Critical Review of Is 1893-1 and - 2 Draft 2023 Ver 2

COMPARISON OF SELECTED CLAUSES OF IS 1893-1-2016 AND DRAFT 1893-1 & 2-2023
Critical Review of Selected Parts of

Draft Code 1893-parts 1 and 2, 2023
(ver 2.0)
Background of Earthquake Measurements

Seismology aspect
Seismograph is an instrument that measures and records information about earthquakes. It does
not have to be installed in the vicinity of the epicenter of earthquake. It may be hundreds of
kilometers away. The Magnitude of an earthquake is measured using the triangulation technique.
These instruments are inter connected through the satellite to the central laboratories all over the
world. USGS is one of the leading agencies having a very large network of instruments.
The magnitude of an earthquake is measured in terms of Richter scale using formulas.
Structural aspect
Structural engineers need a record of ground accelerations along the three orthogonal directions at any
location. It is recorded with the help of accelerometers that must be installed close to the epicenter and
continuously monitored 24x7x365. They transmit the data through satellite to the central laboratory. Even
the accelerogram of Bhuj earthquake of 2001 was not recorded near Bhuj. It was recorded 300 km away
on the first floor of the Passport Building, Ahmedabad where it was installed just the previous day, Jan
25th.
Past Earthquakes
In India, luckily, there are very few earthquakes that have caused devastation – Kangra (HP) 1905, Bihar-
Nepal 1934, Assam 1950, Koyna 1967, Kinnor (HP) 1975, Killari-Latur (MH) 1993, Uttarkashi 1991, Kutch
2001, Pakistan-Kashmir 2005. Except Koyna earthquake, none of the strong earthquakes was ever
recorded on an accelerometer in India. Either there was no instrument or it was out of work. Even the
Koyna earthquake was only partially recorded. Its middle portion was not recorded due to some
malfunction. It was generated artificially. The details were published in the BSS of America in 1968/69.
Most of the earthquakes recorded in North east, North, and the Himalayas have a PGA of 0.1 g to 0.2g.
Structural damage
In most of these earthquakes, the structural damage and the resulting casualties were caused by non-
engineered buildings – stone masonry (> 70%), semi-engineered buildings (> 20%) and the remaining by
engineered buildings. The main cause of the collapse or damage to non-engineered buildings was use of
heavy slate in roof tiles, no bond (mud) between the stone walls, landslides and lack of timely rescue helps
etc. This resulted in huge loss to life and property. Main cause of the collapse or damage to engineered
buildings was poor material, poor workmanship, and poor detailing of reinforcement. Only minor non-
structural damages were seen in properly engineered buildings.
1I Dr. Ashok K. Jain, Retd. Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

Centre for Structural and Earthquake Engineering, Ghaziabad, UP
<dr.ashokkjain@gmail.com>
June 2023
Draft 1893 Code – seismic map

This draft code has been circulated by the BIS in April 2023. Unlike major changes introduced in the 2016
edition, this draft code introduces drastic changes. The most significant is the new seismic map of India
based on the Probabilistic Earthquake Hazard Map (PEHM) prepared at the IIT Madras. The peak ground
accelerations are increased several times the existing values. The entire Himalayan zone from Kashmir to
North-East has been classified as zone VI along with its foothills into zones V and IV. It appears to be based
more on intuition. There is hardly any past seismic data available to develop an accurate map.
Proposed New Seismic Map of India April 2023
Historical Background
This entire Himalayan belt including its foothills can be said to be the soul of India. Our spiritual,
religious, ancient knowledge, and rich heritage over the past 5000 to 10000 years have very deep
roots in this belt. Jainism and Buddhism evolved and flourished in this belt. If this was such a
hazardous zone, the entire population, towns and cities should have perished several times.
Nothing should have survived. Yet, this entire zone is very much vibrant and prosperous in every
sense of the word. It proves that the so called PEHM based seismic map is most unreliable and
needs to be withdrawn.

June 2023
Further
Appendix G, Clause G-1.7 clearly says that “Owing to lack of recorded past seismicity in some of the
localized areas, the probabilistic hazard estimates were found to be unrealistically small. ****”. Further,
“Due to high resolution used in preparing the Earthquake Zone Map, the boundaries were found to be
somewhat irregular in some areas, which were considered to be undesirable for practical use of the
map, which was smoothed out statistically”. It goes on to state that various assumptions were made to
derive the PEHM. Obviously, the final product is as good as the assumptions. If you change a few of them,
the outcome will also change. It means it is possible to make the assumptions in such a way to obtain a
pre-conceived outcome. It is very much possible in the non-deterministic probability-based modelling.
Therefore, to avoid such a pit fall, it is a standard practice all over the world that the research is duly
published in reputed journals and conferences. Various independent researchers are invited to carry out
their own modelling, data are exchanged, and after serious deliberations over several years, the final
product is chosen. Time cannot be a constraint. It is a very serious business.
Such was the practice in the formulations of previous seismic maps in IS 1893 – Indian Meteorological
Department, Delhi; DEQ, IIT Roorkee; Survey of India, National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad;
and Central Water and Power Research Station, Pune etc. The Committee Rooms of the BIS, New Delhi
are mute witness to several such heated debates over the seismic maps of India across various editions.
Incidentally, IS 1893-1-2002 was ready in 1999 but could not be published until 2002 due to serious
difference of opinion over the seismic map. IS 456 was ready in 1998 but was delayed by 2 years because
of serious difference of opinion between two senior committee members on two clauses.
Prof. G. W. Housner (CalTech) developed the average response spectra using the El Centro earthquake
of 1934, and 1940, Olympia earthquake of 1949 and Taft earthquake of 1952. He knowingly kept the
maximum design spectrum accelerations to about ¼ of that recorded during the above earthquakes. This
concept was universally accepted across the whole world as quite reasonable. In the WSD method, 33%
increase in permissible stresses was permitted for earthquake forces.
How is it possible that personalities like Dr. Jai Krishna, Dr. G. W. Housner (CalTech), Dr. A. S. Arya along
with others from the IMD, NGRI, SOI and other such organizations, who were responsible for introducing
Earthquake Engineering to India, were not aware of the seriousness of the seismic activity in the country
as is pointed out by the current draft code? The great Himalayas were always there. These experts were
associated with the design and construction of various infrastructures – Koyna dam, Tehri dam, Narora
Atomic Power Plant, Oil refineries etc. One of them is certainly wrong: either all the previous experts who
drafted the seismic maps from 1962 until 2016 edition, or those who drafted the present draft. As per the
IIT Madras website, there is no department dedicated to seismology unlike IIT Roorkee which has two
such departments: Earth Science and Earthquake Engineering with a huge pool of experts in geology,
seismology, soil dynamics and structural dynamics. Many other IITs and state universities have such
dedicated departments and faculty members. It is not clear how many of them were seriously and
independently consulted in the preparation of this map.
Frankly speaking, the entire structural engineering community feels as if it has become a puppet in the
hands of Code. There is a major change with each revision/amendment of earthquake code without any

June 2023
convincing reasoning. No scientific commentary is made available. Notations are changed. By the time a
designer becomes familiar with the change, a new revision is dropped.
A very preliminary study has been carried out for three cities: Roorkee, Delhi, and Hyderabad to check
the final base shear computed by the draft 2023 code and 2016 code. The results are presented below
followed by the implications of these results.
Problem Statement
Estimate the seismic base shear coefficient for a Ductile RC building for the following data:
Fundamental time period = 1 sec
Response reduction factor R = 5
(a) Importance factor = 1.0; (b) Importance factor = 1.5; (IS1893-2016)

Damping = 5%
Locations: Roorkee, Delhi, and Hyderabad
Use both 1893-2016 and 2023 draft codes.
Solution
(A) Roorkee
IS 1893-1-2016
Roorkee – seismic zone IV, Soil type: medium
𝑍 𝐼 𝑆𝑎
𝐴ℎ = × ×
2 𝑅 𝑔
Zone factor Z = 0.24; Sa/g = 1.36/T = 1.36
(a) For normal RC ductile building,
0.24 × 1 × 1.36
𝐴ℎ = = 0.0326
2×5
(b) For important RC ductile building
0.24 × 1.5 × 1.36

𝐴ℎ = = 0.049
2×5
Partial load factor for seismic case DL + EL is 1.5.
Therefore, effective Ah becomes 0.0326×1.5 = 0.049, and 0.049×1.5 = 0.0735

June 2023
IS 1893-1-2023 draft
Roorkee – seismic zone VI
Soil site class C
TRP = 475 years for normal structure TRP = 975 years for important structure (Table 1)
Zone factor Z = 0.5 for normal structure; Z = 0.6 for important structure (Table 2)
I = 1.0 I = 1.0 (Part 2 -5.2.2.3)

𝟏. 𝟓
𝑨𝑵𝑯 (𝑻) = = 𝟏. 𝟓 (6.2.4.2)
𝑻
R = 5 for both kinds of buildings (Part 2-Table 3)
(a) For normal RC ductile building
𝑨𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝒁 × 𝑰 × 𝑨𝑵𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝟎. 𝟓 × 𝟏 × 𝟏. 𝟓 = 𝟎. 𝟕𝟓 (6.2.4.4)

𝑨𝑯 (𝑻) 𝟎. 𝟕𝟓
𝑨𝑯𝑫 (𝑻) = = = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟓 Part 2-(5.2.2.1)
𝑹 𝟓
𝑨𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝒁 × 𝑰 × 𝑨𝑵𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝟎. 𝟔 × 𝟏 × 𝟏. 𝟓 = 𝟎. 𝟗𝟎

𝑨𝑯 (𝑻) 𝟎. 𝟗𝟎
𝑨𝑯𝑫 (𝑻) = = = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟖
𝑹 𝟓
Table 1 Comparison of Seismic design base shear coefficient for Roorkee
Code Normal Building Important Building
IS 1893-1-2016 0.049 0.0735
IS 1893-1-2023 draft 0.15 0.18
Ratio 0.15/0.049 = 3.06 0.18/0.0735 = 2.45

June 2023
(B) Delhi
IS 1893-1-2016
Delhi – seismic zone IV, medium soil
𝑍 𝐼 𝑆𝑎
𝐴ℎ = × ×
2 𝑅 𝑔
0.24 × 1 × 1.36
𝐴ℎ = = 0.0326
2×5
0.24 × 1.5 × 1.36

𝐴ℎ = = 0.049
2×5
IS 1893-1-2023 draft
Delhi – seismic zone IV
Soil site class C
I = 1.0 I = 1.0 (Part 2 -5.2.2.3)

𝟏. 𝟓 (6.2.4.2)
𝑨𝑵𝑯 (𝑻) = = 𝟏. 𝟓
𝑻
𝑨𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝒁 × 𝑰 × 𝑨𝑵𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝟎. 𝟑 × 𝟏 × 𝟏. 𝟓 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟓 (6.2.4.4)

𝑨𝑯 (𝑻) 𝟎. 𝟒𝟓
𝑨𝑯𝑫 (𝑻) = = = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟗
𝑹 𝟓
𝑨𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝒁 × 𝑰 × 𝑨𝑵𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟔 × 𝟏 × 𝟏. 𝟓 = 𝟎. 𝟓𝟒

June 2023
𝑨𝑯 (𝑻) 𝟎. 𝟓𝟒
𝑨𝑯𝑫 (𝑻) = = = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟎𝟖
𝑹 𝟓
Table 2 Comparison of Seismic design base shear coefficient for Delhi
IS 1893-1-2016 0.049 0.0735
IS 1893-1-2023 draft 0.09 0.108
Ratio 0.09/0.049 = 1.84 0.108/0.0735 = 1.47
(C) Hyderabad
IS 1893-1-2016
Hyderabad – seismic zone II, medium soil
𝑍 𝐼 𝑆𝑎
𝐴ℎ = × ×
2 𝑅 𝑔
0.10 × 1 × 1.36
𝐴ℎ = = 0.0136
2×5
0.10 × 1.5 × 1.36

𝐴ℎ = = 0.0204
2×5
IS 1893-1-2023 draft
Hyderabad – seismic zone II
Soil site class C
I = 1.0 I = 1.0 (Part 2 -5.2.2.3)

𝟏. 𝟓 (6.2.4.2)
𝑨𝑵𝑯 (𝑻) = = 𝟏. 𝟓
𝑻

June 2023
𝑨𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝒁 × 𝑰 × 𝑨𝑵𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟓 × 𝟏 × 𝟏. 𝟓 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟏𝟐𝟓 (6.2.4.4)

𝑨𝑯 (𝑻) 𝟎. 𝟏𝟏𝟐𝟓
𝑨𝑯𝑫 (𝑻) = = = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟐𝟐𝟓
𝑹 𝟓
𝑨𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝒁 × 𝑰 × 𝑨𝑵𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟎 × 𝟏 × 𝟏. 𝟓 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟓

𝑨𝑯 (𝑻) 𝟎. 𝟏𝟓
𝑨𝑯𝑫 (𝑻) = = = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟑
𝑹 𝟓
Table 3 Comparison of Seismic design base shear coefficient for Hyderabad
IS 1893-1-2016 0.0204 0.0306
IS 1893-1-2023 draft 0.0225 0.03
Ratio 0.0225/0.0204 = 1.10 0.03/0.0306 = 0.98
Restrictions on Base Shear in 1893-2-2023 draft – Clause 5.2.3

It lays down the following two conditions:
𝒁𝑰
𝑨𝑯𝑫 (𝑻), 𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟐𝟓
𝑹
But NOT.LT. 0.015 that is, 1.5%
It means minimum value of Sa/g = 0.625 subject to the second condition.
This is the situation after having developed the seismic map based on non-deterministic probabilistic
modeling (PEHM) with extremely high precision. Where is the confidence of the drafting committee on
itself? The code should stop acting like a police man at each step!

June 2023
Review of IS 1893-1 part 2 Buildings

Response Reduction Factor R – Table 3, Clause 5.2.2.1
In the earlier 2016 code, the maximum value of factor R was 5.0. Now it has been increased to 6 for
certain structural systems.
Special Concentrically Braced Steel Frames and Special Eccentrically Braced Steel Frames
R = 4.5 for SCBF; R = 5 for SEBF; IS 1893-1-2016
R = 4.5 for SCBF; R = 5.5 for SEBF; IS 1893-2-2023
RC structural walls (Shear walls) with and without boundary elements.
R = 4.0 for Special structural walls IS 1893-1-2016
R = 4.0 for Special structural walls without boundary elements IS 1893-2-2023
R = 5.0 for Special structural walls with boundary elements IS 1893-2-2023
Buildings with dual systems
Such a classification existed even in 2002 and 2016 edition.
R = 5.0 for Special structural walls + SMRF IS 1893-1-2016
R = 5.5 for Special structural walls without boundary elements + SMRF IS 1893-2-2023
R = 6.0 for Special structural walls with boundary elements + SMRF IS 1893-2-2023
I doubt if the SSW without and with boundary wall make that much difference as compared to the first
system for R = 5.0. This confidence for systems with R = 5.5 or 6 seems to be misplaced.
All these structural systems were present both in 2002 and 2016 editions. What has changed now? No
reason or explanation is given as to how this factor was obtained for the selected systems for higher R
values. Apparently, it is very confusing and arbitrary.
There are two methods to assess the R factor for any structural system:
(a) Experimental method,

(b) Analytical method.
Analytical method for estimating R factors has been explained by Jain (2016, 2023).
It is not clear if any experimental or analytical studies were conducted by any researcher in India which
formed the basis of these R factors in the draft code. In the earlier 2002 code, these values were clearly
based on experience, judgement, and calibration factor (Prakash, Pore, and Jain, 2006). In the absence
of any explicit explanation in the draft Code, it can be concluded that here also these values are based
on judgement alone.

June 2023
The Draft Code seems to rely too much on the Special Eccentrically Braced Steel Frame. No doubt it
has a very good ductile behaviour if it is detailed and constructed very meticulously. However, a
significant labour cost is associated with the SCBF in hiring an experienced set of technicians to
carryout detailing at the site. It may be a challenge by itself. SCBF, on the other hand, are relatively
easy to construct and detail at site.
Torsion in Buildings
IS 1893-1-2002
Design Eccentricity – Clause 7.9.2
In the 2002 edition, the design eccentricity was defined as follows:
𝑒𝑑𝑖 = 1.5 𝑒𝑠𝑖 + 0.05 𝑏𝑖

= 𝑒𝑠𝑖 − 0.05 𝑏𝑖
It is very difficult to incorporate the above equation in a software while carrying out 3D dynamic
analysis.
Therefore, wide amendment no. 1, Jan 2005, a note was added which stated as follows:
In case 3D dynamic analysis is carried out, the dynamic amplification factor of 1.5 is replaced with
1.0.
IS 1893-1-2016
Design Eccentricity – Clause 7.8.2
In the 2016 edition, the design eccentricity was defined as follows:
𝑒𝑑𝑖 = 1.5 𝑒𝑠𝑖 + 0.05 𝑏𝑖

= 𝑒𝑠𝑖 − 0.05 𝑏𝑖
It explicitly mentioned that the seismic analysis may be carried out by the SCM or RSA. In either case,
the formula remains same. The simplification wide amendment 1 in 2002 edition was withdrawn
without any reasoning. It became a nightmare for the designers.
IS 1893-2-2023
Design Eccentricity – Clause 5.2.5.1
In the 2023 draft, for ESM analysis, the design eccentricity is defined as follows:
𝑒𝑑𝑖 = 1.8 𝑒𝑠𝑖 + 0.05 𝑏𝑖

= −0.05 𝑏𝑖
There are two observations in the above equations:
June 2023
(i) The dynamic amplification factor is changed to 1.8 from 1.5 without any justification. This
change is superfluous as it is very time consuming and irritating to carryout static analysis
manually for torsion.
(ii) The second equation is with respect to the center of mass (CM). It is better to write it in the
same form as in the earlier editions, that is,
= 𝑒𝑠𝑖 − 0.05 𝑏𝑖
In the 2023 draft, for 3D dynamic analysis, the design eccentricity is defined with respect to CM as
follows:
= ± 0.05 𝑏𝑖
Thus, it is back to the amended equation of 2002 edition.
Conclusions
Implications of high base shear as per new PEHM map
Based on the data chosen for the two buildings in Roorkee, Delhi, and Hyderabad, the following
implications can be derived:
(1) Roorkee was earlier in seismic zone IV and now in zone VI. Is there any significant seismic activity
during the past one decade in this area? The answer is NO.
(2) For a normal building in Roorkee, the effective base shear is 3.06 times the base shear computed
using the 2016 code. For an important building, the same is 2.45 times.
(3) Delhi was earlier in seismic zone IV and remains in zone IV. However, for a normal building, the
effective base shear is 1.84 times the base shear computed using the 2016 code. For an important
building, the same is 1.47 times.
(4) Hyderabad was earlier in seismic zone II and remains in zone II. However, for a normal building,
the effective base shear is 1.10 times the base shear computed using the 2016 code. For an
important building, the same is 0.98 times.
(5) The model adopted by the PEHM experts of IIT Madras does not give any relief in any part of the
country in terms of effective base shear. There is just a 2% reduction in the base shear for
important buildings in Zone II which is negligible. This is incomprehensible. It shows that modelling
assumptions are very critical for the outcome.
Question – How reliable is the proposed PEHM map? What is the confidence level in the final
product?
(6) The proposed seismic map is equally applicable to highway bridges (IRC), railway, and metro
bridges (RDSO).
During the past 10 years, the infrastructure in terms of buildings, water tanks, sewage treatment
plants, hospitals, bridges, viaducts etc. have been built at an unprecedented speed in every corner
of the country. Question – Is retrofitting of these structures feasible? In my experience, retrofitting
of such buildings/structures is not feasible for such a high increase in earthquake force. What
happens to all these structures NOW? It is a very pertinent and serious question.
June 2023
(7) Already, there is acute shortage of trained and qualified masons and technicians in the country to
build a new structure. There is a need for highly specialized set of designers, masons, and
technicians for retrofitting work. Is it available? The answer is categorical NO. I am not touching
the FUNDING required for such a massive exercise.
(8) There is too much flip-flop in the elastic response spectra in different editions of the Code from
2002 to 2023. It is highly undesirable. It reflects poorly on the Code committee.
Note: For the sake of convenience of the Designers, the new formula for the base shear
coefficient in terms of the previous notation is as follows:
𝐼 𝑆𝑎
𝐴ℎ = 𝑍 × ×
𝑅 𝑔
Factor I is 1.0 in most cases for buildings. Thus,
𝑍 𝑆𝑎
𝐴ℎ = ×
𝑅 𝑔
Implication of Importance factor I Table 2 of the draft code is reproduced below.
Table 4 Zone Factor times Importance factors as in IS 1893-1-2016
Zone Z Z*I values

1.0 1.2 1.5
475 975 2475
2 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.15
3 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.24
4 0.24 0.24 0.29 0.36
5 0.36 0.36 0.43 0.54
June 2023
(9) Table 5 of part 2 for importance factor I is superfluous as most values are 1.0. For a single case,
the value is 1.15 which is arbitrary any way. The importance factor seems to have been
incorporated in Z values through return periods. Let us compare the Zone factors as in Table 2 and
the product Z*I as per 2016 edition shown in Table 4. It has been assumed that the product Z*I
for I = 1, 1.2 and 1.5 corresponds to 475 yr, 975 yr and 2475 yr return period.
Let us compare the 475 yr, 975 yr and 2475 yr columns of Table 2 of IS 1893-1-2023 draft with
those given in Table 4 of IS 1893-1-2016. The comparison does not look too bad! Let us not go by
the absolute numbers!! It is just modeling and marketing jugglery. Importance factor has become
redundant in 2023 edition!
(10) Even after developing the PEHM based on non-deterministic probabilistic modeling with very high
precision, it has specified Clause 5.2.3 in IS 1893-2-2023 with two restrictions as discussed earlier.
Apparently, the drafting committee has no confidence in itself.
(11) The factor (1/2) in the expression for horizontal seismic coefficient in 2016 edition and product of
the partial load factor 1.5 in the earthquake load (= 0.75) has been increased to unity. In other
words, an increase of 33% in the base shear in 2023 edition.
𝟏
× 𝟏. 𝟓 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟑 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐟𝐭.
𝟐
Implication of R factor
(12) There is too much flip-flop in the R factor values for different structural systems in different
editions of the Code. All those structural systems existed even in 2002 edition. It is highly
undesirable. It reflects poorly on the Code committee.
Implication of design eccentricity for torsion

(13) There is too much flip-flop in the treatment of torsion in different editions of the Code. It is highly
undesirable. It reflects poorly on the Code committee.
Consequences of too many drastic changes that too at short intervals

By the time a designer becomes familiar with the changes, the code is revised or an amendment is issued.
Notations are changed. He/she feels like a puppet. It reflects in non-compliance of the various codal
provisions. There is a loss of physical understanding of the various clauses. It is all mathematical or
empirical without any scientific commentary. Many times, it is impossible to trace the original source in
the references cited in the code. A software is supposed to take care of the various codal provisions. Most
of the software are international. They do not cater only to the Indian codes. They clearly state in their
help manuals that only so and so clause is covered. Many designers have no time or intention to read such
clauses in the online help manual.
The buildings are already too complicated. The irregularity and torsion clauses have become too
complicated. They talk about mode shapes and their contribution. A vast majority of structural designers
June 2023
(without or with MTech degree) have little or no comprehension of structural dynamics. Nor, they have
any idea of the consequences of various modeling options and interpretation of results given out by the
software. They only know how to input data and see the results. The net result is NON-COMPLIANCE of
the code. Even during the so-called proof-checking, it is impossible to detect such issues. The Indian
consultancy market is not as regulated and mature as in the developed world. It is chaotic to say the least.
Let us face the stark reality. Most of the clauses in Indian earthquake codes are copied from various
international codes and edited as per the judgement of the committee members. There is hardly any in-
house research in IITs, Universities, and CSIR labs worth including in these codes. If this is the state of
affairs in the country, how can one expect that the structural designers are super human?
All the stakeholders of the earthquake codes must seriously think and debate over the entire
development and then take a conscious decision in the interest of the people and the country. The person
or persons associated with the development of the proposed PEHM map as well as drafting of the code
MUST NOT hold veto power over the final decision. This will eliminate the occurrences of so many flip-flops
within different editions of the code.
The Code must be simple, rational, easy to comprehend and easy to implement. It should not become a
research document like NEHRP which is meant to be a research document and a template for future codes.
It should stop acting like a policeman at each step. Do this, cannot do this, stuff.
Finally,
Will BIS/Chairman, CED 39 Earthquake committee give a guarantee that no building will suffer any damage
and there will be no casualty if any building is designed using such a massive increase in seismic forces??
In view of the above discussion based on historical and technical perspectives, the
proposed seismic map ought to be withdrawn. If not, it will lead to complete chaos.
References
Prakash, V., Pore, S.M., and Jain A. K. (2006), The Role of Reduction Factor and Importance Factor
in Fifth Revision of IS:1893, Proc 13th Symposium on Earthquake Engg, IIT Roorkee, Dec 18-20,
pp. 964-977
Jain, A. K. (2016) Dynamics of Structures with MATLAB Applications, 1st ed., Pearson India.
Jain, A. K. (2023) Dynamics of Structures with Earthquake Engineering, 2nd ed., Pearson India,
(Now available on Amazon).
June 2023

Critical Review of Is 1893-1 and - 2 Draft 2023 Ver 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 Is 1893-1 and - 2 Draft 2023 Ver 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMPARISON OF SELECTED CLAUSES OF IS 1893-1-2016 AND DRAFT 1893-1 & 2-2023

Critical Review of Selected Parts of

Background of Earthquake Measurements

1I Dr. Ashok K. Jain, Retd. Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

Draft 1893 Code – seismic map

Proposed New Seismic Map of India April 2023

2I Dr. Ashok K. Jain, Retd. Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

3I Dr. Ashok K. Jain, Retd. Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

Fundamental time period = 1 sec

Response reduction factor R = 5

(a) Importance factor = 1.0; (b) Importance factor = 1.5; (IS1893-2016)

Locations: Roorkee, Delhi, and Hyderabad

Use both 1893-2016 and 2023 draft codes.

(a) For normal RC ductile building,

0.24 × 1.5 × 1.36

4I Dr. Ashok K. Jain, Retd. Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

Soil site class C

I = 1.0 I = 1.0 (Part 2 -5.2.2.3)

(a) For normal RC ductile building

𝑨𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝒁 × 𝑰 × 𝑨𝑵𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝟎. 𝟓 × 𝟏 × 𝟏. 𝟓 = 𝟎. 𝟕𝟓 (6.2.4.4)

𝑨𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝒁 × 𝑰 × 𝑨𝑵𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝟎. 𝟔 × 𝟏 × 𝟏. 𝟓 = 𝟎. 𝟗𝟎

5I Dr. Ashok K. Jain, Retd. Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

(a) For normal RC ductile building

0.24 × 1.5 × 1.36

Soil site class C

I = 1.0 I = 1.0 (Part 2 -5.2.2.3)

(a) For normal RC ductile building

𝑨𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝒁 × 𝑰 × 𝑨𝑵𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝟎. 𝟑 × 𝟏 × 𝟏. 𝟓 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟓 (6.2.4.4)

𝑨𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝒁 × 𝑰 × 𝑨𝑵𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟔 × 𝟏 × 𝟏. 𝟓 = 𝟎. 𝟓𝟒

6I Dr. Ashok K. Jain, Retd. Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

(a) For normal RC ductile building

0.10 × 1.5 × 1.36

Soil site class C

I = 1.0 I = 1.0 (Part 2 -5.2.2.3)

7I Dr. Ashok K. Jain, Retd. Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

R = 5 for both kinds of buildings (Part 2-Table 3)

(a) For normal RC ductile building

𝑨𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝒁 × 𝑰 × 𝑨𝑵𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟓 × 𝟏 × 𝟏. 𝟓 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟏𝟐𝟓 (6.2.4.4)

𝑨𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝒁 × 𝑰 × 𝑨𝑵𝑯 (𝑻) = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟎 × 𝟏 × 𝟏. 𝟓 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟓

Restrictions on Base Shear in 1893-2-2023 draft – Clause 5.2.3

8I Dr. Ashok K. Jain, Retd. Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

Review of IS 1893-1 part 2 Buildings

R = 4.5 for SCBF; R = 5 for SEBF; IS 1893-1-2016

R = 4.5 for SCBF; R = 5.5 for SEBF; IS 1893-2-2023

RC structural walls (Shear walls) with and without boundary elements.

R = 4.0 for Special structural walls IS 1893-1-2016

R = 4.0 for Special structural walls without boundary elements IS 1893-2-2023

R = 5.0 for Special structural walls with boundary elements IS 1893-2-2023

Buildings with dual systems

Such a classification existed even in 2002 and 2016 edition.

R = 5.0 for Special structural walls + SMRF IS 1893-1-2016

(a) Experimental method,

9I Dr. Ashok K. Jain, Retd. Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

Design Eccentricity – Clause 7.9.2

In the 2002 edition, the design eccentricity was defined as follows:

𝑒𝑑𝑖 = 1.5 𝑒𝑠𝑖 + 0.05 𝑏𝑖

Design Eccentricity – Clause 7.8.2

In the 2016 edition, the design eccentricity was defined as follows:

𝑒𝑑𝑖 = 1.5 𝑒𝑠𝑖 + 0.05 𝑏𝑖

Design Eccentricity – Clause 5.2.5.1

𝑒𝑑𝑖 = 1.8 𝑒𝑠𝑖 + 0.05 𝑏𝑖

Implication of Importance factor I Table 2 of the draft code is reproduced below.

Table 4 Zone Factor times Importance factors as in IS 1893-1-2016