See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324497785

ISSUES IN DESIGN OF TALL CONCRETE BUILDINGS IN INDIA WITH

REFERENCE TO IS 16700: 2017 CODE

Conference Paper · March 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 4,749

2 authors, including:

Ratnesh Kumar
Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology
38 PUBLICATIONS   43 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

"Capacity Building for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation with a Special Focus on Sustainable Habitat and Risk Management" View project

Seismic Performance Assessment of Elevated Water Tanks View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ratnesh Kumar on 13 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Conference on
Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018

ISSUES IN DESIGN OF TALL CONCRETE BUILDINGS IN

INDIA WITH REFERENCE TO IS 16700: 2017 CODE
Gangisetty Venkata Krishna1andRatnesh Kumar2
1
PG Student, Dept. of Applied Mechanics, VNIT Nagpur-440010, venkatakrishna.krish@gmail.com
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Applied Mechanic, VNIT Nagpur-440010, ratnesh.eq@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Tall buildings are emerging constructions in Indian cities due to urbanization. In comparison
to low and mid-rise buildings the design criteria for tall buildings are different. National
building code and other Indian standard codes are not sufficient to adequately address various
issues related to tall building. Recently, BIS released the Code IS 16700: 2017 “Criteria for
Structural Safety of Tall Concrete Buildings” under CED-38 committee. In present paper
various aspects and issues related to tall buildings with reference to IS 16700 have been
reviewed. The selection of structural system and plan dimension are specified based on
structural configuration and seismic zone. In the design of tall building other parameters that
need attention are; wind load analysis using wind tunnel test, P-Δ effect, secondary effect like
creep & shrinkage, and temperature. In analysis for seismic loads few changes in comparison
to IS 1893 part 1: 2016 are also reported. Modelling of the tall building and changes in the
design considerations are listed. Criteria for selection of foundations are specified. The
importance of non-structural elements is also specified and design guidelines based on the
sensitivity of the elements are provided.

Key Words: Tall concrete buildings, IS 16700: 2017, Code provisions, Design criteria, Non-
Structural Element, Building monitoring.

INTRODUCTION

Shortage of land in cities to accommodate the huge population migrants due to rapid
urbanization can be compensated by vertical developments of cities with tall buildings. Tall
buildings are the emerging construction practise in the developing countries like India. The
design criteria for the tall buildings are different in comparison to low and medium rise
buildings. In general, wind load is not the governing criteria in most of the low rise buildings,
but for tall buildings wind is the governing criteria in most of the cases, however, based on the
geographical locations and other parameters. Main objective of the present study is to expose
the reader to the latest tall building design Code IS 16700 “Criteria for Structural Safety of Tall
Concrete Buildings” which is developed by BIS CED 38 committee and released in December
2017. This paper presents salient points and discussions on various sections of the Code. It has
been tried to follow a sequential order as per code in the following discussions. For various
section of the Code a general commentary, review of the clauses and comparison with other
existing Indian codes & popular national codes of other countries (i.e. ACI, ASCE and
Eurocode) and are presented.

1
 International Conference on
Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Initial sections of the Code i.e. section 1 to 4 presents scope of the code, references,
terminologies and symbols. The code defines its scope that the clauses are applicable for
buildings with height ranging from 50 m to 250 m and the corresponding occupancy less than
20,000 people. The code also restricts its applicability for area within 10 km of seismogenic
faults i.e. near field. In section 5 the code deals with height, slenderness and aspect ratio of the
various structural systems. This section also discusses about materials, floor system and
progressive collapse analysis of the building.

Section 5.1 of the Code discusses about elevational aspects of tall buildings. In this section
limitation for three important elevational features viz. height, slenderness ratio and
aerodynamic effects are provided. Limitation on height of tall buildings is defined on the basis
of seismic zones and structural system. The code suggests six different structural systems for
tall buildings viz. ‘moment frame’, ‘structural wall located at core’, ‘structural wall well
distributed’, ‘structural wall + moment frame’, ‘structural wall + perimeter frame’ and
‘structural wall + framed tube’. The code restricts use of ‘moment frame’ for tall buildings in
seismic zone IV and V, whereas, in seismic zone III and II it limits the height to 60 m and 80
m, respectively. It is suggested by Gunel and Ilgin (2007) that the moment resisting frame
system up to 30 stories is effective in resisting lateral load efficiently; however, for further
taller buildings this system becomes inefficient due to higher flexibility. ‘Structural wall’
system in code is divided into two sub-groups i.e. ‘located at core’ and ‘well distributed’. The
‘well distributed’ structural wall system has higher height limits as compared to the core
system. It is also suggested by Gunel and Ilgin (2007) that stiffness of the structural wall system
are generally effective for resisting lateral load of buildings up to 50 stories. Moreover, it is
suggested by Burak and Hakki (2013) that when percentage of structural wall in a building
increases the inter-story drift and roof displacement reduces, however, for structural wall
beyond 1.5% the improvement in aforementioned parameters are relatively less. For ‘structural
wall + moment frame’ system the height limits are similar to structural wall located at core and
for ‘structural wall + perimeter frame’ the height limits are similar to ‘structural wall well
distributed’ system. For higher stories other systems such as ‘structural wall + frame tubes’,
‘tube-in-tube’, ‘outrigger’ and bundled tube system are efficient. However code provides the
height limits only for ‘structural wall + frame tubes’ among the above mentioned systems. For
‘structural wall + frame tubes’ system the maximum height allowed by the code in seismic
zone V and VI is limited to 150 m, whereas for seismic zone III to 220 m and seismic zone II
up to 250 m.

Maximum slenderness ratio (height to the minimum base width) of 9 is allowed in seismic zone
IV and V for ‘structural wall + framed tube system’, whereas, in seismic zone II, III the
slenderness ratio up to 10 is allowed for this system. . It is suggested by Tarek (2011) that a
less slender building performs better than buildings with high slenderness. It is observed that
the slenderness ratio increases drift, acceleration and torsional moment on buildings.

To consider aerodynamic effects code suggests selecting elevation profile, façade features and
plan shape of the building to attract minimum wind drag effects. Features like sharp corners,
projected balconies etc. are to be considered in design. For reducing the aerodynamic effect,
aerodynamic treatment of a tall building is done. These treatments reduce the wind load on the
building by making the building like a bluff body. The aerodynamic treatment can be done in
two ways i.e. by design treatment and by modification treatment of elevation. In design

2
 International Conference on
Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018

treatment, complete elevation changes as per wind profile while in the modification treatment
small changes such as corner treatments are done. Tanaka et al. (2013) has conducted wind
tunnel test and studies various elevation of tall buildings. It was observed that building models
with tapered & setbacks show better performance in along wind direction whereas, the corner
treatment is efficient in reducing the across wind forces.

Section 5.2 of the Code deals with plan geometry and plan aspect ratio (larger plan dimension
/ smaller plan dimension; L/B, where L>B) of tall buildings. Code deals with basic geometries
like rectangular, square and elliptical plan shapes. The plan aspect ratio is restricted to 5 by the
code. It is suggested by Sanjay and Umesh (2016) that seismic performance of buildings with
lower aspect ratio is better than buildings with higher aspect ratio. They indicated that a square
configuration shows best performance, moreover, aspect ratio greater than 4 is not desirable.

Section 5.6 of the Code deals with various aspects of floor systems in tall building. The code
suggests using cast-in-situ floor system. However, the code also allows precast floor system
with a minimum screed thickness of 75mm for seismic zone III, IV and V; however, for seismic
zone II the clause relaxes to use 50 mm screed thickness. A rigid floor system imparts
diaphragm action in the building. Cast-in-situ floor system is generally rigid, whereas, the
rigidity of precast floor system depends on screed thickness. Therefore, the code suggests to
model the in plane stiffness of floor slab. Moreover, opening in the floor system reduces
stiffness and thus the diaphragm action, therefore, code provides stringent criteria about size
and location of opening and maximum opening is restricted to 30% of the floor plan area. The
code allows maximum vertical vibration frequency of floor system up to 3 Hz and for higher
value it demands demonstration for acceptability. The code also provides limiting value for
vertical acceleration of the floor system under gravity loading.

In section 5.7, the Code limits minimum and maximum grade of concrete to be used in tall
buildings to M30 and M70, respectively. For higher concrete grades experimental study is
recommended to ensure a minimum of 0.002 strain in compression. As per IS 456:2000 the
minimum grade of concrete is M20, whereas, IS 13920: 2016 recommends M25 for buildings
taller than 15 m in seismic zone III, IV and V. Similarly, other national codes also recommend
using higher grades for seismic regions than for non-seismic regions. As reported by Pauley
and Priestley (1992) that with increase in grade of concrete strain at peak stress as well as at
first crushing decreases, therefore, the brittleness of high grade concrete is a matter of concern
and designers shall be careful while using high strength concrete.

In section 5.8, guidelines to avoid progressive collapse of tall buildings are included.
Progressive collapse can be defined as the failure initiates at local element level and then
propagates from element by element, finally causes collapse of entire building. As per code,
progressive collapse can be precluded by; selecting suitable structural system, selection of
critical member and providing adequate redundancy in the building. Code also suggests using
key elements to safeguard the building from progressive collapse. In addition to the methods
indicated in the code to reduce the chances of progressive collapse, other methods are also
suggested in various literature; these are by improving the ductility of the member, identifying
and strengthening of critical locations of building and by providing alternate load paths.

LOADS

3
 International Conference on
Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018

Section 6 of the Code deals with various loads and load combinations for analysis of buildings.
In this section main emphasis is given to wind and seismic loads expected on the building. As
tall buildings are sensitive to wind, section 6.2 specifies the condition which mandates the wind
tunnel testing. The wind tunnel test for a building is mandatory if any of the following criteria
is encountered i.e. when the height is greater than 150m, there is plan or elevation asymmetry,
building is situated in complex topographical or interference effect, or if the natural period of
the building is greater than 5s. The wind tunnel test needs to be carried out for 10 years return
period. The torsional motion of building can be check by wind tunnel test. For RC tall buildings
the damping ratio is restricted to 2% in contrary to IS1893 (Part1): 2016 where a uniform
damping ratio of 5% is prescribed for all materials.

Section 6.3 deals with seismic analysis of tall buildings. Along with response spectra of IS
1893 (Part 1): 2016, the code suggests using site specified hazard spectra in seismic zone IV
and V. All the three components of shaking of the building needs to consider in seismic zone
V. Depending on the direction of vertical shaking the magnitude of gravity load on the building
may increase. In tall building the gravity loads are high and the margin of safety in vertical
load carrying capacity is relatively low therefore, vertical shaking shall be considered in
analysis. Furthermore, failure of the vertical load carrying members may cause progressive
collapse of the entire building.

MODELLING

Section 7.3 of the Code deals with the various considerations in the modelling of a building in
a well-established structural analysis software. In modelling either lump mass or distributed
modelling can be adopted. In seismic analysis the mass and stiffness properties defines the
vibration characteristic of a building therefore, it is required to appropriately model them to
reflect appropriate seismic behaviour. Code prescribes modelling of unreinforced masonry
infill panels when it imparts significant stiffness to storey. The unreinforced masonry (URM)
infill of a building increases the floor stiffness and reduces the fundamental period of a
building. The code prescribes modelling of URM infill as a diagonal struts as suggested in IS
1893 (Part 1): 2016. The code also emphasizes that the irregularities in building shall be
captured in analytical model. Code also instructs to use cracked section stiffness and provides
a table in which the cracked stiffness factors are prescribed for un-factored load and factored
load cases; as discussed in the next section. The modelling of soil is recommended and the
corresponding parameters shall be calculated using various geotechnical investigations on the
site. The secondary effects such as P-Δ, shrinkage, creep, temperature and foundation
settlement of the building shall be considered in model. To limit flexibility of the building code
restricts the inter-storey drift stability coefficient θ (PuΔ/H) to 0.2.

CRACK SECTION

Section 7.2 of the Code deals with the various additional considerations in modelling of tall
buildings such as rigid offset, floor diaphragm flexibility, crack section and P-Δ effect. Crack
section properties of the IS code is similar to the ACI code, as shown in Table 1. In general
crack formation under gravity loads and secondary effects such as shrinkage, temperature and
hydration of concrete are negligible. In seismic effect, reversal of stress results in flexural crack
in the structural elements. The crack width varies along the length of the section, to consider
the reduced the stiffness and strength parameter of the element; moment of inertia of the
sections are reduced. Cracked reinforced concrete section by Paulay and Priestly 1992, as

4
 International Conference on
Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018

shown in Table 2. Kumar and Singh (2010) also proposed simplified formula for calculation
of stiffness of frame elements based on axial load ratio as shown in Table 3.

Table 1 Cracked RC section properties of various national code (refer ACI 318-14, IS 16700)
Member ACI 318-14 IS 16700 IS 16700
Un-factored load Factored load
Beam 0.35Ig 0.70Ig 0.35Ig
Column 0.70Ig 0.90Ig 0.70Ig
Wall Uncrack 0.70Ig -- --
Wall crack 0.35Ig 0.90Ig 0.70Ig
Slab / Flat plate 0.25Ig 0.35Ig 0.25Ig

Table 2 Cracked RC section properties (Paulay and Priestly, 1992)

Member Range Recommended value
Rectangular Beam 0.30Ig-0.50Ig 0.40Ig
T and L beams 0.25Ig -0.45Ig 0.35Ig
Column (P>0.5FcAg) 0.70Ig-0.90Ig 0.80Ig
Column (P>0.2FcAg) 0.50Ig-0.70Ig 0.60Ig
Column (P>0.05FcAg)) 0.30Ig-0.50Ig 0.40Ig

Table 3 Effective stiffness ratio for NSC and HSC (Kumar and Singh, 2010)
Effective stiffness ratio for normal strength Effective stiffness ratio for normal strength
concrete (NSC) concrete (HSC)
 P  P
0.35 for  0.2 0.35 for  0. 1
 Ag f ' c  Ag f ' c
EI eff  P P EI eff  P P
 0.175  0.875 for 0.2   0.6  0.24  1.1 for 0.1   0.6
Ec I g  Ag f ' c Ag f ' c Ec I g  Ag f ' c Ag f ' c
 P  P
0.7 for 0.6  0.9 for 0.6 
 Ag f ' c  Ag f ' c

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

Section 8 of the Code deals with design criteria of the various structural system viz. ‘frame
buildings’, ‘structural wall system’, ‘moment frame + structural wall system’, ‘flat slab +
structural wall system’ and ‘structural wall +framed tube system’. Section 8.1.2 emphasizes
that those staircase which are not confined by structural wall shall be included in modelling. A
study by Kumbhar et al. (2015) revealed that the staircase changes the dynamic characteristic
of buildings due to associated truss action of the waist slab, moreover, the location and
orientation also has significant effect in structural performance. Section 8.1.3.2 of the code
deals with sensitivity analyses of the building. In addition to cracked section analysis, the code
suggests to conduct lower and upper bound sensitivity analyses. In sensitivity analyses code
suggests to reduce the section properties of floor diaphragm and stiffness parameters of
perimeter wall of podium and floor system at backstay level. In upper bound sensitivity
analyses the area and moment of inertia properties of the section reduced to 50% of the gross

5
 International Conference on
Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018

parameters whereas, in lower bound sensitivity analyses aforementioned parameters properties

of the section reduced to 15% of the gross parameters. Section 8.2 emphasizes to ensure the
various aspects of ductility in a tall building.

Section 8.3 of the Code deals with provisions related to ‘frame buildings’. Code suggests that
tall buildings shall have at least 3 bays and 2 frames to resist seismic effect. It is observed that
minimum number of bays may be used for the frame mechanism of failure during earthquake.
Code mandates that for moment frames system to be detailed as per ‘special moment frame’
system in seismic zone III which is in line with IS 13920: 2016. Section 8.4 deals with dual
system (moment frame - structural Wall). Code necessitates supporting structural wall on stiff
and ductile elements and restricts discontinuing it in lower stories. However, Murty et al.
(2012a) discussed that the discontinuity of the structural wall even in higher stories of building
creates larger lateral drift in the top stories and uneven distribution of the shear demand in the
building. Section 8.5 of the code deals with ‘structural wall’ system. Code suggests maintaining
a minimum thickness of the structural wall as greater of 160 mm or hi/20 where hi is inter-
storey height of ith floor. As per IS 13920:2016, the minimum thickness of the structural wall
shall be 150 mm (300 mm for buildings with coupling beams). In general, opening in the
structural wall are provided for various purpose such as windows, etc. Code suggests if opening
size is less than 800 mm or 1/3rdlength of the wall (whichever is smaller) then the influence
due to openings can be neglected in overall stiffness of the building. Code mandates to provide
additional reinforcement at four sides of the opening as per IS 13920 with minimum bar
diameter of 12mm. It was observed in the literature that large opening in the ‘structural wall’
system increases the flexibility of the building. In structural wall with coupling beam, coupling
beams undergoes higher rotational due to large openings. For resisting rotations in the coupling
beam code recommends using diagonal reinforcements as per IS 13920:2016. In code
maximum reinforcement in coupling beams are restricted based on span – depth ratio.
Mosoarca (2014) studied the failure analysis of the staggered openings in the structural wall; it
was observed that the structural wall with staggered openings is more rigid and have a higher
load carrying capacity compared with ordered openings. The code refrains supporting beams
or columns with high vertical load on coupling beams.

Section 8.6 of the Code deals with ‘flab slab + Structural wall’ system. Code recommends that
structural wall shall carry entire lateral load of the building. Moreover, column strip of the flat
slab system shall not be included in lateral load resisting system.

Section 8.7 of the Code deals with ‘framed tube system’, ‘tube-in-tube system’ and ‘multiple
tube system’. The tubular systems act in building like a hollow cylinder perpendicular to the
ground. In this system, structural walls/columns shall be placed very close to each other to
create a 3D cylindrical member to resist lateral load of the building. Code restricts length to
width ratio of a ‘tube-in-tube’ system not exceeding to 2. For creating the hollow cylinder in
the system code restricts spacing between columns/structural walls to be not more than 5m.
The re-entrant corner and sharp changes in tubular system reduce the cylindrical action of the
structural wall. Code recommends avoiding re-entrant corners and sharp changes in this
system. In tubular system, outer columns resist lateral loads while the internal columns are used
for resisting gravity load on the building. Code recommends corner columns area shall be at
least 2 times of the internal columns. Code recommends minimum 16 mm diameter beam
longitudinal diameter in all seismic zones. For stirrups code recommends using 10 mm
diameter bars in seismic zone III, IV and V, whereas, 8 mm is allowed in seismic zone II. Code

6
 International Conference on
Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018

also recommends keeping stirrups spacing not more than 100 mm is seismic zone III, IV and
V, however, in zone II stirrups spacing shall not be more than 150 mm.

FOUNDATIONS

Section 9 of the Code deals with factor of safety of building, geotechnical investigation,
minimum depth of foundation, modelling of the soil and permissible settlement of foundation.
Code recommends a uniform factor of safety of 1.5 for both overturning and sliding of building
under different loads. IS 1904:1984 provides ‘design and construction of foundation in soil’ in
which factor of safety ranges from 1.5 - 2 and 1.5 - 1.75 for overturning and sliding,
respectively. Code recommends that all the geotechnical investigation shall be conducted for
the tall building site including liquefaction potential analysis, soil spring constant and modulus
of sub grade reaction to establish the safety of the building. Code recommends minimum 3
boreholes testing per tower and spacing between the boreholes in the plan area as 30m.
Generally, IS 1892:1979 code is used for ‘sub surface investigation for foundation’, IS 1892
recommends 5 pits for 0.4Hectares.

Section 9.3 of the Code recommends a minimum depth of foundation for raft and pile
foundations as 1/15 and 1/20 of height of the building, respectively. As per IS 1904 there are
no minimum depth criteria for any type of foundation.

Section 9.7 of the code deals with modelling of the soil in the software. Code recommends to
model soil through spring constants, zoned spring constant or modulus of sub grade reaction
of the soil. Code recommends the implementation of soil structure interactions for buildings
that are more than 150 m in height using actual column loads and column positions on the
foundation. Code suggests that permissible settlement of foundation shall be as per IS 1904
and IS 12070 requirements.

NON-STRUCUTRAL ELEMENTS

Section 10 of the code deals with design of non-structural elements (NSEs) in tall buildings.
The design of NSEs is required because the cost of non-structural elements in the total cost of
the project may be significant. During past earthquakes it was observed that performance of
the NSEs are poor. Failure of the non-structural elements causes problem to the building
occupants. In order to achieve operational or immediate occupancy seismic performance level
it is important to appropriately design non-structural elements otherwise even minor disruption
such as lack of water or power supply can compromise the functionality of the building. In the
literature it is recommended that when NSEs significantly affects structural response of the
building, they shall be considered in design and modelling of the building.

Section 10.1 of the code deals with classification of NSEs based upon their seismic behaviour.
Code classifies the NSEs into three categories viz. acceleration sensitive, deformation sensitive
and acceleration-and-deformation sensitive. A similar classification of the NSEs is also
presented by Murty et al. (2012b).

Section 10.2 deals with design guidelines of acceleration-sensitive NSEs. The code
recommends computation of design lateral force on NSEs on the basis of seismic zones in

7
 International Conference on
Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018

which the building is situated. Generally, mechanical devices and electrical components are
considered as acceleration sensitive NSEs. These are vulnerable to sliding, overturning or
tilting. Code provides equations to calculate design lateral force of the element. In this equation
ap represents amplification factor, Rp represents response modification factor which mainly
depends on ductility, energy dissipation capacity and redundancy of NSEs. Code suggested the
values for ap and Rp are similar with FEMA 369 (2001). Table 4 shows IS 16700 and other
national codes equations for calculating design lateral forces for acceleration sensitive NSEs.

Section 10.3 of the code deals with design guidelines of the deformation sensitive NSEs.
Deformation sensitive NSEs are affected by deformation of supporting building or inter-story
drift of the building. The performance of the deformation sensitive elements can be achieved
1) by limiting inter storey drift of the building or 2) by designing the element for expected drift.
Guidelines for deformation sensitive NSEs are based on the displacements of the buildings. In
the equations of IS 16700 given in Table 5 Δx and Δy are the multiplication factors of ‘1.2’ is
considered to compensate the additional displacement causes during strong motion and other
secondary effects of the building. Relative displacement equation for designing the
deformation sensitive NSEs of IS 16700 is compared with various code in Table 5. FEMA 74
(2011) provides general guidelines for categorisation of commonly used non-structural
elements under earthquake. It is recommended by the Murty et al. (2012b) to restrict the
maximum relative displacement within the building and between buildings as given in equation
(1) and (2).
Δ
For displacement within building Δ𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑅(ℎ𝑥 − ℎ𝑦 ) h𝑎𝐴 (1)
𝑠𝑥
Δ𝑎𝐴 Δ𝑎𝐵
For displacement between building Δ𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑅 (ℎ𝑥 + ℎ𝑦 ) (2)
h𝑠𝑥 h𝑠𝑦

Table 4 Design lateral force for acceleration sensitive NSEs

Design lateral force for
Code
acceleration sensitive NSEs
𝑥 𝑎𝑝
IS 16700 𝐹𝑝 = Ζ (1 + ) 𝐼𝑝 𝑊𝑝
ℎ 𝑅𝑝
ℎ𝑥 𝑎𝑝
UBC 1997 𝐹𝑝 = 𝐶𝑎 (1 + 3 ) 𝐼𝑝 𝑊𝑝
ℎ𝑟 𝑅𝑝
𝑧 𝑎𝑝
ASCE 7-10 𝐹𝑝 = 0.4𝑆𝐷𝑆 (1 + 2 ) 𝐼𝑝 𝑊𝑝
ℎ 𝑅𝑝

MONITORING DEFORMATION IN BUILDING

Section 11 of the code provides various recommended monitoring the building during
earthquake. Code also deals with wind oscillation and foundation settlement throughout the
life of the building. Code suggested for buildings in seismic zone V and buildings taller than
150 m in seismic zone III, IV to instrument with tri-axial accelerometer for monitoring the
behaviour (translational and twisting behaviour) during strong earthquake. Code also suggested
for buildings taller than 150 m to instrument anemometer and accelerometer to measure the
wind speed, acceleration and direction at top of the building. It is also required by the code to
record the settlements of the foundation by using permanent settlement markers during various
levels of construction and building life. The data which is obtained from the devices are useful
for validation of the design loads applied on the building. The settlement record is used to cross

8
 International Conference on
Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018

check the permissible limits with the code. The settlement data is used to observe soil behaviour
during construction period.

Table 5 Design relative displacement for deformation sensitive NSEs

Code Design relative displacement for NSEs
𝐴𝑥 𝐴𝑥 )
IS 16700 ∆𝑥 = 1.2(𝛿𝑍1 − 𝛿𝑍2
𝐴𝑦 𝐴𝑦
Displacement within the building in X and ∆𝑦 = 1.2(𝛿𝑍1 − 𝛿𝑍2 )
Y direction
ASCE 7-10 𝐷𝑝 = 𝛿𝑥𝐴 − 𝛿𝑦𝐴
∆
Displacement with in building The limiting drift Dp is𝐷𝑝 = (ℎ𝑥 − ℎ𝑦 ) ℎ𝑎𝐴
𝑠𝑥
𝐴𝑥 | 𝐵𝑥 |
IS 16700 ∆𝑥 = |𝛿𝑧1 + |𝛿𝑧2
𝐴𝑦 𝐵𝑦
Displacement between building ∆𝑦 = |𝛿𝑧1 | + |𝛿𝑧2 |

ASCE 7-10 𝐷𝑝 = |𝛿𝑥𝐴 | + |𝛿𝑦𝐵 |

ℎ𝑥 Δ𝑎𝐴 ℎ𝑦 Δ𝑎𝐵
Displacement between building The limiting drift Dp is𝐷𝑝 = +
ℎ𝑠𝑥 ℎ𝑠𝑥

CONCLUSIONS AND SOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE CODE

Bureau of Indian Standards published a new code ‘IS 16700: 2017’ for structural safety of tall
concrete buildings. Many important aspects relate to tall building are provided in this code.
The present study provides brief detail about various clauses of the code. Overall, this code
will help designers for considering various design limits for tall buildings and will channelize
the design procedure. There are few following points related to clauses of the code which
requires clarifications and amendments:
 Two structural systems viz. ‘structural wall + perimeter frame’ and ‘structural wall + framed
tube’ are mentioned Table 1 and 2 of the code however, the design guidelines for these systems
are not discussed in section 8 of the code.
 For ‘flat slab + structural wall’ and ‘framed tube’ systems, maximum height and slenderness
ratio limits for various seismic zones are not provided.
 Equations in clause numbers 10.2 and 10.3 for design lateral force Fp and deformation
guidelines of NSEs are not readable due to change of font.
 The proposed importance factor (Ip) values for acceleration sensitive NSEs are on higher side
as compared with available literature.
 Introducing a table for categorisation NSEs based on earthquake behaviour is required.
 The maximum drift limit equations for deformation sensitive NSEs are not provided.

REFERENCES

1. ACI: 318M – (2014) “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete”.

2. ASCE: 7 – (2010), “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures”.

3. Burak, B. and Hakki, G.C. (2013), “Effect of shear wall area to floor area ratio on the
seismic behavior of reinforced concrete buildings”, Journal of Structural Engineering,
139(11), 1928-1937.

9
 International Conference on
Advances in Construction Materials and Structures (ACMS-2018)
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, March 7-8, 2018

4. Deger, Z.T., Yang, T.Y., Wallace, J.W. and Jack, M. (2014), “Seismic performance of
reinforced concrete core wall buildings with and without moment resisting frame”, The
Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 24(7), 477-490.
5. FEMA: 369 – (2001), “NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new
buildings and other structures”.
6. FEMA: 74 – (2011), “Reducing the Risks of Non-structural Earthquake Damage”.
7. Gunel, M.H., and Ilgin, H.E. (2007), “A proposal for the classification of structural systems
of tall buildings”, Journal of Building and Environment, Elsevier, Science Direct 42, 2667-
2675.
8. IS: 1892 – (1979), “Subsurface Investigation for Foundation – Code of Practice”.
9. IS: 1904 – (1986), “Design and Construction of Foundations in Soils – Code of Practice”.
10. IS: 456 – (2000), “Plan and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice”.
11. IS: 875 (Part 3) – (2015), “Code of practise for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for
buildings and Structure- Code of Practice”.
12. IS: 1893 (Part 1) – (2016), “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, part 1
general provision and building”.
13. IS: 13920 – (2016), “Ductile Design and Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures
subjected to Seismic Forces – Code of Practice”.
14. IS: 16700 – (2017), “Criteria for structural safety of tall concrete building”.
15. Kumbhar, O.G., Kumar, R., and Adhikary, S. (2015), “Effect of staircase on seismic
performance of RC frame building”, Earthquakes and structures, 9(2), 375-390.
16. Kumar, R., and Singh, Y. (2010), “stiffness of Reinforced concrete frame members for
seismic analysis”, ACI Structural Journal, Sep-Oct, 607-615.
17. Murty, C.V.R., Goswami, R., Vijayanarayanan, A.R. and Mehta, V.V. (2012a) “Some
concept in earthquake behaviour of buildings”.
18. Murty, C.V.R., Goswami, R., Vijayanarayanan, A.R., Kumar, R.P. and Mehta, V.V.
(2012b) “Introduction to earthquake protection of non-structural elements in buildings”.
19. Mosoarca, M. (2014), “Failure analysis of RC shear wall with staggered opening under
seismic loads”, Engineering failure analysis, Elsevier, 46-54.
20. Nilupa, H., Priyan, M., Tuan, N. and Nicholas, H. (2010), “Seismic performance of super
tall buildings”, International Conference on sustainable built environment, 160-168.
21. Paulay, T., Priestley M.J.N. (1992), “Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings”.
22. Park, R., Paulay, T. (1975), “Reinforced Concrete Structures”.
23. Sanjay, K.S. and Umesh, P. (2016), “Effect of aspect ratio & plan configuration on seismic
performance of multi-storeyed regular R.C.C. building: An evaluation by static analysis”,
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 6(1), 192-197.
24. Tanaka, H., Tamura, Y., Ohtake, K., Nakai, M., Kim. Y.C. and Bandi, E.K. (2013)
“Aerodynamic and flow characteristics of tall buildings with various unconventional
configurations”, International journal of high-rise buildings, 2(3), 213-228.
25. Tarek, A.A. (2011), “Slenderness ration influence on the structural behavior of residential
concrete tall buildings”, Journal of civil engineering and architecture, 5(6), 527-534.
26. Xie, J. (2012) “Aerodynamic optimization in super tall building designs” The seventh
international colloquium of bluff body aerodynamics and its application”, 2(6), 104-111.
27. UBC: – (1997), “Uniform building code”.

10

View publication stats