Sei sulla pagina 1di 80
IS:1893-1984     lndian Standard   CRITERIA FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF STRUCTURES (Fourth
IS:1893-1984     lndian Standard   CRITERIA FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF STRUCTURES (Fourth

IS:1893-1984

   

lndian

Standard

 
IS:1893-1984     lndian Standard   CRITERIA FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF STRUCTURES (Fourth

CRITERIA

FOR EARTHQUAKE

RESISTANT

DESIGN

OF STRUCTURES

(Fourth

Revision

)

EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF STRUCTURES (Fourth Revision ) First Reprint JULY 1999 UDC 699.841 : 624.042.7

First

Reprint

JULY

1999

UDC 699.841

: 624.042.7

Revision ) First Reprint JULY 1999 UDC 699.841 : 624.042.7 0 Copyright 1986 BUREAU OF INDIAN

0

Copyright

1986

BUREAU

OF INDIAN

STANDARDS

MANAK

BHAVAN,

9

NEW

BAHADUR

DELHI

SHAH

110002

ZAFAR

MARG

IS t 1893 - 1984

Indian Standard

IS t 1893 - 1984 Indian Standard CRITERlA FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF STRUCTURES ( Fourth

CRITERlA

FOR

EARTHQUAKE

RESISTANT

DESIGN

OF STRUCTURES

( Fourth Revision )

RESISTANT DESIGN OF STRUCTURES ( Fourth Revision ) Chairman DR JAI KRISHNA Earthquake Engineering Sectional
RESISTANT DESIGN OF STRUCTURES ( Fourth Revision ) Chairman DR JAI KRISHNA Earthquake Engineering Sectional

Chairman DR JAI KRISHNA

Earthquake

Engineering

Sectional

Committee,

BDC 39

 

61 Civil

Lines,

 

Roorkee

 
 

M#mb.ws

 

Rcprssenting

 

SHRI A. ANANTHAKRISRNAN

Ministry

 

of

Shipping

and

Transport

( Develop-

 

ment

Wing

j

_

SRRI T.

R. SUBRAM~NYAM ( Alternate)

 

DR A.

S. ARYA

University

of Roorkee,

Roorkee

DR A.

R.

CHANDRASEKARAN ( Alternate

I

)

DR BRIJESH CHANDRA ( Alternate

II

)

SHRI S. P. CHAKRABORTI

Ministry

 

of

Shipping

and

Transport

( Roads

 

Wing

)

SHRI M.

K.

MUKHE~JEF: ( Alternate

)

SIIRI T.

A.

E.

D’SA

Concrete

Association

of India,

Bombay

SHRI N. Cl. DU~UAL ( Alternate )

 

Central

Water

and Power

Research

Station,

Pune

DIRECTOR SHRI J. G. PADALE ( Alternate ) SERI D. S. DESAI

SERI V. S. GOWAIKAR

M. N. Dastur

& Co Pvt

Ltd,

Energy,

Calcutta

Bombay

Department

of Atomic

SHRI R. PATNAIK ( Alternate

)

SHRI A. D. GUPTA SHRI N. S. DANI ( Alternate)

Fertilizer

Corporation

of India

Ltdi

Dhanbad

SHRI

INDER MOHAN

North

Eastern Council,

Shillong

SHRI C. VASWANI ( Alternate )

JOINT

( B

&

DIRECTOR

S

)

PSC

STANDARDS

Railway

DEPUTY DIRECTOR STANDARDS

(

B

&

S )

CB

( Alternate

)

Board (RDSO),

Lucknow

SHRI M. Z. KURIAN Tata, Consulting Engineers, Rombay

SHRI K.

V.

SUBRAMANIAN ( Alternate

)

SHRI

T.

K.

D. MUNSI

Engineers

India

Limited,

New Delhi

 

SHRI R. K. GROVER (Alternate )

 
 

( Continued

on page

2

)

 

@ Copyright

1966

 
 

INDIAN

STANDARDS

INSTITUTION

This

publication

is protected

under

the

Indian

Copyright

Act

( XIV

of

1957 ) and

 

reproduction

in whole

or in part by any means

except

with written

permission

of the

publisher

shall

be deemed

to be an

infringement

of

copyright

under

the

said

Act.

IS : 1893 -   1984 ( Continued from page 1)   Members   REpresEnting

IS

: 1893 -

 

1984

( Continued from page

1)

 

Members

 

REpresEnting

SERI

C. RAMA RAO

 

Public

Works

Department,

Government

of

 

Arunacbal

Pradesh

 
 

SHRI S. N. KRISRNAN ( Alfernate)

 

SERI

R.

V. CR_~LAPATHI RAO

Geological

Survey

of India,

Calcutta

SHRI N. B. G. TILA~ R~PRERENYATIVE

( Alternnte )

International

Airport

Authority

of

India,

 

New Delhi

 

REPRESENTATIVE

 

Structural

Engineering

Research

Centre,

Roorkee

REPRESENTATIVE

Bharat

Heavy

Electricals

Ltd

(Research

and

 

Design

Division

), Hyderabad

 

REPRESENTATIVE

 

Central

Building

Research

Institute,

Roorkee

SHRI

ht.

P.

v.

SHENOY

 

Engineer-in-Chief’s

Branch,

Army

Headquarters

 

New Delhi

SHRI D.

K.

DINKER ( Alternate )

SHRI K. S. SRINIVASAN

SHRI N. VE~XBU

National

Buildings

Organization,

New Delhi

Dn H. N. SRIVASTAVA SHRI S. K. NAQ ( Alternate )

India

Meteorological

Department,

New

Delhi

DR P. SRINIVASULU

Structural

Engineering

Research

Centre,

Madras

Dn N. LAKSHMANAN ( Alternate ) Dn A. N. TANDON

In personal capacity ( B-7150 Safdarjung Enclave, flew Delhi ) Central Public Works Department, New Delhi

SHI~I A. K.

MITTAL

( Alternote )

 

SRI~IS. N. VERMA

 

Metallurgical

& Engineering

Consultants

( India

)

 

Ltd,

Ranchi

 

SHRI S. PASUPATI ( Allernalc) SHRI G. RAMAN,

Director

General,

 

ISI

( Ex-ojicio

Member)

Director

( Civ Engg

)

 

Secretary

 

SERI N. Cl. BANDYOPADHYAY

 

Deputy

Director

( Civ Engg

),

IS1

 
 

Maps Subcommittee,

BDC

39

: 4

DR S. N. BHATTACHAZ~YA SHRI A. N. DATTA SHRI A. GHOSH

 

India Meteorological Department, New Delhi Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Dehra Dun Geological Survey of India, Calcutta

 

SHRI

D.

R. NANDY

( Alternate )

 

DR HARI NARAIN

 

National

Geophysical

Research

Institute

(CSIR

),

Hyderabad

SHRI

DR K. L. KAILA ( Allcrnate ) G. S. OBEROI

Survey

of India,

Dehra

Dun

 

SHRI K. N. SAXENA ( AltErnate ‘), Dn P. C. SAXENA SEIRI I. D. GUPTA ( Alternate )

Central

Water

and Power

Research

Station,

Pune

SERI

DR

L. S. SRIVASTA~A

A.

N.

TANDON

University

In

personal

of Roorkee,

capacity

New Delhi )

2

Roorkee

( B-7150

Safdarjung Enclave,

IS:1893 - 1984

Indian Standard

CRITERIA

FOR EARTHQUAKE

DESIGN OF STRUCTURES

RESISTANT

( Fourth Revision )

 

0.

FOREWORD

 

0.1

This

Indian

Standard.

( Fourth

Revision)

was

adopted

by the

Indian

Standards

Institution

on

16

November

1981,

after

the draft

finalized

by

the Earthquake

Engineering

Sectional

Committee

had

been

approved

by

the

Civil

Engineering

Division

Council.

 

0.2

Himalayan-Nagalushai region, Indo-Gangetic plain, Western India,

Kutch and Kathiawar regions are geologically unstable parts of the coun- try and some devastating earthquakes of the world have occurred there. A major part of the peninsular India has also been visited by strong earth- quakes, but these were relatively few in number and had considerably lesser intensity. The earthquake resistant design of structures taking into account seismic data from studies of these Indian earthquakes has become very essential,. particularly in view of the heavy construction programme at present all over the country. It is to serve this purpose that IS : 1893-1962 ‘Recommendations for earthquake resistant design of structures’ was pub- lished and subsequently revised in 1966.

0.2.1 As a result of additional seismic data collected in India and further

knowledge and experience gained since the publication of the first revision of this standard, the Sectional Committee felt the need to revise the stan- dard again incorporating many changes, such as revision of maps showing seismic zones and epicentres, adding a more rational approach for design of buildings and substructure of bridges, etc. These were covered in the second revision of IS : 1893 brought out in 1970.

0.2.2

As

a result

of

the

increased

use

of the

standard,

considerable

amount of suggestions were received for modifying some of the provisions of the standard and, therefore, third revision of the standard was brought out in 1975. The following changes were incorporated in the third revision:

3

IS: 1893- 1984 a> The b) 4 4 e> New standard incorporated   seismic zone

IS: 1893- 1984

IS: 1893- 1984 a> The b) 4 4 e> New standard incorporated   seismic zone factors

a>

The

b)

4

4

e>

New

standard

incorporated

 

seismic

zone

factors

( previously

given

factors

in

the

second

revision

)

on

a more

rational

factors

were

introduced

to

account

for

the

varying

for various

structures.

of multi-storeyed

in

the

form

of

a

building

curve

the

with

coefficient

respect

to

was used

to

combine

for

determination

modal

of

shears.

hydrodynamic

as multiplying

basis.

Importance

degrees

the

of

period

A more

In

of importance

clauses

for

was

design

given

flexibility

of buildings.

rational

formula

clauses

were

introduced

 

pressures

in

elevated

tanks.

f)

Clauses

on concrete

and

masonry

dams were

modified,

taking

into

account

their

dynamic

behaviour

during

earthquakes.

 

Simplified

formulae

for

design

forces

were

introduced

based

on

results

of

extensive

studies

carried

out since second revision of the standard

was

published.

 

0.3

The

fourth

revision

has

been

prepared

to

modify

some

of

the

provi-

sions

of the

standard

as a result

of experience

gained

with

the use of this

standard.

In

this

revision

a number

of

Important

basic modifications with

respect

to

load

factors,

 

field

values

of N,

base

shear

and

modal

analysis

have

been

introduced.

A new

concept

of performance

factor

depending

on

the

structural

framing

system

and

brittleness

or

ductility

of

construction

has

been

incorporated.

 

Figure

2 for

average

acceleration

 

spectra has also

been

modified

and

a

curve

for

zero

percent

damping

has

been

incorporated.

 

0.4

It is not intended

in

this

standard

to

lay

down

regulations

so

that

no

structure shall suffer any damage during earthquake

of

all

magnitudes.

It

has been endeavoured to ensure that, as far as possible,

structures

are

able

to respond, without structural

and without total collapse to shocks of heavy intensities.

dard is intended for earthquake resistant design of normal structures, it has

damage

to

shocks

of

moderate

While

intensities

this

stan-

to be emphasized

that

in the

case

of special

structures

detailed

investigation

should be undertaken,

unless

otherwise

specified

in the

relevant

clauses.

0.4.1

Though

the

basis

for

the

design

of

different

types

of

structures

is

covered in this standard,

it

is

not

implied

that

detailed

dynamic

analysis

should

be made

in every

case.

There

might

be

cases

of less importance

and

relatively small structures

for

which

no

analysis

need

be

made,

provided

certain

simple

precautions

are

taken

in

the

construction.

For

example,

suitably proportioned

diagonal

bracings

in the

vertical

panels

 

of

steel

and

concrete

structures

add

to the

resistance

of frames to withstand earthquake

forces.

Similarly

in

highly

seismic

areas,

construction

of

a

type

which

S i m i l a r l y i n h i g h l
S i m i l a r l y i n h i g h l

IS : 1893- 1984

entails

heavy

debris

and

consequent

loss

of

life

and

property,

such

as

masonry,

particularly

mud

masonry

and

rubble

masonry,

should

be

avoi-

ded in

preference

to construction

of a type

which

is known

to

withstand

seismic

eflects

better,

such

as

construction

in

light

weight

materials

and

well

braced

timber-framed

structures.

For

guidance

on piecautions

to be

observed

 

in

the

construction

of

buildings,

reference

may

be

made

to

IS

: 4326-1976*.

 

0.5

Attention

is particularly

drawn

to

the

fact

that

the

intensity

of

shock

due

to

an

earthquake

could

greatly

vary

locally

at

any

~given place

due

to

variation

in

the

soil

conditions.

Earthquake

forces

would

be

affected

by

different

types

of

foundation

system

in

addition

to

variation

of ground

motion due to various types of soils. Considering

the

effects

in

a gross man-

ner, the standard gives guidelines for arriving at design seismic coefficients

based

0.6 Earthquakes

which results from them but also due to other chain effects like landslides, floods, fires and disruption to communication. It is, therefore, important

on

type

of soil and

can

foundation

damage

system.

not

cause

only

on

account

of

the

shaking

to take necessary precautions in the design

of structures

so that

they

are

safe against such secondary

effects

also.

0.7

It

is important

to note

that

the

seismic

coeficient,

used

in

ihe

design

of any

structure,

is dependent

on many

variable

factors

and

it

is an

extre-

mely

dificult

task

to determine

the

exact

seismic

coefficient

in

each

given

case.

Tt is, therefore,

necessary

to indicate

broadly

the

seismic

coeficients

that

could

generally

be

adopted

in different

parts

or zones

or

the

country

though,

of course,

a rigorous

analysis

considering

all

the

factors

involved

has

got

to be

made

in the

case

of all important

projects

in

order

to

arrive

at suitable

seismic

coefficients

for design.

The

Sectional

Committee

respon-

sible

for the

formulation

of this

standard

has

attempted

to

include

a

seis-

mic

zoning

map

( see Fig.

1

)

for

this

purpose.

The

object

of this

map

is

to

classify

the

area

of the

country

into

a number

of zones

in

which

one

may

reasonably

expect

earthquake

shock

of more

or less same intensity

in future.

The

Modified

Mercalli

Intensity

( see

2.7

)

broadly

associated

with

 

the

various

zones

is V

or

less,

VI,

VII,

VIII

and

1X

and

above

for

zones

I,

II,

III,

IV

and

V

respectively.

The

maximum

seismic

ground

acceleration

 

in

each

zone

cannot

 

be

presently

predicted

with

accuracy

either

on

a

deterministic

or on

a

probabilistic

basis.

The

design

value

chosen

for

a

particular

structure

is obtained

by multiplying

the

basic

horizontal

seismic

coefficient

for

that

zone,

given

in

Table

2,

by

an

appropriate

Importance

Factor

as suggested

in Table

4.

Higher

value

of importance

factor

is usually

adopted

for those

structures,

consequences

of failure

of

which,

are

serious.

However,

even

with

an importance

factor

of unity,

the

probability

is

that

*Code

of practice

for

earthquake

resistant

design

and

construction

of

buildings

(Jr&

revision

).

practice for earthquake resistant design and construction of buildings (Jr& revision ). 5

5

IS t 1893- 1984

a structure

struction

which

practice,

is properly designed

and

detailed

will not suffer serious

damage.

according

to good con-

It is pointed out that structures will normally experience more severe ground motion than the one envisaged in the seismic coefficient specified in this standard. However, in view of the energy absorbing capacity avail- able in inelastic range, ductile structures will be able to resist such shocks without much damage. It is, therefore, necessary that ductility must be built into the structures since brittle structures will be damaged more extensively.

since brittle structures will be damaged more extensively. 0.7.1 The Sectional Committee has appreciated that there

0.7.1 The Sectional Committee has appreciated that there cannot be. an

entirely scientific basis for zoning in view of the scanty data available. Though the magnitudes of different earthquakes which have occurred in the past are known to a reasonabIe amount of accuracy, the intensities of the shocks caused by these earthquakes have so far been mostly estimated by damage surveys and there is little instrumental evidence to corroborate the conclusions arrived at. Maximum intensity at different places can be fixed on a scale only on the basis of the observations made and recorded after the earthquake and thus a zoning map which is based on the maxi- mum intensities arrived at, is likely to lead in some cases to an incorrect

conclusion in the view of (a) incorrectness in the assessment of intensities,

ib) human error in judgement during the

damage survey, and (c) varia-

tion in quality and design of structures causing variation in type and extent of damage to the structures for the same intensity of shock. The Sectional Committee has, therefore, considered that a rational approach to the problem would be to arrive at a zoning map based on known magni- tudes and’ the known epicentres (see Appendix A) assuming all other condi- tions as being average, and to modify such an average idealized isoseismal map in the light of tectonics ( see Appendix B ), lithology ( see Appendix C)

and the maximum intensities as recorded from damage surveys, etc. The Committee has also reviewed such a map in the light of past history and future possibilities and also attempted to draw the lines demarcating the different zones so as to be clear of important towns, cities and industrial areas, after making special examination of such cases, as a little modifica- tion in the zonal demarcations may mean considerable difference to the

economics of a project in that

A, B and C are prepared based on information available up to 1986.

area. Maps shown in Fig. 1 and Appendices

0.8 In the formulation of this standard due weightage has been given to international coordination among the standards and practices prevailing in different countries in addition to relating it to the practices in the field in this country.

practices prevailing in different countries in addition to relating it to the practices in the field

6

practices prevailing in different countries in addition to relating it to the practices in the field
practices prevailing in different countries in addition to relating it to the practices in the field

As in the Original Standard, this Page is Intentionally Left Blank

IS

:

1893

- 1984

0.8.1

In

the

preparation

of this

standard

considerable

help

has been

given by the School of Research and Training in Earthquake Engineering,

University of Roorkee; Geological Survey of India; India Meteorological

Department

0.9 For the purpose of deciding whether a particular requirement of this standard is complied with, the final value, observed or calculated, express- ing the result of a test or analysis, shall be rounded off in accordance with IS : 2-1960*. The number of significant places retained in the rounded off value should be the same as that of the specified value in this standrd.

and several

other

organizations.

value in this standrd. and several other organizations. 1. SCOPE 1.1 This standard deals with earthquake

1.

SCOPE

1.1

This standard deals with earthquake resistant design of structures and

is applicable to buildings; elevated structures; bridges, concrete, masonry

and

1.2 This

earth

dams;

standard

embankments

and retaining

walls.

does not deal with the

construction

features

relating

to

earthquake resistant design in buildings and other structures. For guidance on earthquake resistant construction of buildings, reference may be made to IS : 4326-1976T. Further, provisions of this standard shall be used along with IS : 4326-1976t.

2.

shall apply.

2.0 For

TERMINOLOGY

the purpose

of

this standard,

the following

definitions

mics,

NOTE -

For

the definition

reference

may

be made

of terms

pertaining

to soil

mechanics

to

IS

: 2809-19721

and IS

: 2810-1979s.

and

soil

dyna-

2.1

Centre

of

Mass

-

The

point

through

which

the

resultant

of the

masses

of

a

system

acts.

This

corresponds

to

centre

of gravity

of

the

system.

2.2

Centre

of Rigidity

-- The

point through

which

the

resultant

of the

restoring

forces

of a system acts.

2.3

Critical

Damping

-

The

damping

beyond

which

the

motion

will

not be oscillatory.

 

2.4 Damping - The effect of internal friction, imperfect

elasticity

of

material, slipping, slidin,,0 etc, in reducing the amplitude of vibration and is expressed as a percentage of critical damping.

*Rules for rounding off numerical values ( revised ).

tCode of practice for earthquake resistant design and construction of buildings (first reo1sion) .

fGlossary

§Glossary of terms relating to soil dynamics (Jitst revision).

of terms

and symbols

relating

to soil engineering

(Jirst

rcvisio~t).

of terms relating to soil dynamics (Jitst revision). of terms and symbols relating to soil engineering

IS : 1893-1984

2.5

Epicentre

-

The

geographical

point

on

the

surface

of earth

vertically

above

the

focus

of the

earthquake.

 

2.6

Focus

-

The

originating

source

 

of

the

elastic

waves

which

cause

shaking

of ground.

 

2.7

Intensity

of

Earthquake

-

The

intensity

 

of

an

earthquake

at

a

place

is a measure

of the

effects

of the

earthquake,

 

and

is

indicated

by

a

number according

to

the

Modified

Mercalli

Scale

of

Seismic

Intensities

( see Appendix

D

).

2.8

Liquefaction

-

Liquefaction

is a state

in

saturated

cohesionless

soil

wherein

the

effective

shear

strength

is

reduced

to

negligible

value

for all

engineering

purposes

due

to pore

pressures

caused

by vibrations

during an

earthquake

when

they

approach

the

total

confining

pressure.

In this

condi-

tion

the

soil tends

to

behave

like

a fluid

mass.

 

2.9

Lithological

Features

-

The

nature

of the

geological

formation

 

of

the earth’s

crust

above

bed

rock

on

the

basis

of

such

characteristics

as

colour,

structure,

 

mineralogic

composition

and

grain

size.

2.10

Magnitude

of

Earthquake

( Richter’s

Magnitude

)

_-

The

magnitude

of an

earthquake

is the

logarithm

to

the

base

10 of the

maxi-

mum

trace

amplitude,

expressed

in

microns,

with

which

the

standard

short

period

torsion

seismometer

( with

a

period

of

0.8

second,

magnification

2 800

and

damping

nearly

critical

)

would

register

 

the

earthquake

at

an

epicentral

distance

of

100

km.

The

magnitude

hf

is

thus

a number

which

is

a nieasure

of energy

released

in an

earthquake.

2.11

Mode

Shape Coefficient

-

When a system is vibrating in a normal

mode,

the

amplitude

of the

masses

at any

particular

instant of time expre-

ssed as a ratio coefficient.

of the amplitude

of one

of the

masses

is known

as mode

shape

2.12

Normal

Mode

-

A system

is said

to be vibrating

in

a normal

mode

or principal

mode

when

all its

masses

attain

maximum

values

of

displace-

ments

simultaneously

and

also

they

pass

through

equilibrium

positions

simultaneously.

2.13 Response

Spectrum

-

The

representation

of

the

maximum

res-

ponse of idealized

single

degree

freedom

systems having certain period and

damping, during that earthquake. The maximum response is plotted against the undamped natural period and for various damping values, and

can be expressed in terms of maximum absolute acceleration, maximum

relative velocity or maximum

relative

displacement,

can be expressed in terms of maximum absolute acceleration, maximum relative velocity or maximum relative displacement,
can be expressed in terms of maximum absolute acceleration, maximum relative velocity or maximum relative displacement,
can be expressed in terms of maximum absolute acceleration, maximum relative velocity or maximum relative displacement,
 

IS:

1893

-

1984

2.14

Seismic

Coefficients

and

Seismic

Zone

Factors

 

2.14.1

Basic

Seismic

Coejicient

(a,)

-

A

coeficient

assigned

to

each

seismic

zone

to

give

the

basic

design

acceleration

as

a fraction

of

the

acceleration

due

to gravity.

 

2.14.2 Seismic <one Factor

(F,)

 

-

A

factor

to

be

used

for different

seis-

mic

zone

along

with

the

average

acceleration

spectra.

 

2.14.3 Importance

Factor

(I)

-

A factor

to modify

the

basic

seismic

coeffi-

cient

and

seismic

zone

factor,

depending

on

the

importance

of a structure.

2.14.4

Soil-Foundation

System

Factor

 

(/3)

-

A

factor

to

modify

the

basic

seismic

coefficient

and

seismic

zone

factor,

depending

upon

the soil founda-

tion

system.

 

2.14.5

Average

Acceleration

Coejicient

-

Average

 

specturm

acceleration

expressed

as a fraction

of acceleration

 

due

to

gravity.

2.14.6

Design

Horizontal

Seismic

Coejkient

(cq,)

-

The

seismic

coefficient

taken

for

design.

It

is expressed

as a function

of

the

basic

seismic

coeffi-

cient

(a,)

or the

seismic

zone

factor

together

with

the

average

acceleration

coefficient,

the

importance

factor

(I)

and

the

soil-foundation

system

factor

(6).

2.15

Tectonic

Feature

-

The

nature

of geological

formation

of the

bed

rock

in

the

earth’s

crust

revealing

regions

characterized

by

structural

features,

such

as

dislocation,

distortion,

faults,

folding,

thrusts,

volcanoes

with

their

age

of

formation

which

are

directly

involved

in

the

earth

movement

or quakes

resulting

in the

above

consequences.

3.

GENERAL

PRINCIPLES

AND

DESIGN

CRITERIA

3.1

General

Principles

 

3.1.1

Earthquakes

cause

random

motion

of ground

which

can

be

resol-

ved

in

any

three

mutually

perpendicular

directions.

This

motion

causes

the

structure

to

vibrate.

The

vibration

intensity

of

ground

expected

at

any

location

depends

upon

the

magnitude

of

earthquake,

the

depth

of

focus,

distance

from

the

epicentre

and

the

strata

on

which

the

structure

stands.

The

predominant

direction

of vibration

is

horizontal.

Relevant

combina-

tions

of

forces

applicable

for

design

of

a

particular

structure

 

have

been

specified

in

the

relevant

clauses.

 

3.1.2

The

response

of the

structure

to

the

ground

vibration

is

a

function

of the

nature

of foundation

soil;

materials,

 

form,

size

and

mode

of construc-

tion

of the

struture;

and

the

duration

and

the

intensity

of ground

motion.

This standard

specifies

design

seismic

coefficient

for

structures

standing

on

soils

or rocks

which

will

not

settle

or slide

due

to Ioss

of

strength

during

vibrations.

 
 

11

IS:1893

- 1984

3.1.3 The seismic coefficients recommended in this standard are based

on design practice conventionally followed and performance of structures in past earthquakes, It is well understood that the forces which structures would be subjected to in actual earthquakes, would be very much larger than specified in this sta.ndard as basic seismic coefficient. In order to take

care of this gap, for special cases importance factor and performance factor

( where

) are specified

3.1.4 In the case of structures

necessary

in this standard

designed

elsewhere.

for horizontal

seismic force only,

it shall be considered to act in any one direction at a time. Where both horizontal and vertical seismic forces are taken into account, horizontal force in any one direction at a time may be considered simultaneously with the vertical force as specified in 3.4.5.

3.1.5

The

vertical

seismic

coefficient

is a criterion

as otherwise

structures

analysis

in which

of structures

stability

except

shall

be considered

in the case of

of design

or, for overall

stability,

stated

in the relevant

clauses.

3.1.6

Equipment

and

systems supported

at various

floor

levels

of struc-