Critical review of key changes in IS 1893-Part 1-2016

IASE Meeting on IS:1893-part 1-2016 May 11, 2017 New Delhi Prof Ashok K Jain
CRITICAL REVIEW OF
IS 1893-PART 1- 2016
By
Prof. Ashok K. Jain
Retd. Professor, I.I.T. Roorkee
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad
<ashokjain_iitr@yahoo.co.in>
1
IS 1893-PART 1-2016
INTRODUCTION
• First draft came out sometimes around 2006
• Last draft came out in Feb 2016
• The final code is no where close to any of the drafts ever WIDELY
circulated
• There are many changes throughout the code having far reaching
consequences
• It is surprising that the draft of the final code was approved without
going for another wide circulation! 2
A VERY BRIEF FOREWORD

• The previous editions gave a detailed explanation and background of the Earthquake
resistant philosophy adopted in the Code. The foreword in 2002 ran in 4-A4 pages.
• The Foreword in Draft 2016 ran in 6 pages.
• However, the Foreword in the final Code runs only in 2 pages (First and Last Page).
I wish the Foreword was much more detailed giving the philosophy / background
information for the benefit of the USERS.
3
PRINTING ERROR
• Missing Clause 7.5 - BIS has informed that nothing is missing and the
clause no. 7.6 onwards need to be renumbered as 7.5 onwards. It will
soon issue an amendment.
• Clause 7.2.1 is same as clause 7.6.1.
• 4.25 - Structural plan density (SPD) - It has been defined for RC walls at
the plinth level.
Where is the definition of SPD for URM for use in Table 6 (i) at other
levels?
4
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
• Many definitions have been drastically changed / deleted, such as
• Maximum considered earthquake Now how do you explain the presence of
Factors 2 & R in base shear equation
• Design basis earthquake
• Soft storey and weak storey – No more quantitative definitions !
• Nevertheless, requirements in Table 6(i) and Clause 7.10 are quite
different, complicated and confusing.

• Minimum lateral force specified in all seismic zones – why? What if wind governs?
CONTINUED
5
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
• Treatment of soft storey and weak storey with URM specified – basis not understood
• Treatment of RC Framed buildings with open storeys specified – basis not
understood
• Treatment of RC Framed buildings with URM specified.
• Treatment of torsion changed – made it more difficult to implement since the two
widely used programs STAAD and ETABS do not account for the torsion as specified
in IS 1893-part 1
• Two different response spectra introduced – different for static and dynamic analysis
6
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
VERTICAL DEFINITION ?
IRREGULARITY
Since when modes
have become
irregular?
Introduced a new term
unique to the Indian code
(in Table 6 vii)
VERTICAL IN PLAN
IRREGULAR MODES OF OSCILLATION 7
IN PLAN
NEW VERTICAL IRREGULARITY – TABLE 6

IRREGULAR MODES OF OSCILLATION IN PLAN
2016
• The buildings in seismic zones II and III, shall ensure that first 3 modes contribute at
least 65% mass participation in each principal direction; and for those in seismic
zones IV and V, to mention that in addition to the first 3 modes contribute at least 65%
mass participation in each principal direction, fundamental natural period in 2
principal direction shall be away from each other by 10%.
How is it related to the irregular modes of vibration in plan?
How to implement it?
• The in-plane discontinuity in vertical elements that resist lateral force (out of plane
offsets) shall not be permitted in seismic zones III, IV and V; and for zone II, the lateral
drift shall be limited to 0.2% of the building height. 8
What is the basis of 65% and 0.2% drift for zone II is not clear?
2016
SOFT AND WEAK STOREYS
QUALITATIVE
• Soft storey
• It is one in which the lateral stiffness is less than that in the storey above. The storey
lateral stiffness is the total stiffness of all seismic force resisting elements resisting lateral
earthquake shaking effects in the considered direction.
• Weak storey
• It is one in which the storey lateral strength (cumulative design shear strength of all
structural members other than that of the URM infills) is less than that in the storey above.
• The storey lateral strength is the total strength of all seismic force resisting elements
sharing the lateral storey shear in the considered direction.
9
SOFT AND WEAK STOREYS – IS 1893-2002

QUANTITATIVE
• Soft Storey
• It is one in which the lateral stiffness is less than 70 percent of that in the storey above or
less than 80 percent of the average lateral stiffness of the three storeys above.
• Weak Storey
• It is one in which the storey lateral strength is less than 80 percent of that in the storey
above. The storey lateral strength is the total strength of all seismic force resisting
elements sharing the storey shear in the considered direction.
These definitions were adopted from UBC 1997/ASCE 7. They were much more
specific, logical and practical.
10
SOFT STOREY – TABLE 6 – 2016 CODE
• The structural plan density (SPD) shall be estimated when unreinforced masonry
infills are used. When SPD of masonry infills exceeds 20%, the effect of URM infills
shall be considered by explicitly modelling the same in structural analysis.
• The design forces for RC members shall be larger of that obtained from analysis of :
(a) bare frame (2D modelling or 3D ??) DESIGN 1
(b) Frames with URM infills, using 3D modelling of the structure. DESIGN 2
HOW TO COMBINE DESIGN

DEFINITION OF RESULTS OF 2 DIFFERENT MODELS
SPD FOR URM? WITH HUNDREDS OF LOAD 11
COMBINATIONS?
EQUIVALENT STATIC METHOD

BASIS FOR THIS
NEW CLAUSE NOT
Applicable to all structures CLEAR
• Clause 6.4.3 – Last line says Eq Static Method may be used for analysis
of regular structures with app. natural periods less than 0.4 s.
Applicable to all buildings

• Clause 7.6 – Last line says this method is applicable for regular
buildings with height less than 15 m in seismic zone II.
So far it was less than 40 m 12
in all zones
MINIMUM DESIGN LATERAL FORCE

• 7.2.2 Minimum Design Lateral Force
• It specifies minimum design earthquake force for each zone as follows:
Table 7 Minimum design earthquake horizontal lateral force
Seismic %
Zone
What is the II 0.7 NEW
problem if wind
III 1.1
governs the
IV 1.6
design?
V 2.4
13
MINIMUM DESIGN LATERAL FORCE
• Z = 0.10; 0.16; 0.24; 0.36 for zone II to V

• For I = 1, R = 5, and  given by Table 7, the values of Sa/g are as follows:
• Sa/g = 0.70, 0.6875, 0.667 and 0.666
• It means, for a hard soil, period of structure is given by COMMENT
• T = 1.43; 1.45; 1.5 and 1.5 sec.
= 1/(Sa/g)
• It means a structure cannot have a fundamental period more than 1.5 sec for the
purpose of computing the base shear.
14
RESPONSE SPECTRA 2016
LET US SEE HOW THE RESPONSE SPECTRA

EVOLVED SINCE 1960 IN THE CODE
(Small period range!)
15
FLEXIBILITY COEFFICIENT 1962 TO 1970

Let us look at the response spectrum given in the previous IS:1893 editions.
The concept of flexibility coeff was used in 1962, 1966 and 1970
for static analysis of structures ONLY.
• An equation was given for the flexibility coefficient in each

edition.
C = 0.5/T0.33 in 1970 code
16

0.30
In 1975, the concept of response spectra was
Sa/g average acceleration coefficient

20% DAMPING
introduced. There were two curves for design. 0.25

10%DAMPING
Flexibility coefficient for static and response 0.20
spectra for dynamic analysis. 5%DAMPING
0.15
2%DAMPING
0.10
1 0.05
C-Flexibility coefficient
0.8
0.00
0.6 0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80
Time period ,sec
0.4
Average acceleration response spectra
0.2
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8
Time period, sec 17

0.70
0% DAMPING
Sa/g Average acceleration coefficient

0.60
2% DAMPING
There were two curves for design. 0.50
Flexibility coefficient for static and 0.40
5% DAMPING
response spectra for dynamic 10% DAMPING

0.30
analysis. 20% DAMPING
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80
Time period, sec
Average acceleration response spectra
1
C-Flexibility coefficient
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
18
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8
Time period, sec

Response spectra in 2002 edition looked as follows. Same spectra was used for
both static and dynamic methods.
19
IS IT POSSIBLE TO
SORT OUT THIS
ISSUE ONCE FOR
ALL? 20
TORSION
• There are two design eccentricities specified in the Code

• Ed1 = 1.5 e + 0.05 b and Ed2 = e - 0.05 b
• The first equation is unique to the Indian Code.

• The FOREWORD says that treatment of torsion has been simplified. HOW??
• The software ETABS does not consider this equation as on date.
• The software STAAD pro does it for static analysis ONLY as on date.
21
SUMMARY
• FOREWORD has been drastically curtailed
• Philosophy behind different response spectra for static and dynamic analysis not
explained.
• MCE and DBE deleted; How do you explain the presence of factor 2 and R in base shear?
• Soft storey and weak storey made qualitative in SECTION 4;
BUT quantitative in SECTION 7
Implementation is going to be difficult
22
SUMMARY
A new vertical irregularity in modes of oscillations in PLAN introduced

Source
It raises very serious questions? /basis
• Since when modes of vibration have become regular or irregular? unknown
• What is the correlation between vertical irregularity and plan vibrations?
• How does the explanation/requirements given defines or relates to the subject?
23
SUMMARY
• What is the basis / back ground of Clause in Table 6 (i), (vii) and 7.10?
• Where is the definition of SPD for URM for use in Table 6 (i) at levels other than
plinth?
• How to implement Clause in Table 6 (i)? There are two different design files and how
to find envelope of these results?
• How to implement torsion if ETABS does not incorporate it?
STAAD does it for static analysis ONLY.
How the Code has simplified the Torsion clause in 2016 edition as claimed?
24
IN ESSENCE
• STEP 1 – Let the architect prepare the drawings and pass them to the Structural
consultant;
• STEP 2 – Let the Structural consultant run dynamic analysis with different models;
• STEP 3 – In case of any violation of soft storey/irregular modes
• STEP 4 – GO BACK to step 1 for revision;
What this code does is to force a symmetric

and regular building in Zones 3, 4 and 5!
25
THANK YOU & BEST OF LUCK
26

Critical review of key changes in IS 1893-Part 1-2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical review of key changes in IS 1893-Part 1-2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IASE Meeting on IS:1893-part 1-2016 May 11, 2017 New Delhi Prof Ashok K Jain

A VERY BRIEF FOREWORD

different, complicated and confusing.

NEW VERTICAL IRREGULARITY – TABLE 6

SOFT AND WEAK STOREYS – IS 1893-2002

SOFT STOREY – TABLE 6 – 2016 CODE

HOW TO COMBINE DESIGN

EQUIVALENT STATIC METHOD

Applicable to all buildings

So far it was less than 40 m 12

MINIMUM DESIGN LATERAL FORCE

MINIMUM DESIGN LATERAL FORCE

• Z = 0.10; 0.16; 0.24; 0.36 for zone II to V

RESPONSE SPECTRA 2016

LET US SEE HOW THE RESPONSE SPECTRA

FLEXIBILITY COEFFICIENT 1962 TO 1970

• An equation was given for the flexibility coefficient in each

RESPONSE SPECTRA 1975

Sa/g average acceleration coefficient

introduced. There were two curves for design. 0.25

RESPONSE SPECTRA 1984

Sa/g Average acceleration coefficient

response spectra for dynamic 10% DAMPING

RESPONSE SPECTRA 2002

RESPONSE SPECTRA 2016

• There are two design eccentricities specified in the Code

• The first equation is unique to the Indian Code.

A new vertical irregularity in modes of oscillations in PLAN introduced

What this code does is to force a symmetric

THANK YOU & BEST OF LUCK

You might also like