A Comparative Study on Seismic Provisions Made in Indian and International Building Codes for RC Buildings

Transcription

1 A Comparative Study on Seismic Provisions Made in Indian and International Building Codes for RC Buildings Dr. S.V. Itti*, Prof. Abhishek Pathade** and Ramesh B. Karadi*** *Professor & PG-Coordinator, **Professor and *** M-Tech. Student. Dept. of Civil Engg., KLESCET, Belgaum 598 (Karnataka). Abstract: This study focuses on the comparison of the Indian Code (IS) and International Building Codes (IBC) in relation to the seismic design and analysis of Ordinary RC momentresisting frame (OMRF), Intermediate RC moment-resisting frame (IMRF) and Special RC moment-resting frame (SMRF). The analytical results of the model buildings are then compared and analyzed taking note of any significant differences. This study explores variations in the results obtained using the two codes, particularly design base shear, lateral loads, drifts and area of steel for structural members for all RC buildings in both the codes. The discussion in this study will be confined to monolithically cast reinforced concrete buildings. Specific provisions for design of seismic resistant reinforced members are presented in detail. Provisions of Indian and International Buildings Codes are identified. Target deflection of the building is achieved at a lower lateral force in SMRF IBC i.e, the concept of lesser force and more deflection is followed. However in OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of Indian Code lateral force applied in higher as a result the deflection on the top of the building exceeds the target deflection. To keep the deflection within the permissible limits we then increase the column and beam sizes to make the building stiffer and maintain deflection within the permissible limits. This work aims at the comparison of various provisions for earthquake analysis as given in building codes of Indian Code and International Building Codes. Key words: Equivalent Static Method, Indian () Code, International Building (IBC-6) Code, OMRF, IMRF and SMRF Buildings. Introduction: Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Seiches, Landslides, Floods and Fires are natural calamities causing severe damage and sufferings to persons by collapsing the structures, cutting off transport systems, killing or trapping persons, animals etc. Such natural disasters are challenges to the progress of development. However, civil engineers as designers have a major role to play in minimizing the damages by proper designing the structures or taking other useful decisions. This includes understanding the earthquakes, behavior of the materials of construction and structures and the extent to which structural engineers make use of the knowledge in taking proper decisions in designing the structures made of reinforced concrete [14]. The characteristics (intensity, duration, etc) of seismic ground vibrations expected at any location depend upon the magnitude of earthquake, its depth of focus, distance from the epicentre, characteristics of the path through which the seismic waves travel, and the soil strata on which the structure stands. The random earthquake ground motions, which cause the structure to vibrate, can be resolved in any three mutually perpendicular directions. The predominant direction of ground vibration is usually horizontal [3]. A large number of urban multi storey buildings in India today have open first storey as a necessary feature. This is primarily being adopted to accommodate parking or reception lobbies in the first storeys. Such buildings are often called open ground storey buildings or buildings on stilts. The upper storeys have brick in filled wall panels. The Indian seismic code

2 classifies a soft storey as one whose lateral stiffness is less than 7% of the storey above or below [1]. A several buildings are able to withstand moderate earthquakes even though not designed for earthquake forces. Quite often this is because of latent strength of masonry infill which is normally ignored in design. However in case of buildings on stilts, in stilt portion this latent strength is not available, hence remain vulnerable under earthquake shaking [1]. Reinforced concrete special moment frames are used as part of seismic forceresisting systems in buildings that are designed to resist earthquakes. Beams and columns in moment frames are proportioned and detailed to resist flexural, axial, and shearing actions that result as a building sways through multiple displacement cycles during strong earthquake ground shaking. Special proportioning and detailing requirements result in a frame capable of resisting strong earthquake shaking without significant loss of stiffness or strength. These moment-resisting frames are called Special Moment Frames because of these additional requirements, which improve the seismic resistance in comparison with less stringently detailed Intermediate and Ordinary Moment Frames []. The design requirements for special moment frames are presented in the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI- 318). The special requirements relate to inspection, materials, framing members (beams, columns), and construction procedures. In addition, requirements pertain to diaphragms and framing members not designated as part of the seismic forceresisting system. The numerous interrelated requirements are covered in several sections of ACI 318, not necessarily arranged in a logical sequence, making their application challenging for all but the most experienced designers []. A large number of reinforced concrete multistoreyed frame buildings were heavily damaged and many of them collapsed completely in Bhuj earthquake of 1 in the towns of Kachchh District (Bhuj, Bhachao, Anjar, Gandhidham and Rapar) and other district towns including Surat and Ahmedabad. In Ahmedabad alone situated at more than 5 kilometers away from the Epicenter of the earthquake, 69 buildings collapsed killing about 7 persons. Earlier, in the earthquake at Kobe (Japan 1995) large numbers of multistoreyed RC frame buildings of previous 1981 code based design were severely damaged due to various deficiencies [3]. Such behavior is normally unexpected of RC frame buildings in MSK Intensity VIII and VII areas as happened in Kachchh earthquake of January 6, 1. The aim of this paper is to bring out the main contributing factors which lead to poor performance during the earthquake and to make recommendations which should be taken into account in designing the multistoreyed reinforced concrete buildings so as to achieve their adequate safe behavior under future earthquakes. The Indian Standard Code IS: 1893 was suitably updated in so as to address the various design issues brought out in the earthquake behavior of the RC Buildings [3]. Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings: Earthquake is a natural phenomenon which is generated in the earth s crust. The magnitude of the seismic loads on the structure during an earthquake depends upon the factors like the mass of the building, the dynamic properties of the building, the intensity of ground motion and its damping characteristics. Severity of ground shaking at a given location during an earthquake can be minor, moderate or strong. Relatively speaking, minor shaking occurs frequently; moderate shaking occasionally and strong shaking rarely. For instance, on an average, annually about 8 earthquakes of magnitude occurs in the world while the number is only

3 about 18 for magnitude range Thus, designing and constructing a building to resist that rare earthquake shaking that may come only once in 5 years or even once in years at the chosen project site, even though the life of the building itself may be only 5 or 1 years is uneconomical since it costs money to provide additional earthquake safety in buildings. It would therefore be appropriate to design the building for earthquake effects rather than making it earthquake proof. Clearly, the former approach can lead to a major disaster, and the second approach is too expensive. Hence, the design philosophy should lie somewhere in between these two extremes. 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. Instead, the engineering intention is to make buildings earthquake resistant; such buildings resist the effects of ground shaking, although they may get damaged severely but would not collapse during the strong earthquake. Thus, safety of people and contents is assured in earthquake-resistant buildings, and thereby a disaster is avoided. This is a major objective of seismic design codes throughout the world. Equivalent Static Method as per : The total design lateral force or design base shear along any principal direction is given in terms of design horizontal seismic coefficient and seismic weight of the structure. Design horizontal seismic coefficient depends on the zone factor of the site, importance of the structure, response reduction factor of the lateral load resisting elements and the fundamental period of the structure. Following procedure is generally used for the equivalent static analysis: i) Determination of base shear (V B ) of the building V = A W..(1) B h A h Z I Sa = R g..() ii) Lateral distribution of design base shear The design base shear V B thus obtained is then distributed along the height of the building using a parabolic distribution expression: Q = V i B n W i= 1 i W h i i h i....(3) Equivalent Static Method as per IBC- 6: Design of a reinforced concrete building in accordance with the equivalent static force procedure found in current U.S. seismic codes involves the following principal steps: 1. Determination of design earthquake forces: Calculation of base shears corresponding to the computed or estimated fundamental period of vibration of the structure. (A preliminary design of the structure is assumed here.) Distribution of the base shear over the height of the building.. Analysis of the structure under the (static) lateral forces calculated in step (1), as well as under gravity and wind loads, to obtain member design forces and story drift ratios. The lateral load analysis, of course, can be carried out most conveniently by using a computer program for analysis. For certain class of structures having plan or vertical irregularities, or structure over 4 feet in height, most building codes require dynamic analysis to be performed. In this case, ASCE- 7-5 and IBC-6 require that the design parameters including story shears, moments, drifts and deflections determined from dynamic analysis to be adjusted. Where the design value for base shear obtained from dynamic analysis (Vt) is less than the calculated base shear (V) determined using the step 1 above, these

4 design parameters is to be increased by a factor of V/Vt. Following procedure is generally used for the equivalent static analysis: i) Determination of base shear (V) of the building: V = C S x W (4) (5) The value of C S computed in accordance with Eq. 3.5 need not exceed the following: (6)......(7) Shall not be less than = (8) In addition, for structures located where S 1 is equal to or greater than.6g, C S shall not be less than...(9) ii) Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces: The lateral seismic force (F X ) induced at any level shall be determined from the following equations: F X= C VX.. V And..... (1)....(11) iii) Horizontal Distribution of Forces: The seismic design story shear in any story (V X ) (kip or kn) shall be determined from the following equation:....(1) Load combinations as per : As per IS 1893 (Part 1): Clause no , the following load cases have to be considered for analysis. 1.5 (DL + IL) 1. (DL + IL ± EL) 1.5 (DL ± EL).9 DL ± 1.5 EL Load combinations as per ASCE 7-5: As per ASCE-7-5 Section.3., the following load cases have to be considered for analysis. 1.4(D + F) 1.(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H) +.5(L r or S or R) 1.D + 1.6(L r or S or R) + (L r or S or W) 1.D +1.6W + L +.5(L r or S or R) 1.D + 1.E + L +.S.9D + 1.6W + 1.6H.9D + 1.E + 1.6H Fig 1 Typical Floor Plan

5 Fig Longitudinal Elevation Results and Discussion: The results are presented in the form of comparison for base shear, lateral loads, displacements, drifts, bending moment and shear force for structural members and percentage of steel for structural members of OMRF, IMRF and SMRF buildings of with OMRF, IMRF and SMRF buildings of IBC- 6. The results obtained for considering RC building are presented for Equivalent Static Analysis. The result includes OMRF, IMRF and SMRF buildings of with OMRF, IMRF and SMRF buildings of IBC-6. The analysis of the buildings is performed using analytical software ETABS. Method of Analysis and Study: Three dimensional model of the building was prepared in ETABS. The sizes of columns and beams were fixed by manual methods. Further the size of beams and columns we adjusted to achieve target deflection, since OMRF Indian was having the maximum deflection at the top story, the sizes of beams and columns i.e (.35 x.75m) and (.75 x.75m) respectively were fixed so that the deflection at the top most story is within the permissible limit. The other models i.e models for IMRF and SMRF (IS); OMRF, IMRF and SMRF (IBC) were analysed for the same column and beam Fig 3 Transverse Elevation Since the deflection in OMRF, IMRF and SMRF (IBC) and IMRF, SMRF (IS) were very less compared to the target deflection. Further graphs and tables have been plotted by comparing the various parameters of the structure for various loads and load combinations as per their respective standards. The adjusted beam and column sizes to attain a deflection at the top storey nearer to the target deflection. So that OMRF (IBC-6) Column size -.75 x.75 m Beam size -.35 x.75 m IMRF () Column size -.7 x.7 m Beam size -.3 x.7 m IMRF (IBC-6) Column size -.65 x.65 m Beam size -.3 x.65 m SMRF () Column size -.65 x.65 m Beam size -.3 x.65 m SMRF (IBC-6) Column size -.6 x.6 m Beam size -.3 x.65 m

6 Table 1 Comparison of Base Shear (kn) by Two Codes for Different Buildings with Same Column and Beam Sizes Storey No OMRF IMRF SMRF IBC-6 IBC-6 IBC-6 Col -.75 x.75m and Bm -.35 x.75m Base Plinth Table Comparison of Base Shear (kn) by Two Codes for Different Buildings by adjusted Column and Beam Sizes OMRF IMRF SMRF Storey IBC-6 IBC-6 No IBC-6 Col-.75x.75m Col-.75x.75m Col-.7x.7m Col-.65x.65m Col-.65x.65m Col-.6x.6m Bm-.35x.75m Bm-.35x.75m Bm-.3x.7m Bm-.3x.65m Bm-.3x.65m Bm-.3x.65m Base Plinth OM RF(IS) OM RF(IBC) IM RF(IS) IM RF(IBC) SM RF(IS) SM RF(IBC) OM RF(IS) OM RF(IBC) IM RF(IS) IM RF(IBC) SM RF(IS) SM RF(IBC) Storey No's 6 4 Storey No's Base Shear (kn) Base Shear (kn) Fig, 1 Comparison of Base Shear (kn) by Two Codes for Different Buildings with Same Column and Beam Sizes -m Sizes Fig, Comparison of Base Shear (kn) by Two Codes for Different Buildings by adjusted Column and Bea

7 Table 3 Comparison of Lateral Loads (kn) by Two Codes for Different Buildings with Same Column and Beam Sizes Storey No OMRF IMRF SMRF IBC-6 IBC-6 IBC-6 Col -.75 x.75m and Bm -.35 x.75m Base Plinth Table 4 Comparison of Lateral Loads (kn) by Two Codes for Different Buildings by adjusted Column and Beam Sizes Storey No Col-.75x.75m Bm-.35x.75m OMRF IMRF SMRF IBC-6 IBC-6 IBC-6 Col-.75x.75m Bm-.35x.75m Col-.7x.7m Bm-.3x.7m Col-.65x.65m Bm-.3x.65m Col-.65x.65m Bm-.3x.65m Col-.6x.6m Bm-.3x.65m Base Plinth Storey No's Lateral Loads (kn) OMRF(IS) OMRF(IBC) IMRF(IS) IMRF(IBC) SMRF(IS) SMRF(IBC) Storey No's Lateral Loads (kn) OMRF(IS) OMRF(IBC) IMRF(IS) IMRF(IBC) SMRF(IS) SMRF(IBC) Fig 3, Comparison of Lateral Loads (kn) by Two Codes for Different Buildings with Same Column and Beam Sizes Fig. 4, Comparison of Lateral Loads (kn) by Two Codes for Different Buildings by adjusted Column and Beam Sizes

8 Table 5 Comparison of Storey No vs. Displacement in X-Direction by Two Codes for Different Buildings with Same Column and Beam Sizes Storey No OMRF IMRF SMRF IBC-6 IBC-6 IBC-6 Col -.75 x.75m and Bm -.35 x.75m Displacement (mm) Base Plinth Table 6 Comparison of Storey No vs. Displacement in X-Direction by Two Codes for Different Buildings by adjusted Column and Beam Sizes Storey No Col-.75x.75m Bm-.35x.75m OMRF IMRF SMRF IBC-6 IBC-6 Col-.75x.75m Bm-.35x.75m Col-.7x.7m Bm-.3x.7m Col-.65x.65m Bm-.3x.65m Col-.65x.65m Bm-.3x.65m IBC-6 Col-.6x.6m Bm-.3x.65m Displacement (mm) Base Plinth Storey No's Displacement (mm) OMRF(IS) OMRF(IBC) IMRF(IS) IMRF(IBC) SMRF(IS) SMRF(IBC) Storey No's Displacement (mm) OMRF(IS) OMRF(IBC) IMRF(IS) IMRF(IBC) SMRF(IS) SMRF(IBC) Fig 5, Comparison of Storey No vs. Displacement in X-Direction by Two Codes for Different Buildings with Same Column and Be -am Sizes Fig. 6, Comparison of Storey No Vs. Displacement in X-Di -rection by Two Codes for Different Buildings by adjusted Column and Beam Sizes

9 Lateral Loads (kn) O M R F (IS ) O M R F (IB C ) IM R F (IS ) IM R F (IB C ) S M R F (IS ) S M R F (IB C ) Lateral Loads (kn) OMRF(IS) OMRF(IBC) IMRF(IS) IMRF(IBC) SMRF(IS) SMRF(IBC) D isp la c e m e n t (m m ) Displacement (mm) Fig 7, Comparison of Lateral Load vs. Displacement in X- Fig. 8, Comparison of Lateral Load vs. Displacement in X- Direction by Two Codes for Different Buildings with Same Direction by Two codes for Different Buildings by Changin Column and Beam Sizes -g Column and Beam Sizes Table 7 Beam [B19] Area of Steel for Story-6 Buildings Top area of Steel (mm ) Bottom area of Steel (mm ) Left End Centre Right End Left End Centre Right End OMRF(IS) OMRF(IBC) IMRF(IS) IMRF(IBC) SMRF(IS) SMRF(IBC) Table 8 Column Area of Steel for Ground Floor Area of Steel (mm ) Buildings Corner Column (C4) Exterior Column (C1) Interior Column (C1) Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom OMRF(IS) OMRF(IBC) IMRF(IS) IMRF(IBC) SMRF(IS) SMRF(IBC)

10 3 5 3 O M R F ( I S ) O M R F ( I B C I M R F ( I S ) I M R F ( I B C ) S M R F ( I S ) S M R F ( I B C ) 5 O M R F (I S ) O M R F (I B C ) I M R F (I S ) I M R F (I B C ) S M R F (I S ) S M R F (I B C ) Area of Steel (mm ) Area of Steel (mm ) L e f t E n d C e n t r e R i g h t L e f t E n d C e n t r e R i g h t E n d Fig 9, Beam [B19] Area of Steel at Top for Storey-6 Fig 1, Beam [B19] Area of Steel at Bottom for Storey-6 Area of Steel (mm ) OMRF(IS) OMRF(IBC) IMRF(IS) IMRF(IBC) SMRF(IS) SMRF(IBC) Top Bottom Fig 1, Column (C4) Area of Steel for Ground Floor Discussion: Same Column and Beam Sizes Discussion: Base Shear for OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of Code buildings are higher than that of IBC-6 Code buildings by 6.1%, 3.6% and 3.1% respectively for same column and beam Lateral Loads for OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of code buildings are higher than that of IBC-6 code buildings by 3.53%, 33.1% and 31.4% respectively for same column and beam Displacements in X and Y direction for OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of

11 code buildings are higher than that of IBC-6 code buildings by 11.%, 16.31% and 15.3% and 11.7%, 16.38% and 15.3% in X and Y direction respectively for same column and beam Displacements (57.5mm, 4.38mm and 3.7mm) and (64.91mm, 45.77mm and 37.8mm) in X and Y direction that the target deflection has been achieved in OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of IBC-6 code at very smaller lateral force (944.55kN, kN and 56.91kN), whereas target deflection is achieved in that of code is (64.33mm, 48.5mm and 38.6mm) and (7.99mm, 54.74mm and 43.79mm) in X and Y direction at very large lateral load ( kN, 119.7kN and kN) compared to IBC-6 code for same column and beam Adjusted Column and Beam Sizes Discussion: Base shear for OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of Code buildings are higher than that of IBC-6 Code buildings by 7.88%, 4.75% and 33.3% respectively by adjusted column and beam Lateral loads for OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of code buildings are higher than that of IBC-6 code buildings by 3.6%, 34.47% and 3.11% respectively by adjusted column and beam Displacements in X and Y direction for OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of code buildings are lower than that of IBC-6 code buildings by 1.55%, 1.91% and.58% and 1.6%, 1.48% and.96% in X and Y direction respectively by adjusted column and beam Displacements (65.33mm, 64.44mm and 6.1mm) and (73.91mm, 7.49mm and 67.53mm) in X and Y direction that the target deflection has been achieved in OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of IBC-6 code at very smaller lateral force (93.74kN, kN and 518.7kN), whereas target deflection is achieved in OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of code is (64.33mm, 63.3mm and 61.81mm) and (7.99mm, 71.43mm and 69.59mm) in X and Y direction at very large lateral load ( kN, 97.4kN and kN) compared to IBC-6 code for adjusted column and beam Adjusted Beam Size Shear Force and Bending Moment Discussion: It can be noted that the forces and moments in the structural members of OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of IS code are large compared to forces and moments in the structural members of OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of IBC. Adjusted Column Size Shear Force and Bending Moment Discussion: It can be noted that the forces and moments in the structural members of OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of IS code are large compared to forces and moments in the structural members of OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of IBC. Discussion on Area of Steel for Structural Members: The reinforcement requirement is highest for OMFR (IS) at both left end and right end of the beams. Whereas the reinforcement required at the beam ends is lowest for SMRF (IBC). Similarly the reinforcement requirement is highest for OMFR (IS) at bottom of the column. Whereas the reinforcement required at the bottom of the column for SMRF (IBC). Conclusion: Base Shear for OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of Code buildings are higher than that of IBC-6 Code buildings by 6.1%, 3.6% and 3.1% respectively for same column and beam Similarly base shear for OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of Code

12 buildings are higher than that of IBC-6 Code buildings by 7.88%, 4.75% and 33.3% respectively by adjusted column and beam Lateral Loads for OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of code buildings are higher than that of IBC-6 code buildings by 3.53%, 33.1% and 31.4% respectively for same column and beam Similarly lateral loads for OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of code buildings are higher than that of IBC-6 code buildings by 3.6%, 34.47% and 3.11% respectively by adjusted column and beam Displacements in X and Y direction for OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of code buildings are higher than that of IBC-6 code buildings by 11.%, 16.31% and 15.3% and 11.7%, 16.38% and 15.3% in X and Y direction respectively for same column and beam Similarly displacements in X and Y direction for OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of code buildings are lower than that of IBC-6 code buildings by 1.55%, 1.91% and.58% and 1.6%, 1.48% and.96% in X and Y direction respectively by adjusted column and beam Target deflection of the building is achieved at a lower lateral force in SMRF IBC i.e, the concept of lesser force and more deflection is followed. However in OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of Indian Code lateral force applied in higher as a result the deflection on the top of the building exceeds the target deflection. To keep the deflection within the permissible limits we then increase the column and beam sizes to make the building stiffer and maintain deflection within the permissible limits. The already existing higher lateral forces due to R=5(for SMRF) in IS Code compared to R= 8(for SMRF) in IBC is further increased by the load combination of 1.5(DL ± EQ) and.9dl ± 1.5EQ. Due to these higher forces generated in the structure, the structure becomes stiffer and not flexible. References: 1. J. N. Bandyopadhyay, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT, Kharagpur, Earthquake resistant design and detailing of RCC structures as per codal provisions.. Jack P. Moehle, John D. Hooper, Chris D. Lubke, National Institute of Standard Technology, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frames. 3. Department of Civil Engineering, IIT, Kharagpur Steps for safe design and construction of multistorey reinforced concrete buildings. 4. S. K. Ghosh, Madhu Khuntia, S. K. Ghosh Associates INC. Northbrook, IL Impact of Seismic Provisions of IBC Comparison with 1997 UBC. 5. Wenshen Pong, Zu-Hsu Lee and Anson Lee, School of Engineering, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA 9413, USA A Comparative Study of Seismic Provisions between International building Code 3 and Uniform building Code Melvyn Green& Associates, Inc. Torrance, California 953, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Comparison of the Seismic Provisions of Model Building Codes and Standards to the 1991 NEHRP Recommended Provisions 7. G. D. Hahn, M.ASCE and B. P. Champlin Seismic Design of Structures by Bundled Columns. 8. Dhiman Basu and Sudhir K. Jain Seismic Analysis of

13 Asymmetric Buildings with Flexible Floor Diaphragms. 9. Bruce A. Bolt, D.Sc. Professor Emeritus, of Seismology, University of California, Berkeley, California, The Nature of Earthquake Ground Motion. 1. James C. Anderson, Ph.D. Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, Dynamic Response of Structures. 11. Roger M. Di Julio Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Professor of Engineering, California State University, Northridge, Linear Static Seismic Lateral Force Procedures. 1. Arnaldo T. Derecho, Ph.D. Consulting Strucutral Engineer, Mount Prospect, Illinois, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures. 13. Farzad Naeim, Ph.D., S.E. Vice President and Director of Research and Development, John A. Martin & Associates, Inc., Los Angeles, California, Performance Based Seismic Engineering. 14. Department of Civil Engineering, IIT, Kharagpur, Seismic Effects, Material Behaviour and General Principles of Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures. 15. Dr. H. J. Shah & Dr. Sudhir. K. Jain, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Design Example of a Six Storey Building. 16. I.S: 1893-, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistance design of structures Part-I General provision and buildings, (Fifth Revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, June. 17. IS: 456-, Indian Standard Criteria for Plain and Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice, (Fourth Revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 18. International Code Council (6), International Building Code 6, U.S.A. 19. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures (ASCE 7-5), American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.