Lecture4 1

Lecture 4
This lecture covers

Sections 6.2 and 6.3
IS:1893-2002(Part I)
January 17, 2003
1
General Principles and Design Criteria (Section 6)
 Four main sub-sections

 Cl. 6.1: General Principles
 Cl. 6.2: Assumptions
 Cl. 6.3: Load Combination and Increase in Permissible
Stresses
 Cl. 6.4: Design Spectrum
 This lecture covers sub-sections: Cl. 6.2 and Cl.
6.3
 Sudhir K. Jain, IIT Kanpur E-Course on IS:1893 / January 2003 Lecture 4 / Slide 2
Cl.6.2 Assumptions
 Same as in the 1984 edition, except the Note
after Assumption a)
 There have been instances such as the Mexico
earthquake of 1985 which have necessitated this
note.
Mexico Earthquake of 1985
 Earthquake occurred 400 km from Mexico
City
 Great variation in damages in Mexico City
 Some parts had very strong shaking
 In some parts of city, motion was hardly felt
 Ground motion records from two sites:
 UNAM site: Foothill Zone with 3-5m of basaltic
rock underlain by softer strata
 SCT site: soft soils of the Lake Zone
Mexico Earthquake of 1985 (contd…)
 PGA at SCT site about 5 times higher than that at UNAM

site
 Epicentral distance is same at both locations
Time (sec)
Figure from Kramer, 1996
Mexico Earthquake of 1985 (contd…)
 Extremely soft soils in Lake Zone amplified

weak long-period waves
 Natural period of soft clay layers happened to be
close to the dominant period of incident seismic
waves
 This lead to resonance-like conditions
 Buildings between 7 and 18 storeys
suffered extensive damage
 Natural period of such buildings close to the
period of seismic waves.
Assumption b)
 A strong earthquake takes place infrequently.
 A strong wind also takes place infrequently.
 Hence, the possibility of strong wind and strong
ground shaking taking place simultaneously is
very very low.
 It is common to assume that strong earthquake
shaking and strong wind will not occur
simultaneously.
 Same with strong earthquake shaking and maximum flood.
Assumption c) on Modulus of Elasticity
 Modulus of elasticity of materials such as

concrete, masonry and soil is difficult to specify
 Its value depends on
 Stress level
 Loading condition (static versus dynamic)
 Material strength
 Age of material, etc
Modulus of Elasticity
 There tends to be large variation in the value of
E for some materials
 For instance, consider E for concrete under
static condition as per Indian code
 IS:456-1978 specified the value as 5700fck
 IS:456-2000 specified the value as 5000fck
 Further, actual concrete strength will be
different from the specified value
 Value specified in general building codes (such
as IS:456) meant for conservative estimation of
deflections.
Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete
 Stress-strain relationship of concrete is not
linear. Hence, a number of definitions.
Stress
Strain
Modulus of Elasticity for Masonry
 E of masonry has even larger variation than that
for concrete MPa
Modulus of elasticity, Em ksi (*103)
MPa (*103)
Compressive Strength f’mt , ksi
Clay brick masonry Fig. from Drysdale et al., 1994
Modulus of Elasticity for Dynamic Analysis
 Value of E for concrete tends to be higher under
dynamic conditions than under static conditions
 A high-value of E:
 Gives lower estimate of T and hence higher estimate of
design seismic loads: Conservative
 Gives higher value of inter-storey drift (relative
displacement between two consecutive floors):
Unconservative
 Assumption c) specifically allows use of static
value as specified in general building codes. But
designer is free to choose any other justified
value.
Modulus of Elasticity for Dynamic Analysis (contd…)
 Low value of E leads to lower design seismic

force.
 A safeguard against very low value of E
introduced in Cl.7.8.2
Cl.6.3 Load Combinations and Increase in
Permissible Stresses
 Cl.6.3.1.1 gives load combinations for Plastic

Design of Steel Structures
 Same as in IS:800-1978
 More about it later
 Cl.6.3.1.2 gives load combinations for Limit
State Design for RC and Prestressed Concrete
Structures
 Same as in IS:456-2000 (RC structures) and IS:1343-1980
(Prestressed structures) with one difference
Load Combinations in Cl.6.3.1.2
 Compare combinations of this clause with those
in Table 18 (p.68) of IS:456-2000
 Combination 0.9DL  1.5EL
 The way this combination is written in IS:456, the footnote
creates an impression that it is not always needed.
 It has been noticed that many designers do not routinely
consider this combination because of the way it is written.
Load Combination 0.9DL 1.5EL
 Horizontal loads are reversible in direction.
 In many situations, design is governed by effect
of horizontal load minus effect of gravity loads.
 In such situations, a load factor higher than 1.0 on gravity
loads will be unconservative.
 Hence, a load factor of 0.9 specified on gravity loads in the
combination 4)
 Many designs of footings, columns, and positive
steel in beams at the ends in frame structures
are governed by this load combination
Load Combination 0.9DL  1.5EL
 Hence, this combination has been made very
specific in IS:1893-2002.
 Such a combination is not given in IS:800 for
Plastic Design of Steel Structure but it should be
introduced in the next revision.
Direction of Earthquake Loading
 During earthquake, ground moves in all
directions; the resultant direction changes every
instant.
 Ground motion can resolved in two horizontal and
one vertical direction.
 Structure should be able to withstand ground
motion in any direction
 Two horizontal components of ground motion
tend to be comparable
 Say, the epicentre is to the north of a site.
 Ground motion at site in the north-south and east-west
directions will still be comparable.
Direction of Earthquake Loading (contd…)
 Vertical component is usually smaller than the

horizontal motion
 Except in the epicentral region where vertical motion can
be comparable (or even stronger) to the horizontal motion
 As discussed earlier, generally, most ordinary
structures do not require analysis for vertical
ground motion.
Direction of Horizontal Ground Motion in Design
(Cl.6.3.2.1)
 Consider a building in which horizontal (also

termed as lateral) load is resisted by frames or
walls oriented in two perpendicular directions,
say X and Y.
 One must consider design ground motion to act
in X-direction, and in Y-direction, separately
 That is, one does not assume that the design
motion in X is acting simultaneously with the
design motion in the Y-direction
Cl.6.3.2.1 (contd…)
 If at a given instant, motion is in any direction

other than X or Y, one can resolve it into X- and
Y-components, and the building will still be safe
if it is designed for X- and Y- motions,
separately.
 Minor typo in this clause: “direction at time”
should be replaced by “direction at a time”
Load Combinations for Orthogonal System
 Load EL implies Earthquake Load in +X, -X, +Y, and –Y,
directions.
 Thus, an RC building with orthogonal system therefore
needs to be designed for the following 13 load cases:
 1.5 (DL+LL)
 1.2 (DL+LL+ELx) ELx = Design EQ load in X-direction
 1.2 (DL+LL-ELx)
 1.2 (DL+LL+ELy) ELy = Design EQ load in Y-direction
 1.2 (DL+LL-ELy)
 1.5 (DL+ELx)
 1.5 (DL-ELx)
 1.5 (DL+ELy)
 1.5 (DL-ELy)
 0.9DL +1.5ELx
 0.9DL-1.5ELx
 0.9DL+1.5ELy
 0.9DL-1.5ELy
Non-Orthogonal Systems (Cl.6.3.2.2)
 When the lateral load resisting elements are

NOT oriented along two perpendicular directions
 In such a case, design for X- and Y-direction
loads acting separately will be unconservative
for elements not oriented along X- and Y-
directions.
Non-Orthogonal Systems (Cl.6.3.2.2) (contd…)
 A lateral load resisting element (frame or wall) is

most critical when loading is in direction of the
element.
 It may be too tedious to apply lateral loads in
each of the directions in which the elements are
oriented.
 For such cases, the building may be designed
for:
 100% design load in X-direction and 30% design load in
Y-direction, acting simultaneously
 100% design load in Y-direction and 30% design load in
X-direction, acting simultaneously
ELx 0.3ELx
0.3ELy ELy
Note that directions of earthquake forces are

reversible. Hence, all combinations of directions
are to be considered.
 Thus, EL now implies eight possibilities:

+(Elx + 0.3ELy)
+(Elx - 0.3ELy)
-(Elx + 0.3ELy)
-(Elx - 0.3ELy)
+(0.3ELx + Ely)
+(0.3ELx - ELy)
-(0.3ELx + ELy)
-(0.3ELx - ELy)
Thereforer, one must consider 25 load cases:
1.5[DL+(ELx+0.3ELy)]
1.5 (DL+LL)
1.5[DL+(ELx-0.3ELy)]
1.5[DL-(ELx+0.3ELy)]
1.2[DL+LL+(ELx+0.3ELy)]
1.5[DL-(ELx-0.3ELy)]
1.2[DL+LL+(ELx-0.3ELy)]
1.5[DL+(0.3ELx+ELy)]
1.2[DL+LL-(ELx+0.3ELy)]
1.5[DL+(0.3ELx-ELy)]
1.2[DL+LL-(ELx-0.3ELy)]
1.5[DL-(0.3ELx+ELy)]
1.2[DL+LL+(0.3ELx+ELy)]
1.5[DL-(0.3ELx-ELy)]
1.2[DL+LL+(0.3ELx-ELy)]
1.2[DL+LL-(0.3ELx+ELy)]
0.9DL+1.5(ELx+0.3ELy)]
1.2[DL+LL-(0.3ELx-ELy)]
0.9DL+1.5(ELx-0.3ELy)]
0.9DL-1.5(ELx+0.3ELy)]
0.9DL-1.5(ELx-0.3ELy)]
0.9DL+1.5(0.3ELx+ELy)]
0.9DL+1.5(0.3ELx-ELy)]
0.9DL-1.5(0.3ELx+ELy)]
0.9DL-1.5(0.3ELx-ELy)]
 Note that the design lateral load for a building in

the X-direction may be different from that in the
Y-direction
 Some codes use 40% in place of 30%.
Cl.6.3.4.1
 In complex structures such as a nuclear reactor
building, one may have very complex structural
systems.
 Need for considering earthquake motion in all
three directions as per 100%+30% rule.
 Now, EQ load means the following 24 combinations:
  Elx  0.3ELy  0.3ELz
  Ely  0.3ELx  0.3ELz
  Elz  0.3ELx  0.3ELy
 Hence, EL now means 24 combinations
 A total of 73 load cases for RC structures!
Cl.6.3.4.2
 In place of 100%+30% rule, one may take for
design force resultants as per square root of
sum of squares in the two (or, three) directions
of ground motion
EL  (ELx)2  (ELy)2  (ELz)2
Increase in Permissible Stresses: Cl.6.3.5.1
 This clause is same as Cl.3.3.1 of 1984 version

of the code.
 Applicable for Working Stress Design
 Permits the designer to increase allowable
stresses in materials by 33% for seismic load
cases.
 Some constraints on 33% increase for steel and
for tensile stress in prestressed concrete beams.
Increase in Allowable Pressure in Soil: Cl.6.3.5.2
 First para of this clause same as Cl.3.3.3 of 1984

version of the code.
 Values in Table 1 are same as those in Table 1
of 1984 edition even though the Table format is
different.
Typographical Errors in Table 1
 The Table within Table 1, giving values of
desirable minimum values of N.
 This Table pertains to Note 3 and hence should be placed
between Notes 3 and 4 (and not between Notes 4 and 5 as
printed currently)
 Caption of first column in this sub-table should read
“Seismic Zone” and not “Seismic Zone level (in metres)”
 Caption of second column in this sub-table should read
“Depth Below Ground Level (in metres)” and not “Depth
Below Ground”
 Note 1 is also repeated within Note 4.
 Hence, Note 1 should be dropped.
Second Para of Cl.6.3.5.2
 Compare this para with Note 3, Table 1 in
IS:1893-1984
 It points out that in case of loose or medium
dense saturated soils, liquefaction may take
place.
 Sites vulnerable to liquefaction require
 Liquefaction potential analysis.
 Remedial measures to prevent liquefaction.
 Else, deep piles are designed assuming that soil layers
liable to liquefy will not provide lateral support to the pile
during ground shaking.
Liquefaction Potential
 Information given in cl.6.3.5.2 and Table 1 on
Liquefaction Potential is very primitive:
 Note to Cl.6.3.5.2 encourages the engineer to
refer to specialist literature for determining
liquefaction potential analysis.
 It is common these days to use SPT or CPT
results for detailed calculations on liquefaction
potential analysis.
At the end of Lecture 4
 I am receiving some very good questions. But, I
expect more enthusiasm in asking questions!

Lecture4 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture4 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture 4

This lecture covers

 Four main sub-sections

 PGA at SCT site about 5 times higher than that at UNAM

Figure from Kramer, 1996

 Extremely soft soils in Lake Zone amplified

 Modulus of elasticity of materials such as

Compressive Strength f’mt , ksi

Clay brick masonry Fig. from Drysdale et al., 1994

 Low value of E leads to lower design seismic

 Cl.6.3.1.1 gives load combinations for Plastic

 Vertical component is usually smaller than the

 Consider a building in which horizontal (also

 If at a given instant, motion is in any direction

 When the lateral load resisting elements are

 A lateral load resisting element (frame or wall) is

Note that directions of earthquake forces are

 Thus, EL now implies eight possibilities:

Thereforer, one must consider 25 load cases:

 Note that the design lateral load for a building in

 This clause is same as Cl.3.3.1 of 1984 version

 First para of this clause same as Cl.3.3.3 of 1984

You might also like