Comparative study of Seismic

Analysis of Framed RC building with

IS:1893-2002 & IS:1893-2016
APROJECT REPORT

Submitted By

Nishad Rajgor (170923106033)

Kamlesh Ramanandi (170923106034)

Mayur Motiyani (170923106025)

Lalji Prajapati (170923106031)

For the partial fulfilment of the award of the degree

of

BATCHELORS OF ENGINEERING (CIVIL ENGINEERING)

Under the supervision of

Mr. BRIJESH RAYCHANDA

VEERAYATAN INSTITUE OF ENGINEERING

HARIPAR, BHUJ- MANDVI HIGHWAY, TAL- MANDVI, KUTCH,
GUJARAT, INDIA
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to express deepest gratitude to my guide Mr. BRIJESH
RAYCHANDA for providing me the visualization about the dissertation. His
guidance has helped us in all the time of research and writing of this thesis.
We would also like to thank him for his continuous support and guidance. We
know acknowledgement is not well enough to scale his help. Yet we take this
opportunity, to express our gratitude towards him without whom our
dissertation work could not have shaped.

We are grateful to our families, who have provided us with moral and
emotional support in our lives. They have helped and supported us along the
way. Last, but not least, we would like to thank the authors of various research
articles that we have referred to.

Nishad Rajgor (170923106033)

Kamlesh Ramanandi (170923106034)

Mayur Motiyani (170923106025)

Lalji Prajapati (170923106031)

ii
 ABSTRACT
Key Words: Seismic Analysis, Multi-storey Building, IS: 1893-2002, IS: 1893-

2016, Earthquake Zone-V, comparative study

The study of response of structure under various dynamic loading such as

earthquake, wind, impulse, etc. is known as structural dynamics.
Determination of dynamic response in terms of displacement, velocity and
acceleration is very important in structural dynamics.

The study of the response of the structure under various dynamic loading
such as earthquake, wind, impulse, etc. is known as structural dynamics.
Determination of dynamic response in terms of displacement, velocity and
acceleration is very important in structural dynamics. In recent times, there
have been innumerable examples of devastation due to earthquakes recorded
worldwide and hence, seismic study and Seismic behaviour of any structure
plays the most important role in studying structural dynamic response of a
structure.

For the purpose of Seismic Analysis of any structure, IS: 1893 – 2002 Criteria
for Earthquake Design of Structures is followed and referred to, but after a
gap of 14 years, IS: 1893:2016 was released. With time being, due to
noticeable increase in earthquake calamities, design parameters for seismic
analysis required changes and are updated in IS: 1893:2016.

The proposed project presents the seismic load estimation and seismic
behaviour of the multi-storey building as per IS 1893:2002 and IS 1893:2016
recommendation.. Base shear, time period, maximum storey displacement are
the governing parameters for analysing seismic behaviour of a structure.
Hence, all the above mentioned parameters would be compared on the basis
of analysis done using both the IS Codal Provisions.

Moreover, in draft code, additional clarity regarding different types of the

irregularity of structural systems, the effect of masonry infill works on the

iii
design of the framed building, simplifying torsional provisions and simplified
method of liquefaction potential analysis are carried out as extra items.

In the proposed research work, the differences among both the codal
provisions is studied and illustrated by performing seismic analysis on G+4
RC Framed structure in STAAD PRO Software according to IS-1893(Part-1) :
2002 as well as IS-1893(Part-1) : 2016

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page No.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii

ABSTRACT
iii

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS viii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1

1.1 Background............................................................................................1

1.2 Need of Study........................................................................................2

1.3 Objectives of The Study.........................................................................2

1.4 Organization of Report...........................................................................3

References..........................................................................................................3

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE SURVEY 5

2.1 Introduction............................................................................................5

2.2 literature review......................................................................................5

References..........................................................................................................6

CHAPTER 3. COMPARISON OF IS CODES: IS-1893, PART-1 (2002) AND

(2016) 7

3.1 General..................................................................................................7

3.2 Concept ofCodal Provisions For Seismic Analysis................................7

3.3 Comparison of IS Codes: IS-1893, Part-1 (2002) and (2016)...............8

3.4 Conclusion...........................................................................................13

References........................................................................................................14

CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 15

4.1 Background..........................................................................................15

v
4.2 comparative study using STAAD PRO................................................16

4.3 Building properties...............................................................................16

4.4 STAAD PRO model and analysis........................................................17

4.5 Conclusion...........................................................................................21

References........................................................................................................22

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION 23

vi
 LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page No.
Table 1: Comparison IS – 1893 (part-1): 2002 and 2016..................................9

vii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Word(s)

IS Code Indian Standard Code

viii
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The study of the response of the structure under various dynamic loading
such as earthquake, wind, impulse, etc is known as structural dynamics.
Determination of dynamic response in terms of displacement, velocity and
acceleration is very important in structural dynamics.

In present times, earthquake is one of the natural calamities causing

devastating effects to structure and mankind. Many structures cannot
withstand this movement and suffer damages of various kinds and degrees.

In recent times, there have been innumerable examples of devastation due to

earthquakes recorded worldwide and hence, seismic study and Seismic
behaviour of any structure plays the most important role in studying structural
dynamic response of a structure.

For the purpose of Seismic Analysis of any structure, IS: 1893 – 2002 Criteria
for Earthquake Design of Structures is followed and referred to, but after a
gap of 14 years, IS: 1893:2016 was released. With time being, due to
noticeable increase in earthquake calamities, design parameters for seismic
analysis required changes and are updated in IS: 1893:2016.

The sixth revision of IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016, "Criteria for Earthquake Resistant
Design Of Structures" have been published by Bureau of Indian Standards
recently in December 2016. In this new code many changes have been
included.

Various major changes included in the new edition of IS: 1893 (2016) -
"Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design Of Structures" includes many major
parameters governing the estimation of seismic effect of any amplitude of
earthquake on a building.

1
1.2 NEED OF STUDY

India has witnessed innumerable earthquakes and followed by massive

devastation and disruption of human lives and that directly affects the
economy of the country. IS - 19893 Part-1 is used for design of structures on
the basis of seismic loads and seismic analysis.

In recent years, the researchers have keenly observed all recorded past
earthquakes and deriving inferences from all the past records. The sixth
revision of IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016, "Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design
Of Structures" have been published by Bureau of Indian Standards recently in
December 2016.

Hence, it becomes inevitable to study the improvisations as well as changes

made in the newly published IS Code and understand implementation on
structural design of structures for better seismic performance.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objectives of this study are as follows:

1. To study IS – 1893 Part-1 (2002) Criteria for Earthquake Design of

Structures
2. To study IS – 1893 Part-1 (2016) Criteria for Earthquake Design of
Structures
3. To conduct literature review of various research works carried out to
study use and effect of “ IS – 1893 Part-1 (2002) Criteria for Earthquake
Design of Structures” on various structures designed.
4. To conduct literature review of various research works carried out to
study use and effect of “ IS – 1893 Part-1 (2016) Criteria for Earthquake
Design of Structures” on various structures designed.
5. To compare the seismic IS – 1893 Part-1 (2002) and IS – 1893 Part-1
(2016)

2
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

Introduction of each chapter of this project and its contents are briefly
discussed here:

CHAPTER – 1: In this chapter, the concept of seismic analysis and

importance of seismic code: IS-1893:Criteria for Earthquake Design of
Structures” is represented along with the need of study and objectives of the
study. Organization of report is also presented in this chapter.

CHAPTER – 2: Literature review of various research works carried out to

study use and effect of “ IS – 1893 Part-1 (2002) and (2016) Criteria for
Earthquake Design of Structures” on various structures designed is presented
in this chapter.

CHAPTER – 3: In this section, results of comparative study of both the codal

revisions are represented.

CHAPTER – 4: In this chapter, the conclusions obtained from the comparative

study are presented. Work which can be carried out in future is also
mentioned in this section.

REFERENCES

IS – 1893 Part-1 (2002) Criteria for Earthquake Design of Structures

IS – 1893 Part-1 (2016) Criteria for Earthquake Design of Structures

Anoj, S., Sanjay, K. and Manoj, D. (2018) ‘Seismic Analysis and Comparison
of IS 1893 (Part -1) 2002 and 2016 of (G+4) Regular and Irregular Building’ ,
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 7, no. 6, June, pp. 7014 -7025.

3
Mayur, R., Bhavik, P. and Dr. R. P. Rethaliya (2018) ‘A Comparative Study of
Various Clauses of New IS 1893 (Part 1):2016 and Old IS 1893 (Part
1):2002.’, International Journal for Research in Applied Science &
Engineering Technology (IJRASET), Vol. 6, no. 1, January, pp.1874-1881.

Dr.Sudhir K Jain (2016) ‘Explanatory Examples on Indian Seismic Code IS

1893 (Part I)’ [Online], Available: http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/IITK-
GSDMA/EQ21.pdf

4
 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE SURVEY

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Study of the seismic response of structures is very crucial for design of

structures in countries like India where innumerable experiences of
Earthquake have been seen.The seismic analysis is carried out according to
IS code: IS-1893:Criteria for Earthquake Design of Structures”. A brief
summary of a review of the literature on use of codal provisions and
comparison of the 2002 code and revised 2016 code is presented here.

2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Dr.Sudhir K Jain (2016) has mentioned solved examples on the basis of IS-
1893 (Part-1): 2016. He has explained 1. Calculation of Design Seismic Force
by Static Analysis Method, 2. Calculation of Design Seismic Force by
Dynamic Analysis Method, 3. Location of Centre of Mass, 4. Location of
Centre of Stiffness, 5. Lateral Force Distribution as per Torsion Provisions of
IS 1893-2002 (Part I), 6. Lateral Force Distribution as per New Torsion
Provisions, 7. Design for Anchorage of an Equipment, 8. Anchorage Design
for an Equipment Supported on Vibration Isolator, 9. Design of a Large Sign
Board on a Building, 10. Liquefaction Analysis Using SPT Data, 11.
Liquefaction Analysis Using CPT Data.

Mayur et al. (2018) have studied IS – 8193 (Part-1): 2002 and IS – 8193
(Part-1): 2016 and have represented all the changes made in the code IS
-8193 (Part -1) in its sixth edition (2016 edition). They have shown all the
changes made in the new code in a tabular format and have summarized
there inferences from the comparison made.

Anoj et al. (2018) carried out seismic analysis of a G+4 Building. For the
purpose of study they have considered regular and irregular building located
in Zone – III as well as Zone- IV separately. ETAB Software is used for
seismic analysis for both the regular and irregular G+4 Building situated in

5
Zone III, IV as per IS-1893 (2002) and IS-1893 (2016). They have conducted
a comparative study of the effect of various changes made in both the codal
provisions on various governing seismic parameters like Base Shear,
Maximum Storey Displacement, Lateral Forces and Overturning Moment.

REFERENCES

Dr. Sudhir K Jain (2016) ‘Explanatory Examples on Indian Seismic Code IS

1893 (Part I)’ [Online], Available: http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/IITK-
GSDMA/EQ21.pdf

Mayur, R., Bhavik, P. and Dr. R. P. Rethaliya (2018) ‘A Comparative Study of

Various Clauses of New IS 1893 (Part 1):2016 and Old IS 1893 (Part
1):2002.’, International Journal for Research in Applied Science &
Engineering Technology (IJRASET), Vol. 6, no. 1, January, pp.1874-1881.

Anoj, S., Sanjay, K. and Manoj, D. (2018) ‘Seismic Analysis and Comparison
of IS 1893 (Part -1) 2002 and 2016 of (G+4) Regular and Irregular Building’ ,
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 7, no. 6, June, pp. 7014 -7025.

6
 CHAPTER 3. COMPARISON OF IS CODES: IS-1893,
PART-1 (2002) AND (2016)

3.1 GENERAL

India is prone to strong earthquake shaking, and hence earthquake resistant

design is essential. The Engineers do not attempt to make earthquake proof
buildings that will not get damaged even during the rare but strong
earthquake. Such buildings will be too robust and also too expensive.

Design of buildings wherein there is no damage during the strong but rare
earthquake is called earthquake proof design. The engineers do not attempt
to make earthquake proof buildings that will not get damaged even during the
rare but strong earthquake. Such buildings will be too robust and also too
expensive.

The aim of the earthquake resistant design is to have structures that will
behave elastically and survive without collapse under major earthquakes that
might occur during the life of the structure. To avoid collapse during a major
earthquake, structural members must be ductile enough to absorb and
dissipate energy by post elastic deformation.

3.2 CONCEPT OFCODAL PROVISIONS FOR SEISMIC

ANALYSIS

With rapid strides in earthquake engineering in the last several decades, the
seismic codes are becoming increasingly sophisticated. The first Indian
seismic code (IS 1893) was published in 1962 and it has since been revised
in 1966, 1970, 1975 and 1984. More recently, it was decided to split this code
into a number of parts, and Part 1 of the code containing general provisions
(applicable to all structures) and specific provisions for buildings has been
published.

7
Considerable advances had occurred in the knowledge related to earthquake
resistant design of structures during the 18 years interval between the two
editions of the code. Some of these developments had been incorporated in
the 2002 version of the code, while many others were left out so that the
implementation of the code does not become too tedious for Indian
professional engineers.

For example, in the United States, the codes are revised every three years,
and hence, a typical building code in the United States has acquired
sophistication gradually over about six revisions during these 18 years. Since
the Indian code has had to make a quantum jump with respect to many of the
provisions, it still required considerable effort for an average professional
engineer to fully appreciate the new code and to be able to implement it
correctly.

And in order to incorporate latest advances in seismic studies and their effect
on seismic behaviour of structures, Bureau of Indian Standard Codes has
come up with the sixth edition of IS: 1893 in the year of 2016 after a gap of 14
long years.

3.3 COMPARISON OF IS CODES: IS-1893, PART-1 (2002) AND

(2016)

A comprehensive study of various clauses of New IS 1893 (Part 1):2016 and

Old IS 1893 (Part 1):2002 has been made.

Many clauses of old IS 1893-2002 has been revised in new IS 1893-2016.

The revisions in major clauses has been presented in the table below with
critical comments on that.

8
 Table 1: Comparison IS – 1893 (part-1): 2002 and 2016

Sr. IS- 1893 (Part-1): 2002 IS- 1893 (Part-1): 2016 Comments
No
.
1. Importance Factor (I):cl.6.4.2. Importance Factor Design horizontal Seismic coefficient
Importance Factor 1.5 was for (I):cl.7.2.3 Z I Sa
Ah = . .
important structures, and 1.0 for For Residential or 2 R g
all other buildings, Table-6. Commercial buildings, As “I” increases, Ah will increase and therefore Base
with occupancy more than Shear V b will increase. This may lead to increase in
200 persons, importance amount of lateral loads on the structure and eventually
factor 1.2 has been increases the sizes of the lateral load resisting members
assigned, in new code and reinforcement. Ultimately structure cost may
Table-8 increase, but at the same time, the structural strength is
also increased towards earthquake forces.
2. Soft story: cl. 4.20 A soft storey Soft story: cl. 4.20.1A In new code IS 1893-2016, the criteria for soft story are
is defined as the storey in which soft storey is defined as made stricter. The stiffness of lower story should not be
the lateral stiffness is less than the storeyin which the less than that of the upper story.Soft story is a source of
70 % of that in the storey above, lateral stiffness is less weakness in the structure and should be avoided.
orless than 80 % of the average than that in the storey
lateral stiffness of the three above.
storey above.

9
3. Weak story: cl. 4.25 As per old Weak storey: cl. 4.20.2As In new code IS 1893-2016, the criteria for weak story are
IS 1893-2002, a weak Storey is per new IS 1893-2016, a also made stricter. The design shear strength of lower
defined as the Storey in which weak Storey is defined as Storey should not be less than that of the upper
the lateral strength is – less than the Storey in which the Storey.Weak story is a source of weakness in the
80 % of that in the Storey above. lateral strength is less structure and should be avoided.
than that in the Storey
above.

4. Dynamic Analysis Dynamic Analysis Dynamic analysis considers different mode

Requirement :cl.7.8.1 Requirement : cl.7.7.1 shapes, modal mass participation in each mode and
For Regular Buildings:Zone- Equivalent static analysis modal combinations. Hence, in seismic zones III, IV and
IV,V-height>40m Zone-II, III- shall be applicable for V and height of building more than 15 m, it is safer to
height>90m regular buildings with perform dynamic analysis.I.e. Dynamic analysis is
For Irregular Buildings: Zone-IV, height < 15m in seismic compulsory for almost all buildings in all zones.
V- height>12mZone-II, III- Zone II. [ cl.7.6. and
height>40m cl.7.7.1]
Equivalent Static method
should be used for
regular building structure
with approximate natural
periods is less than 0.4
sec.[cl.6.4.3]
6. Moment of Inertia (I): Clause Moment of Inertia (I): This clause is added for safety and post-earthquake
regarding Moment of Inertia is cl.6.4.3.1 effect.
not mentioned in old code. The moment of inertia for In old IS 1893-2002 full section, i.e. full M.I. of columns
Thus analysis is made structural analysis shall be and beams is considered. In new code IS 1893-2016,
considering full Moment of taken as given below: cracked section with 70% MI of columns and 35 % MI of

10
 Inertia, i.e. Uncracked section is For RC and Masonry beams is considered.
considered. Structures :Ieq= 0.70 As concrete is seems to be cracked section all time, one
Igrossfor columns Ieq= 0.35 cannot consider the full MI of RC section for analysis.
Igrossfor beams Full
For Steel structures :Ieq= MI of RC members make structure stiff hence the
Igross for beams and deflection at top storey, drift of storey, lateral
columns displacement of storey etc. are estimated wrongly as
This clause of code takes smaller values. On the other hand by considering the
into account, the cracked cracked moment of inertia lateral deflection, drifts etc.
section properties.
7. Torsion irregularity: cl.7.1 Torsion irregularity: As per old code IS 1893-2002, torsional irregularity is
Table-4 Torsional irregularity As cl.7.1 based on 1.2 times average drift of structure, While as
per old code is Table-5 Torsional per new codeit is based on 1.5 times minimum
Δ2 > 1.2 (Δ1 + Δ2)/2 irregularity As per new displacement.
code is
Δmax > 1.5 Δmin.
When ,
Δmax > (1.5- 2.0) Δmin
Configuration shall be
revised.

8. Increase in allowable soil Increase in net pressure For determining percentage increase in net bearing

11
 pressure cl.6.3.5.2. When on soils in design of pressure, soils have been classified in to four types,
earthquake forces are foundations cl.6.3.5.2 Type-A, B, C, and D in Table-2, which is not available in
considered, increase in New code IS 1893-2016, old code. Soil Type-D is included and designated as
allowable pressure in soils for gives percentage increase unstable collapsible, liquefiable soils.
different types of soils (Type-I, II, in net bearing pressure When N values are less than desirable N values in Table
III) and different types of and skin pressures for soil 1, it is stipulated that using suitable ground improvement
foundations, namely, piles, raft, types A, B, and C as 50%, technique, the N values should be increased. In old code
well foundations, etc., was given 25%, and 0% respectively compacting was suggested for increase of N. The new
in Table-1 from 25 % to 50 %. in Table-1. For soft soil no code is silent for the method. It is necessary to know, for
increase in bearing how much depth, the compaction is required. Dynamic
pressure shall be applied compaction is a costlier method and can be used in VIP
because, settlements structures.
cannot be restricted by
increasing bearing
pressure.

3.4 CONCLUSION

Studying and after comparing IS – 1893 Part-1 (2002) and IS – 1893 Part-1 (2016) the following conclusions are made:
1. Importance factor for multi storey residential buildings has been changed from 1.0 to 1.2. As I increases, Ah will increase
and therefore Base shear VB will increase. This may lead to increase in size of lateral load resisting members and
reinforcement. Ultimately structure cost may increase.
2. Response spectra for Equivalent Static Method and Response Spectrum method are given separately, in both cases
Sa/g values will change. It will change the values of Ah and VB.

12
 3. As per Old code IS 1893-2002 if Stiffness of masonry infill is not considered in analysis, it will increase the sizes of lateral
load resisting elements like-columns/shear walls.
4. As per IS 1893-2016 New code, Modelling with URM infill consider the stiffness of the infill in analysis thus, sizes of
columns/shear wall may decrease or increase as per the stiffness distribution.
5. In old IS 1893-2002 full section, i.e. full M.I. of columns and beams is considered.
6. In new code IS 1893-2016, cracked section with 70% MI of columns and 35 % MI of beams is considered.
7. As cracks may develop in structure after some period, MI of sections may reduce and hence for safety it is more
reasonable to consider cracked section properties in analysis.
8. As per new IS 1893-2016 Equivalent static analysis shall be applicable for regular buildings with height < 15m in seismic
Zone II.

REFERENCES

IS – 1893 Part-1 (2002) Criteria for Earthquake Design of Structures

IS – 1893 Part-1 (2016) Criteria for Earthquake Design of Structures

13
 CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1 BACKGROUND

In overhauling world, infrastructures have become omnipresent and it is

inevitable to imagine today’s world without it. Buildings made from concrete is
one of the basic form of infrastructures which can be seen everywhere.
Process of construction of a building entails different department such as
architects, structure designer, contractors etc. with all the help of these
departments, building is being erected such that it can withstand vigorous
vertical loads and ground motion which is the result of earthquakes. Designer
has to be very careful while considering these forces as little miscalculations
will lead to failure of the structure because ground motions, being the complex
concept, needs to be analyzed in a very scrutinized manner. Therefore, the
resistance of a building and its design as per the guidelines of seismic codes
has become an important research area. Sometimes, addition of members
other than beams and columns are required to resist these produced lateral
forces.

IS: 1893-2016, being the latest Seismic Indian Code, provides amendments
regarding the design of the earthquake resistant building. Various
amendments and new guidelines were introduced in this code but the major
one was related to the dynamic seismic analysis. It stated that dynamic
seismic analysis shall be adopted for all the buildings other than regular
buildings lower than 15 m in height in seismic zone II.

Previously, dynamic seismic analysis shall on be adopted if the height of

regular building exceeds 40m, otherwise static seismic analysis shall be used.
Therefore, while keeping both the codes (new and old version of earthquake
code), a comparative study of static analysis (as per is: 1893-2002) & dynamic
analysis (as per is: 1893-2016) in seismic zone V has been carried out.
Various seismic parameters are to be considered while designing earthquake
resistant building such as type of structure, material which is being used for
construction, type of foundation soil etc. Two different methods, which are
being used for making the structures earthquake resistant, are:
1. Equivalent Static Seismic Analysis
2. Dynamic Seismic Analysis.
a. Response Spectrum Method
b. Modal Time History Method
c. Time History Method

14
The seismic codes are prepared with consideration of seismology of country,
accepted level of seismic risk, properties of construction materials,
Construction methods, and structure typologies etc.

In India, IS 1893 (Part1) Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of

Structures is used as code of practice for analysis & designing of earthquake
resistant buildings. In the last decade, the detailed & advanced research,
damage survey was carried out by the Earthquake Engineering Sectional
Committee of Bureau of Indian Standards.

As a result, the huge data regarding behaviour of various types of structures

during earthquake was collected which gained the knowledge. This
continuous effort has resulted in revision of IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002. Hence, the
sixth revision of IS 1893 (Part 1) was published in 2016.

4.2 COMPARATIVE STUDY USING STAAD PRO

To study the effect of earthquake on a high-rise RC framed in earthquake

seismic zone V as per IS code 1893 (Part I):2002 and IS code 1893 (Part
I):2016Following steps of methods of analysis are adopted in this
study:
 Step-1: Selection of the structures
 Step-2: Selection of seismic zone (IV).
 Step-3: Formation of load combinations.
 Step-4: Modeling of building frames using STAAD-Pro software.
 Step-5: Response Spectrum Analysis of all the models.
 Step-6: Comparative study of results (seismic parameters) in terms of
Storey lateral displacement and Base shear.

4.3 BUILDING PROPERTIES

Site Properties:
 Details of building: G+4 RC framed structure
 Plan Dimension: 16.50 m x 12.50 m ,
 4m span in Y-direction
 5m span, 6m span and 5m span in X-direction.
 Outer wall thickness: 230mm
 Inner wall thickness: 230mm
 Column Dimension: 500 mm x 500 mm
 Beam Dimension: 230mm X 600mm
 Slab Thickness: 150 mm

15
  Floor height : 3 m

Material Properties:
 Steel: Fe-415
 Concrete: M25

Loading on structure:
o Live Load: 4.0 KN/m2
o Slab Weight: 3.75 KN/m2
o Floor Finish: 1 KN/m2
o Wall Load: 10KN/m (Downwards)
o Wall Thickness: 230 mm
o Earthquake Load: As Per IS: 1893-2002 (Part-1), IS 1893-2016 (Part 1)
o Seismic Zone: V

Method of Analysis:

o Static Analysis in STAAD Pro

4.4 STAAD PRO MODEL AND ANALYSIS

16
Slab Load applied in STAAD PRO Model

Wall Load applied in STAAD PRO Model

17
Seismic Parameters for STAAD PRO MODELING:
o According to for IS :1893 -2016 importance factor is 1.2 for residential
and Commercial buildings

o According to for IS :1893 -2002 importance factor is 1.0 for residential

and Commercial buildings

18
Result of STAAD PRO Analysis:
Fy for DL at Mid Point on Top Storey according to 2016 Codal Provisions

Mz for DL at Mid Point on Top Storey according to 2016 Codal Provisions

19
  Time period for loading = 0.36000 sec
 SA/G = 2.500,
 Load factor = 1.000
 STAAD Pro Analysis as per IS: 1893-2016 (Part 1).
o Final "Vb" = 1463.77197 KN
 STAAD Pro Analysis as per IS: 1893-2002(Part 1).
o Final "Vb" = 320.074 KN

Weight of Reinforcement to be provided:

 STAAD Pro Analysis as per IS: 1893-2016 (Part 1) : 14,123.24 Kg

 STAAD Pro Analysis as per IS: 1893-2002 (Part 1) : 11,099.69 Kg

4.5 CONCLUSION

 The design seismic force is much higher when calculated according to

IS: 1893-2016(Part-1) than what can be expected during strong
shaking and henceforth the reinforcement tonnage when calculated
using IS: 1893-2016(Part-1) is heavier than that compared to IS:1893-
2002(Part-1).
 Due to higher importance factor and higher factor of safety, base shear
value is higher when calculated using IS:1893-2016(Part-1) as
compared to that by IS:1893-2016(Part-1).

20
REFERENCES

IS – 1893 Part-1 (2002) Criteria for Earthquake Design of Structures

IS – 1893 Part-1 (2016) Criteria for Earthquake Design of Structures

Anirudh Gottala, “Comparative study of static and dynamic seismic analysis of a

multistorey building”, International Journal of Science Technology and
Engineering.

S.K. Ahirwar, S.K. Jain & M.M. Pande, Earthquake loads on multi-storey
buildings as per IS 1893-1984 & IS 1893 – 2002: A comparative study, the 14th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.

21
 CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION

 The seismic design approach, in both the versions, is based on

designing a strong and ductile structure. Unlike previous version of
2002, the latest 2016 version clearly reflects that design seismic
force is much higher than what can be expected during strong
shaking.
 In IS: 1893-2002 version, seismic coefficient method yields lower
values of base shear relative to equivalent static method.
 The models analyzed as per the codal provisions in IS 1893-2016
have higher Values of storey displacement than the models
analyzed as per IS 1893-2002, this is due to the higher factor of
safety considered in IS 1893-2016.
 For models analyzed as per the codal provisions in IS1893-2002,
the time history method gives higher values of storey displacement
and storey drift ratio when compared with response spectrum
method models. But for models analyzed as per the IS 1893- 2016
there is no much variation in the storey displacement and storey
drift values.
 Time period, modal mass participation ratio and storey stiffness for
the models analyzed by both the methods (response spectrum
method and time history method) gave the same values.

22