A Comparative Study of the Seismic

Provisions of Indian Seismic Code

IS 1893-2002 and Draft Indian
Code IS 1893:2016

Rita Debnath and Lipika Halder

Abstract This paper compares the seismic design provisions of the existing Indian
Seismic Code IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 [1] and the current draft version of Indian
Seismic Code IS 1893 (part 1): 2016 [2] to address the differences in their
philosophies and applicability. Significant differences are observed in these docu-
ments for specifying different parameters such as empirical formulas for calculating
time period, building importance factor, response reduction factor, design accel-
eration coefficient. Moreover, in draft code, additional clarity regarding different
types of irregularity of structural systems, effect of masonry infill works on design
of framed building, simplifying torsional provisions and simplified method of liq-
uefaction potential analysis are carried out as extra items. Similarities and differ-
ences among both codes are illustrated here in the form of tables and graphs.

Keywords IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 IS 1893 (part 1): 2016
Buildings


Seismic design provision Comparative study

1 Introduction

Codes and standards are the conventional source of information to the designers of
civil engineering structures. The seismic codes are primarily based on compre-
hensive data on ground motion that are erratic in direction, magnitude, duration and
sequence and the results of the research were carried out to understand the con-
sequence of these ground motion on the structures. In the last several decades, the
seismic codes are becoming sophisticated with rapid development in earthquake
engineering practice. The first Indian Seismic Code was published in 1962 and it

R. Debnath
L. Halder (&)

Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute
of Technology Agartala, Agartala 799046, India
e-mail: erlhalder@yahoo.co.in
R. Debnath
e-mail: rita7219@gmail.com

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 151

A. Rama Mohan Rao and K. Ramanjaneyulu (eds.), Recent Advances in Structural
Engineering, Volume 2, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 12,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0365-4_13
152 R. Debnath and L. Halder

had since been revised in 1966, 1970, 1975 and 1984. The said code again revised
in 2002 as a fifth revision after the devastating effect of the 2001 Bhuj earthquake.
In this fifth revision, the Earthquake Engineering Sectional Committee has decided
to cover the provisions for different types of structures in separate parts splitting the
seismic code into five parts and in part 1, general provisions and buildings were
discussed. However, the last few years have witnessed substantial progress in the
understanding of the earthquake, as well as the response to the various kinds of
structures and several modifications have also been suggested in the literature.
It is seen that as and when earthquake occurs in any country, building code of that
country or region reviewed based on the analysis of the failure of the structure due to
the lack of standards to the structure. As evident that the developing countries like
Bangladesh first published Bangladesh National Building Code, i.e. BNBC in 1993 to
provide guidelines for design and construction of new structures subject to earthquake
ground motion in order to minimize the risk of life for all structures. Again in 2010,
this code has been reviewed and prepared the draft BNBC comparing the standards of
other countries. This has been reported by Bari and Das [3]. Similarly, a comparison
was made among seismic design codes of buildings of eight Asian countries such as
Japan, India, Turkey, China, Korea, Nepal, Indonesia and Iran being reported by
Xiaoguang et al. [4]. Dogangun and Livaoglu have comparatively studied the design
spectra of Eurocode 8, UBC, IBC and Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC) on R/C sample
buildings [5]. They reported that TEC was revised on 1997 and effective on 1998 but
two destructive earthquakes in 1999 forced to re-revise the said code. Imashi and
Massumi [6] have done a comparative study of the seismic provisions of Iranian
Seismic Code (Standard No.2800) and International Building Code 2003 wherein
they provided a comparison process on how to calculate seismic forces by the static
analysis method by the International Building Code (IBC) 2003 and the Iranian
Seismic Code (IS 2800-05).
It is pertinent to revise the seismic code based on the experience gathered due to
the different earthquakes occurred and it is also fact that the comparison between
the existing code and draft code is very much essential to understand similarities
and de-similarities of both the codes, so that the codes/standards are made with a
strong and reliable manner. Accordingly, Indian Seismic Code IS 1893 (part 1):
2002 [1] has been reviewed and proposed draft code IS 1893 (part 1): 2016 [2] has
been prepared by BIS.
This paper presents a comparative study of the provision of the existing Indian
Seismic Code IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 [1] and the draft code IS 1893 (part 1): 2016
[2] to address the differences in their philosophies and applicability, keeping the
language and notation presented in each standard unchanged.

2 Methodology

The calculation procedure of seismic loading is more or less similar in both codes.
The earthquake force is considered as a lateral force in both codes.
A Comparative Study of the Seismic Provisions of Indian … 153

2.1 Calculation of Design Earthquake Loads

Effects of design earthquake loads on structures can be considered in two ways,

namely Equivalent Static Method and Dynamic Analysis Method.

2.1.1 Equivalent Static Method

In existing code, the applicability of Equivalent Static Method is not directly

mentioned. However, in the draft code, the applicability of the said method is
explicitly mentioned. As per draft code, the method shall be applicable for (i) reg-
ular buildings with height less than 48 m and (ii) regular buildings with height
greater than 48 m and fundamental translation natural period less than 3.5 s.

2.1.2 Dynamic Analysis Method

Dynamic Analysis Method shall be performed in three ways, namely (i) Response
Spectrum Method, (ii) Modal Time History Method and (iii) Time History Method
Modal Time History Method is newly added in draft code for calculation of
lateral forces.
However, Dynamic Analysis Method shall be performed to the design seismic
force and its distribution to different levels along the height of the building and to
the various load resisting elements for the buildings mentioned in Table 1 as per
existing and proposed code.

Table 1 Applicability of Dynamic Analysis Method of regular and irregular buildings as per
existing and draft code
Particulars IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 [1]
Regular Those greater than 40 m in height in
buildings Zones IV and V and those greater than
90 m in height in Zones II and III
Irregular All framed buildings higher than 12 m
buildings in Zones IV and V and those greater
than 40 m in height in Zones II and III
IS 1893 (part 1): 2016 [2]
Those taller than 48 m in Seismic
Zones III, IV and V and taller than
70 m in Seismic Zones II. For buildings
not taller than 48 m in Seismic
Zones III, IV and V and those not taller
than 70 m in Seismic Zones II,
Equivalent Static Method may be
adopted
Those taller than 12 m in Seismic
Zones III, IV and V and taller than
48 m in Seismic Zones II. This method
is recommended for irregular buildings
of lower height, even though it may not
be mandatory as above
154 R. Debnath and L. Halder

It is to be mentioned here that as per proposed code the applicability of

Equivalent Static Method is contradictory as the same thing was discussed in the
proposed code in Dynamic Analysis Method wherein it has been clearly stated that
the Equivalent Static Method may be adopted in case of regular building not taller
than 70 m in Seismic Zone II. But, as per point no (ii) of Equivalent Static Method
as discussed above, the height required to be approximately 168 m to get funda-
mental translation natural period as 3.5 s, which does not match with the condition
of Dynamic Analysis Method regarding the use of Equivalent Static Method in case
of regular building. So in draft code, clarification of the second point of Equivalent
Static Method is necessary.
In case of regular building in existing code, Dynamic Analysis Method is
applicable for the buildings taller than 40 m in height in zones IV and V, but in
proposed code, the said method is applicable for the buildings taller than 48 m in
height in Seismic Zones III, IV and V. Again, in existing code, the same method is
applicable for the buildings taller than 90 m in height in Zones II and III, but in
proposed code, the said method is applicable for the buildings taller than 70 m in
height in Seismic Zones II only. In proposed code, it has been clearly mentioned
that the Equivalent Static Method may be adopted for buildings not taller than 48 m
in Seismic Zones III, IV and those not taller than 70 m in Seismic Zones II. But in
existing code, nothing is mentioned regarding this.
Again, in case of irregular building in existing code, the Dynamic Analysis
Method is applicable for all framed buildings higher than 12 m in height in zones
IV and V, but in proposed code, it is included for Zone III also. Similarly, for
Zones II and III, this method is applicable for buildings greater than 40 m in height
in existing code and in proposed code, it is 48 m for Zone II only. In proposed
code, it is mentioned that the same method is recommended for irregular buildings
of lower height also. But in existing code, nothing is mentioned regarding lower
height.
However, in most earthquake design codes, the Equivalent Static Method is used
to establish design forces and due to this Equivalent Static Method is discussed
elaborately in this paper. The forces are determined on the basis of a base shear by
Equivalent Static Method. Calculation procedure of base shear is expressed through
Eq. (1) as per existing and draft code.

ZI ðSa =gÞ
VB ¼ Ah W¼ W ð1Þ
2R

where VB = Base shear; Ah = Design horizontal acceleration spectrum value using

the fundamental natural period Ta in the considered direction of vibration;
W = Seismic weight of the building; Z = Seismic zone factor; I = Importance
factor; R = Response reduction factor and Sa =g = Design acceleration coefficient.
A Comparative Study of the Seismic Provisions of Indian … 155

3 Comparison of Various Parameters

3.1 Seismic Zone Factor (Z)

According to the distribution of earthquake epicentres, ground motion attenuation,

geophysical and tectonic data, India was mapped dividing into four generalized
seismic zones. Each zone has a seismic zone factor (Z) that represents a reasonable
estimate of peak ground acceleration (PGA) in the respective zone. The
north-eastern folded regions of India are the most active zones and have a maxi-
mum PGA value of 0.36 g.

3.2 Importance Factor (I)

According to existing code, importance factor is 1.5 for important service and
community buildings and emergency buildings such as hospitals; schools; monu-
mental structures; telephone exchange; television stations; fire station buildings;
cinema halls; assembly halls; power station etc. The value of this factor kept 1 for
all other Buildings. However, as per draft code along with the existing importance
factor, an additional coefficient of importance factor as 1.2 is considered for the
residential or the commercial buildings or structures, with occupancy more than 200
persons.

3.3 Design Acceleration Coefficient (Sa/g)

It is a factor denoting the acceleration response spectrum of the structure subjected

to earthquake ground vibrations and depends on natural period of vibration and

(a) (b)

Fig. 1 a Response spectra for rock and soil sites for 5% damping, as per existing graph and
b design acceleration coefficient (Sa/g) (corresponding to 5% damping) as per draft code
156 R. Debnath and L. Halder

Table 2 Comparison of design acceleration coefficient (Sa =g) as per existing and draft code
IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 [1] IS 1893 (part 1): 2016 [2]
For rocky
8 or hard soil For rocky
 or hard soil
< 1 þ 15T 0:00  T  0:10 2:5 0\T\0:40 s
Sa =g ¼
Sa /g ¼ 2:5 0:10  T  0:40 1=T 0:40 s\T\6:00 s
:
1:00/T 0:40  T  4:0
For medium
8 soil sites For medium
 soil sites
< 1 þ 15T 0:00  T  0:10 2:5 0\T\0:55 s
Sa =g ¼
Sa /g ¼ 2:5 0:10  T  0:55 1:36=T 0:55 s\T\6:00 s
:
1:36/T 0:55  T  4:0
For soft8soil sites For softsoil sites
< 1 þ 15T 0:00  T  0:10 2:5 0\T\0:67 s
Sa =g ¼
Sa /g ¼ 2:5 0:10  T  0:67 1:67=T 0:67 s\T\6:00 s
:
1:67/T 0:67  T  4:0

damping of the structures. In existing code, three parameters are there in three types
of soil but in draft code, two parameters are there in three types of soil. It is a
coefficient corresponding to 5% damping for different soil types normalized to PGA
corresponding to natural period (T) of structure considering soil–structure interac-
tion given by Fig. 1 and the associated expressions are shown in Table 2.

3.4 Fundamental Natural Period (as per IS 1893 (part 1):

2002 [1])/Fundamental Translation Natural Period (as
per IS 1893 (part 1): 2016 [2]) (Ta)

The most common method to estimate vibration period of a building is from

empirical relations considering building specifications (structure type) and its height
(h) in m, from base level and the base dimension (d) of the building at the plinth
level, in m, along the considered direction of the lateral force. Empirical relations of
fundamental period are shown in Table 3 for both the codes.

3.5 Response Reduction Factor(R)

Response reduction factor is used in the code to implicitly account for the nonlinear
response of structure. It is expressed as a function of various parameters of the
structural system, such as strength, ductility damping and redundancy. The
response reduction factor is more or less same in existing code as well as in draft
code for various lateral loads resisting system. Moreover, few more structural
systems are incorporated in the draft version as shown in Table 4.
A Comparative Study of the Seismic Provisions of Indian … 157

Table 3 Comparison of fundamental natural time period (Ta ) in existing and draft codes
Structural system Empirical expressions
IS 1893 (part 1): IS 1893 (part 1):
2002 [1] 2016 [2]
RC frame building 0:075h0:75 0:075h0:75
RC-steel composite MRF building Not mentioned 0:080h0:75
0:75
Steel frame building 0:085h 0:085h0:75
Moment-resisting frame buildings pffiffi
0:09h pffiffi
0:09h
d d
with brick infill panels
pffiffiffiffi a
0:75
Buildings with concrete structural walls or Not mentioned 0:075h
Aw
un-reinforced masonry infill walls
a
Aw = total effective area (m2) of walls in the first storey of the building calculated by
Nw h
P n   2 oi
Aw ¼ Awi 0:2 þ Lhwi ; Awi = effective cross-sectional area (m2) of wall i in first storey of
i¼1
building; Lwi = length (m) of structural wall i in first storey in the considered direction of lateral
forces; Nw = number of direction walls in the considered direction of lateral forces; the value of
Lwi =h to be used in this equation shall not exceed 0.9

Table 4 Response reduction factor R (proposed and modified) as per draft code
System Lateral load resisting system R-Value
Moment frame Steel Building with Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame 4.0
systems (OMRF)
Steel Building with Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) 5.0
Braced frame Steel Building with Special Braced Frame with Concentric 4.5
systems Braces
Steel Building with Ordinary Braced Frame with Eccentric 4.5
Braces
Structural wall Un-reinforced Masonry (Design as per IS 1905) with horizontal 2.0
systems RC Seismic Bands
Un-reinforced Masonry (Design as per IS 1905) with horizontal 2.5
RC Seismic Bands and vertical reinforcing bars at corners of
rooms and Jambs of opening (with reinforcement as per IS
4326)
For Confined Masonry 3.0
Dual systems RC Buildings with Ductile RC Structural wall with RC OMRF 4.0 instead
of 4.5

It is well-known fact that redundant structures are performing well during

earthquake. However, it has been observed that buildings which performed well in
past earthquakes have redundancy factor (r) more than 2.5. So, in the draft code it is
suggested that for buildings with redundancy factor less than 2.5 (i.e. in the range
1.0–2.5) design engineer shall adopt modified values Rm of response reduction
factor given by the expression:
158 R. Debnath and L. Halder

  
r1
Rm ¼ 0:5 þ 0:5 R ð2Þ
1:5

where r is redundancy factor and can be estimated as ratio of ultimate load to first
yield load and R is the response reduction factor as mentioned in Table 6 of Draft
Indian Standard IS 1893 (part 1): 2016 [2].

3.6 Seismic Weight (W)

Calculation procedure of seismic weight is more or less same in both the codes.

3.7 Base Shear

Calculation procedure of base shear is more or less same in both the codes.

4 Regular and Irregular Configuration

A building is said to be earthquake-resistant if it possesses four main attributes and

the differences of these in both the codes are shown in Table 5. The differences of
plan irregularities and vertical irregularities as per existing and draft code are shown
in Tables 6 and 7, respectively.
It is to be mentioned here that in the paper of Valumundsson and Nau [7], it has
been clearly stated regarding mass, strength and stiffness irregularities as per
Uniform Building Code (UBC). In Indian existing seismic code, it is mentioned that
there are some limitations for consideration of soft storey of a building, whereas in
draft code, it is mentioned that a building will be a soft storey in which the lateral
stiffness is less than that in the storey above.
Mass irregularity is considered to exist where the seismic weight of any storey is
more than 200% of its adjacent storeys in case of existing code and it has decreased
to 150% in case of draft code which is also used in UBC and the reason also
mentioned in the said paper.

Table 5 Comparison of four main attributes

IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 [1]
Simple and regular attribution
Adequate lateral strength
Adequate lateral stiffness
Adequate ductility
IS 1893 (part 1): 2016 [2]
Simple and regular structural attribution
At least a minimum lateral strength
At least a minimum initial lateral stiffness
Adequate ductility
A Comparative Study of the Seismic Provisions of Indian … 159

Table 6 Comparison of plan irregularities as per existing and draft code

Irregularity Description
type IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 [1]
Torsional Torsional irregularity to be considered
irregularities to exist when the maximum storey
drift, computed with design
eccentricity, at one end of the
structures transverse to an axis is more
than 1.2 times the average of the storey
drifts at the two end of the structure
IS 1893 (part 1): 2016 [2]
A building is said to be torsionally
irregular, when maximum horizontal
displacement of any floor in the
direction of the lateral force at one end
of the floor is more than 1.5 times its
minimum horizontal displacement at
the far end in that direction

Table 7 Comparison of vertical irregularities as per existing and draft code

Irregularity type
Stiffness irregularity—
soft storey
Stiffness irregularity—
extreme soft storey
Lateral stiffness
irregularity in two
principal plan directions
Mass irregularity
Vertical geometric
irregularity
Discontinuity in capacity
—weak storey
Description
IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 [1]
A soft storey is one in which the
lateral stiffness is less than 70%
of that in the storey above or
less than 80% of the average
lateral stiffness of the three
storeys above
A extreme soft storey is one in
which the lateral stiffness is less
than 60% of that in the storey
above or less than 70% of the
average stiffness of the three
storeys above
Nothing is mentioned regarding
this
Mass irregularity shall be
considered to exist where the
seismic weight of any storey is
more than 200% of its adjacent
storeys. The irregularity need
not be considered in case of
roofs
Vertical geometric irregularity
shall be considered to exist
where the horizontal dimension
of the lateral force resisting
system in any storey is more
than 150% of that in its adjacent
storey
A weak storey is one in which
the storey lateral strength is less
than 50% of that in the storey
above
IS 1893 (part 1): 2016 [2]
A soft storey is one in which the
lateral stiffness is less than that
in the storey above
Nothing is mentioned regarding
this
Lateral stiffness of beams,
columns, braces and structural
walls determine the lateral
stiffness of a building in each
principal plan direction
Mass irregularity shall be
considered to exist where the
seismic weight of any storey is
more than 150% of its adjacent
storeys. This provision of 150%
may be relaxed in case of roofs
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% of that in its adjacent
storey
A weak storey is one in which
the storey lateral strength is less
than that in the storey above
160 R. Debnath and L. Halder

In case of weak storey, some bar is there in existing code but in case of draft code, a
soft storey is that where the lateral stiffness is less than that in the storey above.
In existing code, vertical geometric irregularity shall be considered to exist
where the horizontal dimension of the lateral force resisting system in any storey is
more than 150% of that in its adjacent storey, but in draft code, it has been
mentioned that 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% of that in its adjacent storey. Regarding lateral stiffness irregularity in two
principal plan directions, nothing is mentioned in the existing code.

5 Conclusions

In this paper, after detailed study of IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 [1] and IS 1893 (part 1):
2016 [2] it is observed that IS 1893 (part 1): 2016 [2] is more sophisticated giving
more realistic values for time period, importance factor, response reduction factor,
design acceleration coefficient, definitions for regular and irregular buildings, etc.,
in comparison with IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 [1]. Proposed seismic code, i.e. IS 1893
(part 1): 2016 [2], will lead to more rational approach in the seismic design of
buildings in India. The study also shows the difference between the codes for
seismic design depending on location and occupancy use and the difference
between the response spectra graph as per existing and draft code.

References

1. BIS (2002) IS 1893 (part 1): 2002—Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of
structures, part 1: general provisions and buildings (Fifth Revision). Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi
2. BIS (2016) IS 1893 (part 1): 2016 (Draft)—Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant
design of structures, part 1: general provisions and buildings (Sixth Revision). Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi
3. Bari MdS, Das T (2013) A comparative study on seismic analysis of Bangladesh National
Building Code (BNBC) with other building codes. J Inst Eng India Ser A 94(3):131–137
4. Xiaoguang C, Jingshan B, Youwei S, Jianyi Z, Yudong, Z (2012) Comparison of seismic
fortification criterion of eight Asian countries. 15WCEE, Lisboa
5. Dogangiin A, Livaoglu R (2006) A comparative study of the design spectra defined by
Eurocode 8, UBC, IBC, and Turkish Earthquake Code on R/C sample buildings. J Seismol
10:335–351
6. Imashi N, Massumi A (2011) A comparative study of the seismic provisions of Iranian Seismic
Code (Standard No. 2800) and international building code 2003. Asian J Civ Eng (Building
and Housing) 12(5):579–596
7. Valumundsson EVB, Nau JM (1997) Seismic response of building frames with vertical
structural irregularities. ASCE J Struct Eng 1(30):30–41