E-Course (through Distance Learning Mode) on

Indian Seismic Code IS:1893-2002 (Part I)

January 2003

Response to Questions and Comments on Lecture 1

from Manoj Medhekar (medhekarm@sprint.ca ) 1. What is the significance of the statement made in paragraph 5 on page 3, "The seismic hazard level with respect to ZPA at 50 percent risk level and 100 years service life ..."? It seems to imply that some sort of statistical / probabilistic analyses were used to arrive at the values of EPGA listed in Annex E. Statement b) on page 2 also seems to suggest this. As I said in Lecture 1, our zone map is NOT based on probabilistic analyses. Hence, mention of 50 percent risk level and 100 years of service life is in the code can mislead and should be removed from this para. 2. The seismic zone map (Figure 1) is based on the likely intensity. It does not state the return period. What methodology should be used if the structure is to be designed say for the 1 in 500 year earthquake (equivalent to a certain probability of exceedance in a given service life)? One has to carry out seismic hazard estimation by the standard probabilistic methods. You may refer to standard books such as: Kramer Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering (Prentice Hall, USA) Reiter Earthquake Hazard Analysis (Columbia University Press).
Question from Mr. Khare (ackhare@rediffmail.com)

In para 1 page 3 of code "In highly seismic ..... a type which ...." is not clear specially words "a type". It implies choice of materials and structural system. For instance, the mud masonry, or the rubble masonry. Question from Glorey Joseph (gloryjoseph@eth.net) 'Base isolation can increase natural period and hence lower acceleration'please elaborate how the natural period is increased due to base isolation and subsequent responses. Assume that we insert springs between the superstructure and the foundation. Due to this spring, the structure is now more flexible and its natural period increases. See response spectrum shown in slide 24 of Lecture 2: beyond natural period of around 0.5 sec, there is a decrease

in response acceleration with increase in natural period. Please note that usually, base isolation includes a source of flexibility through spring-type action plus a source of energy dissipation (damping). Question from Mr. Simoes (Charles.Simoes@akerkvaerner.com) Answer to 1.2 I had a problem with this. On page 3 of the code -last 3 lines-MSK 64 is in Roman numerals. and also refers to Annex D. Annex D - Intensity scale -Page 33-35 Arabic numerals are used. It appears in Annex D Roman numerals should have been used . I share your concern. Compare with the Appendix D of the 1984 version of the code: intensity was expressed in Roman numerals. Unfortunately, someone changed the Roman numerals into Arabic numerals in new edition of the code. I hope the code will correct this in future. Answer to 1.3 As per your lecture 2, I have understood that IBC 2000 and UBC 1997 have given "probabilistic zoning". Is that correct? Why is it that this same philosophy was not used in this revision of IS 1893? Yes, IBC and UBC give probabilistic zoning. It takes considerable research and development effort to develop good codes. Unfortunately, the R&D base in Earthquake Engineering in our country is quite weak for needs of the country. Some researchers have tried to develop probabilistic zone maps for the country but there has not been consensus on this. Questions from Mr. Norman (normangm@neline.com) 7. Slide 13 of Lecture 1: On clause 0.4.1 of 1984 code Instead of completely dropping the sentence, Should we not at least retain Provided certain simple precaution are taken in the construction which may be modified on the lines However, appropriate / relevant action be taken during construction based on local conditions, past experiences , intensity, soil conditions, zone on which structure falls , building bye laws of the area etc. ? I differ. I think compliance with a seismic code cannot be optional. The code is the basis /guidelines on which to design the structure . Definitely misused to avoid seismic analysis and design cannot entirely be ruled out. But in the present scenario, Development authority in the metro and other cities, Municipal Boards in the important towns are equally responsible for approving or rejecting the structural design where perhaps the use or misuse of code clauses can be detected. Here I feel that there is a need to make the guidelines more specific. Again, many civil engineers employed in the Municipal Boards , States concerned departments are untrained / inexperienced whereby making bye laws more specific may create more bottlenecks and may not have desired effect . The recent aftermath of the earthquake in Gujarat is perhaps a lesson to learn. Here I feel there is urgent need to trained/ made aware civil engineers employed, the importance of seismic design and the E-course launched by

your department is perhaps one of the objectives and a step towards mitigating disaster in near future. I agree that there is no substitute to developing technical expertise with the professionals, including the municipal engineers. For instance, we do not have difference of opinion that our doctors should know the latest on their area of specialisation. In that case, is there a justification of our structural engineers not knowing the state-of-the-art on topics of structural safety? On slide 14 of Lecture 1: Other effects Here it states that the code generally addresses on the inertia force on the structure . Should not there be basis / guidelines in the code to follow the uniform guidelines to address the following in the country ? (1) Liquefaction of the founding strata -- This is very important as all the structure rests on strata. (2) Landslide triggered by earthquake -- This may mostly happen in the hilly and mountainous areas. (3) Flood caused by earthquake -- This may mostly occur in plain and rolling areas or where failure of dam/s occurs/occur and in certain cases in hilly areas. It is not possible to codify everything. That is what makes the difference between a good engineer and a not-so-good engineer. There is plenty of literature on evaluation of liquefaction potential (for instance, method of Seed and Idriss). On slide 19 of Lecture 1: The current trend of specifying the zones worldwide in terms of ground acceleration appears more practical. The plot of earthquake (M =5.0) from IMD from a period from 1800-1998 clearly shows the intensities occurred. Perhaps there is a need to study the plot more minutely based on further records and research. Develop of zone map is a continuous process and significant R&D effort is needed. However, R&D effort will be useless if there is no demand. Professional engineers have to take more interest in seismic safety and work towards better codes. On slide 32/33 of Lecture 1: a) Here the first and second applications of base isolator were said to have been used at Killari and Bhuj. What is the foundation materials (for base isolators) used in these two constructions? b) According to one source which I had, silicon base isolator is most effective. What is your view? In Killari buildings, rubber bearings imported from USA were used. Bhuj hospital project used elastomeric bearings with lead plug, imported from New Zealand. Choice of base isolator depends on many factors and I do not think one can say this or that is most effective. There are excellent books on base isolation available. For instance,

Skinner, Robinson and McVery, An Introduction to Seismic Isolation Wiley Naeim and Kelly, Design of Seismic Isolated Structures: From Theory to Practice, Wiley.

Question From K.V.Leela(kvleela@zberway.com) Expansion of ' MSK' Name of three scientists: Medvedev-Sponhener-Karnik Question from Mr. Omprakash Jaiswal (jinesh.shah@babtieindia.com) This is a doubt rather than a question??
In Annex D intensity should be indicated in Roman characters rather than in Arabic?

Yes, I agree with you: it should be in Roman. Question from S.P.Srinivasan (spsvasan@eth.net), D) Reference: Annex D and Last para on page 3 1) Type C Buildings (defined just as "reinforced buildings") - At present there appear to be four types of framed structures in India - (i) Frames designed for wind and seismic forces with ductile detailing; (ii) Frames designed for wind and seismic forces without ductile detailing; (iii) Frames designed for DL and LL without considering wind or seismic forces; and (iv) Frames with columns designed for axial load due to DL and LL, neglecting frame action completely. Does Type C building in Annex D refer to all the above "reinforced buildings"? You raise a very important point that is often missed in interpretation of Intensity scales. Obviously, Type C does not refer to all the four types of RC buildings mentioned by you. We need to suitably interpret such provisions in view of local conditions. That is why even though about 130 buildings collapsed in Ahmedabad, the intensity there has been assigned only VII. 2) The seismic design philosophy accepts grade 3 damage to buildings (Large and deep cracks in plaster; chimneys fall down). The Intensity scale indicates that grade 4 damage is expected in Type C buildings (defined just as "reinforced buildings") only when the intensity is 9 or more. This corresponds to our Zone V as per last para of Page 3 of IS:1893! This is confusing. Should the definition of Type C building be changed? Or should the last para on page 3 be redrafted? Last para of page 3 is fine. We need to refine the intensity scale to suit our local constructions. For instance, European Seismological Commission has a working group on Macroseismic Scales that has

periodically revised MSK scale in view of prevailing types of constructions in Europe. We need similar efforts in India.