© JUN 2021 | IRE Journals | Volume 4 Issue 12 | ISSN: 2456-8880
A Comparative Study of IS Code 1893-2002 And IS Code
1893-2016 For the Design of Earthquake Resistant
Structure
SIMRAN N. KEER1, KALPESH M. PILANKAR2, SUYOG V. PILANKAR3, SNEHAL S.
GUJARATHI4
1, 2, 3
UG Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Gharda Institute of Technology, Lavel- Khed,
Ratnagiri-Maharashtra, India.
4
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Gharda Institute of Technology, Lavel- Khed,
Ratnagiri-Maharashtra, India.
Abstract- There is a progressive improvement in I. INTRODUCTION
earthquake resistant design has been observed in
recent past. Due to such results Indian seismic code General- Earthquake is known to be one of the most
IS: 1893 hasalso been revised in year 2016, after a destructive phenomena experienced on earth. It is
gap of 14 years. This project presents the seismic load caused due to a sudden release of energy in the earth’s
estimation for multistorey buildings as per IS: 1893- crust which results in seismic waves. When the
2002 and IS: 1893- 2016 recommendations. The seismic waves reach the foundation level of the
method of analysis and design of multi-storey (G+3) structure, it experiences horizontal and vertical motion
and (G+6) residential building located in zone IV. at ground surface level [1]. Due to this, earthquake is
The scope behind presenting this project is to learn responsible for the damage to various man-made
relevant Indian standard codes areused for design of structures like buildings, bridges, roads, dams, etc. It
various building element such as beam,column, slab, also causes landslides, liquefaction, slope- instability
foundation and stair case using a software ETAB and overall loss of life and property. During an
under the seismic load and wind load acting the earthquake, failure of structure starts at points of
structure. As the there is continuous analysis and weakness. This weakness arises due to discontinuity in
efforts put by researchers to study the function and mass, stiffness and geometry of structure. The
performanceof structure during past earthquake give structures having this discontinuity are termed as
more power and work on development and Irregular structures. But nowadaysneed and demand of
advancement in designing earthquake resistant the latest generation andgrowing population has made
structure. Therefore, it is required torevise the seismic the architects or engineers inevitable towards planning
code time to time. IS: 1893-2016 revisedafter 14 years of irregular configurations. Hence earthquake
in year 2016.In this study an attempt is made to engineering has developed the key issues in
compare the multistoried building analyzed by using understanding the role of building configurations.
both IS 1893-2002 and IS 1893-2016. For this, Same structures contribute a large portion of urban
building models with different number of storeys infrastructure. Vertical irregularities are one of the
i.e. G+3 and G+6 are considered. The 3D analysis of major reasons of failures of structures during
building is carried out for earthquake zone IV. We earthquakes. For example, structures with soft storey
had compared the parameters in project are Story were themost notable structures which collapsed. So,
Drift and base shear. the effect of vertically irregularities in the seismic
performance of structures becomes really important.
Indexed Terms- Base Shear, Earthquake Design, Height-wise changes in stiffness and mass render the
Storey Drift dynamic characteristics of these buildings different
from the regular building [5]. IS 1893 definition of
Vertically Irregular structures: The irregularity in the
IRE 1702742 ICONIC RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING JOURNALS 4
© JUN 2021 | IRE Journals | Volume 4 Issue 12 | ISSN: 2456-8880
building structures may be due to irregular code 1893-2000 and then analyzed them by new code
distributions in theirmass, strength and stiffness along IS 1893-2016[3]. The comparisons parameter
the height of building. When such buildings are considered are, storey drift, and base shear. All the
constructed in high seismic zones, the analysis and multistorey buildings are generated using the finite
design become more complicated Codes and standards element software ETABS 18.
are the conventional source of information to the
designers of civil engineering structures. The seismic Aim and objective of work –
codes are primarily based on comprehensive data on
ground motion that are erratic in direction, magnitude, The aim of the project is to study and analyze various
duration and sequence and the results of the research provision, rules of earthquake Indian standard code.
were carried out to understand the con- sequence of
these ground motion on the structures. In the last Objective:
several decades, the seismic codes are becoming 1. The objective of the project is to understand the
sophisticated with rapid development in earthquake similarities anddissimilarities of both the code.
engineering practice.[2] Recommendations provided 2. The main motive of the project is to compare
by seismic codes help the designer to improve the the IS-code 1893-2002 & IS- code 1893-2016 for
behavior of structures so thatthey may withstand the the design of earthquake resistant building.
earthquake effects without significant loss. Seismic 3. To compare both the IS codes to addressdifferences
codes are unique to a particular region or country. in their philosophies and applicability of the IS-
They take into account the local seismology, accepted code 1893-2002 & IS-code 1893-2016.
level of seismic risk, properties of available materials,
methods used in construction and building typologies. II. MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY
Further, they are indicative of the level of progress a
country has made in the field of earthquake Type of Building: RCC (G+3 & G+6) Seismic Zone:
engineering and property. Most of the IV
recommendations of IS codes are based on Floor to Floor Height:3m
observation during past earthquakes as well as Load acting- Dead, Live, Earthquake
experimental and analytical studies made by scientists,
engineers and seismologists. On the basis of analysis Material PropertiesHYSD 500
of performance of structures during past seismic events M30
and efforts put by researchers, considerable
advancement has been made over the years in Member Dimensions Column-350*400mm Beam-
earthquake resistant design of structures, and seismic 230*350mm Slab-150mm
design requirements in building codes have steadily
improved. Therefore, the seismic code needs revision
from time to time. The building designed as per the
earlier version of the code may be checked for
recommendations made by the revised code. Such
comparison is to be carried out to establish whether
existing buildings designed by earlier version are safe
for revised recommendation also.
Fig 1-Plan of building
In the project work, entitled “A comparative study of
IS code 1893-2000 and IS code 1893-2016 for the
design of earthquake resistant structure”, analytical
study is carriedout on a G+3 and G+6 storey building.
The 3D analysis of building is carried out for
earthquake zone IV. The main objective of the study
was to compare these multi storey building with old IS
IRE 1702742 ICONIC RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING JOURNALS 5
© JUN 2021 | IRE Journals | Volume 4 Issue 12 | ISSN: 2456-8880
(G+3) and (G+6) Building were analyzed using ETAB
for different parameters such as Story Drift and Base
shear.
Storey Drift: It is defined as ratio of displacement of
two consecutive floors to height of that floor. Itis very
important term used for research purpose in
earthquake engineering.
Fig 1- G+3 structure
Table 4. Storey Drift (G+3)
Storey Storey Drift (IS Storey Drift (IS
1893-2002) 1893-2016)
Story3 0.000781 0.001917
Story2 0.000897 0.002208
Story1 0.000647 0.001594
Fig 4. Storey Drift vs Storey(G+6)
Fig 3- G+6 structure
Table 1: Storey Data
Name Height(mm) Elevation(mm)
Storey 8 3000 52950
Storey 7 3000 49950
Storey 6 3000 46950
Storey 5 3000 43950
Storey 4 3000 40950
Storey 3 3000 37950
Storey 2 3000 34950 Table 5. Storey Drift (G+6)
Storey Storey Drift (IS Storey Drift (IS
Storey 1 3000 31950
1893-2002) 1893-2016)
Base 0 0
Table 2: load case Story6 9.00E-06 0.002296
Name Type Story5 5.10E-05 0.002686
Dead Linear Static
Story4 0.000246 0.002931
Live Linear Static
EQ Linear static Story3 0.000397 0.003051
Story2 0.000457 0.003008
Table 3: Load Pattern
Load Pattern Multiplier Story1 0.00033 0.002074
Dead 1
Live 0.25
EQ 1
IRE 1702742 ICONIC RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING JOURNALS 6
© JUN 2021 | IRE Journals | Volume 4 Issue 12 | ISSN: 2456-8880
Fig 5. Storey Drift vs Storey(G+6) 1.1 8256. 224.7 1.6 32144. 1393.0
99 84 159 95 908 6 638
X
1.2 8256. 224.2 1.6 32144. 1394.5
02 84 482 93 908 6 656
III. RESULT
1. For (G+3) storey building there is increment in
storey drift by nearly 59% by using IS code 1893-
2016 as compare to IS code 1893-2002.
2. For (G+6) storey building there is increment in
Base Shear- Base shear is the maximum expected
storey drift by 92% using IS code 1893- 2016 as
lateral force on the base of the structure due to seismic
compare to IS code 1893-2002
activity. It is calculated using the seismic zone, soil
3. For (G+3) storey building there is increment in base
material, and building code lateral force equations.
shear by nearly 59% by using IS code1893-2016 as
compare to IS code 1893-2002.
Table 6. Base Shear (G+3)
4. For (G+6) storey building there is increment in base
IS 1893-2002 IS 1893-2016
shear by 83% using IS code 1893- 2016 as
compare to IS code 1893-2002.
CONCLUSION
1. The increment in base shear percentage occurs due
to the change of importance factor in latest version
2. Importance factor for multi storey residential
buildings has been changed from 1.0 to 1.2. As I
0.6 8256. 440.74 0.9 21865. 1084.2 increases, A will h increase and therefore Base
X 11 84 92 87 87 97 shear V will B increase. This may lead to increase
in size of lateral load resisting members and
0.5 8256. 453.57 0.9 21865. 1119.4 reinforcement. Ultimately structure cost may
Y 94 84 85 56 87 98 increase
3. In IS 1893-2002 full section, i.e., full M.I. of
Table 7. Base Shear (G+6) columns and beams is considered. In new code IS
IS 1893- 1893-2016, cracked section with 70% MI of
2002 columns and 35 % MI of beams is considered. As
IS 1893-2016
cracks may develop in structure after some period,
Dire Period W(KN) Vb (KN) Period W(KN) Vb (KN)
MI of sections may reduce.
ctio Used Used
4. The increment in story drift percentage occurs due
n (Sec) (Sec)
to reduction in moment of inertia of structural
members
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We are thankful to our guide Prof Snehal S. Gujarathi
in Civil Engineering Department for her constant
IRE 1702742 ICONIC RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING JOURNALS 7
© JUN 2021 | IRE Journals | Volume 4 Issue 12 | ISSN: 2456-8880
encouragement, able guidance and continuous support ISSN 2321-8665 Volume.06, Issue.01, January-
in making this work complete. June, 2018,
[8] S.K. Ahirwar1, S.K. Jain2 and M. M. Pande3.
REFERENCES “EARTHQUAKE LOADS ON
MULTISTOREY BUILDINGS AS PER IS:
[1] Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 1893-1984 AND IS:1893-2002: A
2, No. 1, 3-24, February 2004 / Copyright © 2004 COMPARATIVE STUDY”, The 14th
Japan Concrete Institute 3 Invited Paper World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Earthquake Resistant Design of Reinforced October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China.
Concrete Buildings Past and Future Shunsuke
[9] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Prof. D.L. “Review of IS
Otani1.
1893:2016 with IS1893:2002 for high rise
[2] BIS (2002) IS 1893 (part 1): 2002—Indian structure with irregularities”’ International
standard criteria for earthquake resistant design Journal of Innovations in Engineering and
of structures, part 1: general provisions and Science, Vol. 3, No.7 2018 www.ijies.net 27
buildings (Fifth Revision). Bureau of Indian
[10] Ajay Kumar and Jagdish Chand, “A
Standards, New Delhi
Comparative Study of Static Analysis (As Per Is:
[3] Sagar R Padol, Rajashekhar S. Talikoti (2015) 1893-2002) & Dynamic Analysis (As Per
“Review paper on seismic responses of Is:1893- 2016) of a Building for Zone V”,
Multistored rcc building with mass irregularity”, International Journal of Civil Engineering and
IJRET: International Journal of Research in Technology, 10(3), 2019, pp. 2159-2170.
Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163
[11] Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019A.
pISSN: 2321-7308 Volume: 04 Issue: 03 |
Rama Mohan Rao and K. Ramanjaneyulu (eds.),
[4] Anirudh Gottala Kintali Sai Nanda Kishore Recent Advances in Structural Engineering,
“Comparative Study of Static and Dynamic Volume 2, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering
Seismic Analysis of a Multistoried Building”, 12, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-
IJSTE - International Journal of Science 03654_13.
Technology & Engineering | Volume 2 | Issue 01
| July 2015 ISSN (online): 2349-784X All rights
reserved by www.ijste.org 173.
[5] Mr. S. Mahesh1, Mr. Dr. B. Panduranga Rao,
“Comparison of analysis and design of regular
and irregular configuration of multi- Story
building in various seismic zones and various
types of soils using ETABS and STAAD, IOSR
Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering
(IOSR-JMCE) e-ISSN: 2278-1684, p-ISSN:
2320-334X, Volume 11, Issue 6 Ver. I (Nov-
Dec. 2014),
[6] Adem Doğangün And Ramazan Livaoğlu,
Geneva, Switzerland “Comparison of Seismic
Analysis Methods for Multistory Buildings”, 3-8
September 2006paper Number:1314
[7] Kiran Mai, Mohd Amer, Md. Shaibaz Ali,
Mohammed Fazal Ahmed, Mohammed Omair,
Aftab Tanveer, “Analysis and Design of
Residential Building C+G+7 using E-TabsK.
IRE 1702742 ICONIC RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING JOURNALS 8
