pa v
fs
F 100 , and
qc v
f s = Measured sleeve friction.
Assess susceptibility of a soil to liquefaction using Fig. F6. Although soils with
Ic 2.6 are deemed non-liquefiable, such deposits may soften and deform during
earthquakes. General guidance is not available to deal with such possibilities.
Softening and deformability of deposits with Ic 2.6 should thus be treated on a
material specific basis.
59
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
Calculate normalized Shear Wave Velocity Vs1 for clean sands using:
0.25
P
Vs1 a Vs .
v
Assess liquefaction susceptibility of clean sands using Fig. F7.
CRR
FS ,
CSR
where CSR is as estimated in Step 5 and CRR in Step 6. When the design ground
motion is conservative, earthquake-related permanent ground deformation is
generally small, if FS 1.2 .
60
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
61
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
62
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
63
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
64
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
65
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
66
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
ANNEX G
( Foreword )
G-1 DEFINITIONS
The following definitions are applicable for this informative Annex.
G-1.1 Performance-Based Seismic Design
Framework for seismic design of structures to ensure the targeted performance
under specified hazard level(s). The performance is indicator of the damage
expected in various structural and non-structural components and is usually
quantified in terms of plastic deformation in different structural components, drift
(maximum inter-storey drift in case of buildings), and acceleration at the level of
connection of the non-structural component. In this methodology, the inelastic
response of considered structure under specified hazard level is explicitly estimated.
G-1.2 Force Based Design
The earthquake resistant design methodology, followed by most of the current
design codes, worldwide, in which the different components of the structure are
designed to have specified minimum strength. It is accompanied by prescribed
detailing of structural configuration, reinforcement and connections, and specified
hierarchy of strength in different components and modes of failure. The inelastic
energy dissipation by the structure during earthquake is accounted for approximately
by specifying Response Reduction Factors for different classes of structures.
G-1.3 Displacement Based Design
In this approach the structure is designed to achieve a specified deformation state
under the considered hazard level. Contrary to force based design, in this approach
the members are proportioned for local deformation demand and not the strength.
G-1.4 Performance Objective
A desired level of seismic performance, expressed in terms of acceptable structural
and non-structural damage for a specified level of seismic hazard (for example, DBE,
MCE).
G-1.5 Performance Level
A limiting damage state or condition described by the physical damage to different
structural and non-structural components, threat to life safety of occupants/users,
and post-earthquake serviceability of the structure.
G-1.6 Operational Building Performance Level
Buildings meeting this target Building Performance Level are expected to sustain
minimal or no damage to their structural and non-structural components. The
building is suitable for its normal occupancy and use, although possibly in a slightly
impaired mode, with power, water, and other required utilities provided from
emergency sources, and possibly with some nonessential systems not functioning.
67
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
Buildings meeting this target Building Performance Level pose an extremely low Life
Safety risk.
G-1.7 Immediate Occupancy Structural Performance Level
The post-earthquake damage state in which only very limited structural damage has
occurred. The basic vertical- and lateral-force-resisting systems of the building retain
almost all of their pre-earthquake strength and stiffness. The risk of life-threatening
injury as a result of structural damage is very low, and although some minor
structural repairs might be appropriate, these repairs would generally not be required
before re-occupancy.
G-1.8 Life Safety Structural Performance Level
The post-earthquake damage state in which a structure has damaged components
but retains a margin against the onset of partial or total collapse. The damage has
not resulted in large falling debris hazards, either inside or outside the building.
Injuries might occur during the earthquake; however, the overall risk of life-
threatening injury as a result of structural damage is expected to be low.
G-1.9 Collapse Prevention Structural Performance Level
The post-earthquake damage state in which a structure has components damaged
to an extent that it has no margin against collapse but it continues to support gravity
loads. The building is on the verge of partial or total collapse. Substantial damage to
the structure has occurred, potentially including significant degradation in the
stiffness and strength of the lateral-force-resisting system and large permanent
lateral deformation of the structure.
G-2 Performance Based Design procedures can be used for design of structural
systems not covered by this code and for design of structures for a better seismic
performance objective than that intended in this code. Structures, including structural
and non-structural components and their connections shall be demonstrated using
appropriate analysis or experimental testing or by a combination of analysis and
structural testing to provide a seismic performance equivalent or better than that
intended in this code. Due consideration shall be given to the uncertainties
associated with demand (loading) and capacity (resistance).
Minimum performance objective for buildings with Importance Factor, I=1.0 shall be
Collapse Prevention for the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). For
Important buildings (I=1.5), the minimum performance objective shall be Immediate
Occupancy for the Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) and Life Safety for the MCE.
For hospital and other lifeline buildings, the non-structural components shall be
demonstrated to have Operational performance level for DBE. Enhanced
performance objectives can be formulated in consultation with the owner, occupants
and authority having jurisdiction. In no case, the prescriptive design criteria for
regularity of structural configuration, and requirements for stiffness, strength and
ductility laid down in this code, shall be diluted.
Nonlinear static or nonlinear dynamic analysis procedure, with appropriate
assumptions regarding stiffness, damping, strength and hysteretic behaviour can be
used. The assumptions shall be based on approved test data and/or referenced
standards. Use of nonlinear static procedure shall be permitted for buildings having
68
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
regular configuration and negligible higher mode effects. For buildings having
configurational irregularities or significant higher mode effects, nonlinear dynamic
procedure (Nonlinear Time History Analysis) shall be required. Appropriate
acceptance criteria in terms of plastic deformations in members, interstorey drift, and
strain limits in different materials, for different performance levels shall be used
based on approved test data and/or referenced standards. Till such standards are
developed for Indian conditions, the analysis procedures, modelling assumptions
and acceptance criteria of ASCE 41 can be used.
Independent peer review is an essential part of the performance-based design
framework. The reviewer must have appropriate expertise and understanding of the
structural system, loading, analysis method and testing procedure used.
G-3 COMMENTARY
A number of new structural systems and materials are gradually becoming popular
in the Indian construction industry. Further, the intended performance objective of
No Collapse in case of a major earthquake may not be acceptable for some owners
and users of ordinary buildings and for important buildings. Therefore, it is important
to allow for alternative design methods to promote innovation and enhanced
performance objectives. Performance-based design is a promising tool, gaining
popularity world-over, and it is timely that it is adopted in Indian code. However, at
the same time, it should be safeguarded against misuse and diluting the
requirements of the current code of practice. The prescriptive guidelines of the
existing codes in terms of selection of structural configuration, minimum design force
levels, and detailing for ductility enhancement are time tested and cannot be
compromised with in any case. It is to be noted that ASCE 41 (and other related
documents) have been developed for seismic performance evaluation of existing
buildings. The codes for new construction are intended to regulate the design and
construction of new structures such that to encourage or require features for good
seismic performance. Many existing buildings are designed and constructed without
such features and therefore, ASCE 41 caters to much wider range of structures,
which cannot be encouraged for new construction.
Performance-based design is primarily a displacement-based design methodology,
which requires realistic (or conservative) estimates of displacement. This
necessitates the use of reasonable effective stiffness estimates for cracked sections
in case of RC members. In case of the current force-based design approach of
IS 1893, an overestimation of stiffness may be conservative for evaluating the design
base shear, but in case of displacement-based approach an overestimation of
stiffness will be non-conservative. Therefore, proper modelling of stiffness is a crucial
step in performance-based design. Effective stiffness of RC members depends on a
number of factors, including level of axial force in the member, reinforcement ratio,
and grades of concrete and steel. In absence of more reliable test results for Indian
conditions, the guidelines of ASCE 41 can be used for this purpose.
Another important deviation in displacement-based design approach, as compared
with the conventional force-based design approach, is use of Expected strength of
components in place of the Characteristic (or Nominal, or Specified or Lower-
bound) strength. The relationship between expected and characteristic strength,
depends on the manufacturing process and quality control. It is to be estimated
69
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
considering the variance of test results. There is need to conduct a large number of
tests on different materials being used in India in different regions and under different
conditions of manufacturing. It is to be noted that different standards/documents
have significant variation in this regard, and the values specified in a different
national standard, e.g. ASCE 41 are to be used with caution.
Significant variation exists among different documents/standards available on
Performance-/Displacement-Based design, regarding the definition and acceptance
criteria for different performance levels. Similar uncertainty also exists about the
modelling of inelastic (nonlinear cyclic) behaviour of different components. The
structural designer should refer to more than one standard/document and use more
than one performance acceptance criteria to take into account the uncertainty. The
performance acceptance criteria should also be supported by test results, as far as
possible. The relevant documents/standards in this regard are listed below:
ASCE 41-13, (2013), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, American Society
of Civil Engineers, Reston, USA.
Calvi G.M., and Sullivan, T.J., (2009), A Model Code for Displacement-Based Seismic
Design of Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Fib Bulletin 65, (2012), Model Code 2010, final draft, International Federation for Structural
Concrete, Lusanne, Switzerland.
Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, M., and Cowalsky, M.J., (2007), Displacement-Based Seismic
Design of Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
PEER / ATC-72-1 (2010). Modelling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and
Analysis of Tall Buildings, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.
70
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
ANNEX H
( Foreword )
H-1 DEFINITION
The following definitions are applicable for this informative Annex.
H-1.1 Slab-column Frame System
A building structural system also known as flat-slab or flat plate system, having RC
slabs directly supported on columns, without beams. The system is known to have
brittle punching shear failure around the slab-column connections and is not
recommended to be used as primary lateral load resisting system in seismic regions.
H-1.2 Lateral Force Resisting System (LFRS)
A structural system having adequate stiffness, strength and ductility in lateral
direction, which can be used as primary system to resist earthquake forces. The
common LRFS include RC shear walls, RC/Steel moment resisting (rigid jointed)
frames, and steel braced frames.
H-1.3 Gravity Shear Ratio (VR)
Fraction of the punching shear capacity consumed by gravity loads (Dead Load, Live
Load and Snow load, if applicable). It is defined as the ratio of the two-way
(punching) shear stress at critical section due to gravity loads, to the punching shear
strength, calculated in accordance with Cl. 31.6 of IS 456.
H-2 The slab-column systems, commonly known as flat-slab or flat-plate systems
cannot be used as lateral force resisting systems in seismic regions. However, these
can be used as non-seismic load resisting systems along with other primary lateral
force resisting systems (LFRS), such as shear walls or moment resisting frames.
When used along with these LFRS, the compatibility of the slab-column system with
the LFRS in lateral drift is crucial. Mere designing of the LFRS for the full design
base shear is not adequate, and the slab-column system shall be demonstrated to
retain its vertical load carrying capacity subjected to the resulting inter-storey drifts.
This requires a performance (displacement) based design approach considering all
potential failure modes including flexure, shear, shear-moment transfer and
reinforcement development at any section. The analytical model shall consider
effective stiffness of cracked sections of slab and other RC elements including shear
walls, shall have explicit modelling of torsional stiffness of slab-column joint, and
shall capture the potential for both slab yielding and connection failure due to
punching. ASCE 41 and ACI 318 guidelines for modelling and acceptance criteria for
slab-column building systems can be used, till detailed guidelines are provided in the
relevant Indian codes.
The primary LFRS used in slab-column buildings shall be designed to provide
adequate stiffness, strength and torsional rigidity to the building. In case of shear
walls being used as the primary LFRS, the walls shall be provided symmetrically in
both the directions and as far away from the center of the building as possible,
71
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
preferably along the perimeter. The LFRS shall be proportioned to restrict the
maximum interstorey drift DR (%) at DBE (R times the interstorey drift at design
load), as
DR= 3.5 - 5VR, for VR<0.6, and (1a)
DR= 0.5, for VR>0.6 (1b)
Where, VR is the gravity shear ratio (ratio of factored two-way shear force at the
critical section due to dead and live loads to the shear strength of the slab-column
joint).
Use of column or shear capitals, drop panels, and shear reinforcement in the form of
stirrups and shear heads/ shear studs shall be permitted to enhance the shear
strength of the slab-column joint. A response reduction factor of 4 shall be used for
design of shear walls and shear walls shall be designed and detailed following the
provisions of IS 13920. The columns shall also be detailed as per IS 13920. For
ductile detailing of beam-column joints, the provisions of ACI 318 shall be followed.
In case of shear wall-flat slab buildings without masonry infills and up to 20
storeys tall, use of the following simplified procedure shall be permitted:
1. Modelling of shear wall-flat slab system, using equivalent frame approach,
with cracked section stiffness, equivalent width of slab, and explicit modelling
of joint torsional rigidity.
2. Analysis using multi-mode superposition method, considering adequate
number of modes contributing more than 90% seismic mass or using time
history analysis method. Use response reduction factor of 4 and scale the
design base shear as per the requirements of Cl. 7.7.3.
3. Check for adequacy of torsional rigidity, according to the following conditions:
(i) The slenderness = Lmax/Lmin of the building in plan shall not be higher
than 4, where, Lmax and Lmin are respectively the larger and smaller
dimensions in plan of the building, measured in orthogonal directions.
(ii) At each level and for each direction of analysis x and y, the structural
eccentricity eo and the torsional radius r shall be in accordance with the
two conditions below, which are expressed for the direction of analysis
y:
eox 0.30 rx (2)
and
rx ls (3)
where,
eox is the distance between the centre of stiffness and the centre
of mass, measured along the x direction, which is normal to the
direction of analysis considered;
rx is the square root of the ratio of the torsional stiffness to the
lateral stiffness in the y direction (torsional radius); and
72
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
H-3 COMMENTARY
Flat slab buildings provide some advantages as compared to the conventional beam-
column frame systems, such as use of relatively simple formwork and shorter storey
heights and are becoming popular in Indian construction industry. However, these
buildings are known for their poor seismic performance due to their flexibility and
brittle punching shear failure. In absence of adequate design guidelines for seismic
loads, these are being designed and constructed without due care. Therefore, it is
important that detailed seismic design guidelines are provided in the code for these
buildings.
Due to their shortcomings in terms of lack of stiffness and ductility, these buildings
cannot be used as primary lateral load resisting system and another lateral force
resisting system (LFRS) is required to support these buildings. The LFRS should
have adequate strength, stiffness and inelastic energy dissipation capacity. RC
shear walls are an ideal LFRS to be used in conjunction with flat slab buildings.
However, it is to be noted that these buildings also suffer from lack of torsional
rigidity and shear walls should be so configured and placed that the building as a
whole has adequate torsional rigidity. The EC8 guidelines are the most elaborate in
this context and can be used for this purpose.
In addition to strength, the shear walls should have adequate stiffness, so that the
drift of the building is controlled to avoid a brittle punching shear failure. Experiments
have shown that the drift at which brittle punching shear failure of flat slab buildings
takes place, depends on the gravity shear ratio. ACI 318 provides a simple
relationship between the maximum permitted interstorey drift and the gravity shear
ratio. Further, the continuity of bottom reinforcement and its anchorage into column
is crucial to ensure a nominal residual strength to avoid catastrophic failure. To
control the interstorey drift within permissible limits a displacement based analysis
using nonlinear modelling is necessary. However, the shear wall-flat slab buildings
73
Draft for Comments only CED 39(7975)WC
February 2016
usually being long period structures, the equal displacement principle can be
assumed to be valid and the inelastic drift can be approximated with the elastic drift.
Masonry infills are known to act as diagonal struts and completely alter the
behaviour of frame (and flat slab) buildings. The main effect of these struts is
exertion of high shear force on columns and beams in a frame buildings. In case of
flat slab buildings, this strut action is expected to further aggravate the punching
shear failure and lead to catastrophic collapse of slab, due to lack of residual vertical
load carrying capacity. Therefore, use of masonry infills is to be avoided in case of
flat slab buildings, until unless it is demonstrated to be safe using accepted testing
and analytical procedures.
ANNEX I
( Foreword )
COMMITTEE COMPOSITION
Earthquake Engineering Sectional Committee, CED 39
**********
74