DR Ashok K Jain Former Professor IIT Roorkee PDF

A Critical Review of
IS:13920--2016
IS:13920
Prof. Ashok K. Jain
Retd.
R td. Professor,
Retd P f IIT Roorkee
R k
Indirapuram,, GZB UP 201014
Indirapuram
<ashokjain_iitr@yahoo.co.in>
Introduction
X IS:13920 1993 has been revised and 2016 edition has been
released recently after nearly 25 years.
X It was under revision for nearly a decade.
X It is strange that this code relies heavily on nonlinear
static and dynamic analysis in certain cases. Even the
final draft 1893-part 1 does not specify how to carryout
linear time history analysis in view of certain obvious
difficulties.
X Therefore, to directly jump to nonlinear static or dynamic
analysis is scary. 2
I.A.S.E. Conference on Planning & Design of Tall Buildings incl. Earthquake and Wind Effects Dec 6-7, New Delhi,
Clause 1.1.2
112
X Flat slab structures must have a lateral load resisting

system capable of providing similar level of performance
as envisioned in this standard and must be designed for
drift compatibility. The adequacy of such designs shall be
demonstrated by y adequate,
q , appropriate
pp p
experimentation and nonlinear dynamic structural
analysis.
Nonlinear
dynamic Analysis
3
Comment on Clause 1.1.2
112
X The language of this clause is such that it will be
impossible to design a flat slab system in seismic zones III,
IV and V for the following reasons:
X Nowhere the Code specifies the performance criteria for a
flat slab or any other system. IS:13920-2016 is not a
Performance based Code. It is a clear Prescriptive Code.
X Nowhere the Code specifies how to model degradation in
strength and stiffness of various elements, hysteresis
models, and carryout a nonlinear analysis static or
dynamic. There are large number of parameters that need
to be defined very carefully and also how to interpret the
results of a nonlinear analysis. 4
112
X The Code
Th C d says adequacy
d mustt bbe d
demonstrated
t t db by
adequate, appropriate experimentation and nonlinear
dynamic structural analysis. It means experimental
evidence is essential. There is no either or or. Is it
a practical clause?
X At presentt even the
th IS
IS:1893-draft
1893 d ft 2016 d
does nott d
define
fi a
time history method for linear dynamic analysis because
of various reasons. Then how to carry out a nonlinear
dynamic analysis is to expect too much.
X Such a matter must not be left to specialist literature
alone
l as it iis li
liable
bl tto b
be misused
i d and
d llead
d tto litig
litigation.
ti
5
Clause 5.3.3
533
X The ratio of actual ultimate strength to the actual 0.2%

proof strength shall be at least 1.15.
6
533
X Please refer to Amendment # 1 dated 2013 to IS:1786-

2008 wherein there are three grades of steel: 415, 415D
and 415S etc. The S grade steel must have this ratio as
1.25 but the Indian steel mills are unable to achieve it.
Clause 6
6.3
3 makes use of factor 1.4
1 4 = 1.25/0.87
1 25/0 87 assuming
the strength ratio is 1.25. Clause 20.2.2.5 of ACI 318-2014
requires that the strength ratio must be 1.25. In the
I di context,
Indian t t this
thi ffactor
t 11.4
4 ought
ght tto b
be reduced
d d tto
1.15/0.87 = 1.30.
7
Clause 5.4
54
X In RC buildings plinth beams (where provided), and

staircase beams and slabs framing into the columns shall
be included in the analytical model for structural analysis.
Sequential
q
Construction
8
Comment on Clause 5.4
54
X On the face of it, this clause looks correct. If inclined

slabs (staircase and ramp) are included in the analysis, it
will give a very high lateral thrust in columns as the latter
provide lateral restraint. However, if you consider the
sequence of construction,
construction this restraint does not lead to a
very large force. Therefore, a stage construction analysis
must be done to account for sequence of construction in
such
h cases and d arrive
i att correctt column
l fforces.
9
Clause 5.5
55
X If a building with any kind of irregularity as listed in

IS:1893-1 is adopted, detailed nonlinear analysis shall be
performed
f d tto d
demonstrate
t t ththatt th
there iis no th
threatt tto lloss
of life and property.
Nonlinear analysis
For which irregularity ?
permitted
itt d or nott
permitted
10
Comment on Clause 5.5
55
X It is a very interesting clause. I have carried out extensive

nonlinear analysis of residential buildings with different
types of irregularities in plan and elevation. A nonlinear
pushover static analysis up to 5% lateral drift is not likely
to exceed II-OO or L
L-SS states except for a soft storey
irregularity. Thus, this clause becomes a very good escape
route. It should also be noted that IS:1893-2016 draft does
nott require
i any nonlinear
li analysis.
l i
11
Clause 6.1.4
614
X This Clause deals with the width of a beam with respect

to that of the column for the purpose of providing shear
reinforcement in beams.
12
614
X Printing error
X This clause is adopted from ACI 318
318. In Fig
Fig. 1A
1A, the
direction of analysis should have been shown as in the
original ACI figure.
Printing Error
13
Clause 6.3.4
634
X In the calculation of design shear force capacity of RC

beams, contribution of the following shall not be
considered:
X (a) bent-up bars
X (b) inclined links, and
X (c) concrete in RC section
14
634
X In the previous edition (1993), only the first two points

were included. Now a third point has been incorporated,
that is, concrete.
X It is based on the assumption that the entire concrete has
cracked
k d under
d reversall off seismic
i i fforce. H
However, th
the
same philosophy is not used for computing the flexure
resistance of the section. This clause has been adopted
from the ACI 318 with modifications.
X
15
6 3 4 cont.
cont
X The ACI 318-2008,, clause 21.6.5.2 Transverse reinforcement
X Transverse reinforcement over the lengths lo, identified in 21.6.4.1, shall be
proportioned to resist shear assuming Vc = 0 when both (a) and (b) occur:
X (a) The earthquake-induced
earthquake induced shear force
force, calculated in accordance with
21.6.5.1, represents one-half or more of the maximum required shear
strength within lo;
X (b) The factored axial compressive force,
force Pu,
Pu including earthquake effects is
less than Ag fc/20.
X The ACI 318-2014 has added a commentary to this clause:
X However, this
H hi stratagem chosen
h for
f iits relative
l i simplicity
i li i should
h ld not bbe
interpreted to mean that no concrete is required to resist shear. On the
contrary it must be argued that the concrete core resists all the shear with
the shear reinforcement confining and strengthening the concrete.
concrete.
16
6 3 4 cont.
cont
X These two critical conditions have been omitted in the

Indian code without any logic.
X Moreover, the new commentary in ACI 318-2014 gives the
importance of shear strength of concrete.
X The Indian Clause is unnecessary being overconservative.
17
Clause 7.1.1
711
X The minimum dimension of a column shall not be less than

20 db (Fig. 7).
Based on Cl.
Cl 18.8.2.3
18 8 2 3
of
ACI 318 - 2014
18
Clause 18
18.8.2.3
8 2 3 ACI 318-2014
X Where longitudinal beam bars extend through a beam-

beam-
column joint,
joint the column dimension parallel to the beam
reinforcement shall be at least 20 times the largest
longitudinal beam bar.
X The commentary
Th t says th
thatt it iis applicable
li bl tto straight
t i ht
beam bars which may slip within the beam-column joint
under severe moment reversals during the formation of
adjacent beam hinging.
19
711
X Printing error
X The term dimension is misleading
misleading. Is it width or depth or
both? Moreover, Fig 7 shows 15 db instead of 20 db. It is a
typo error.
Printing Error
20
Clause 7.1.2
712
X The cross-section aspect ratio (that is, ratio of smaller

dimension to larger dimension) shall not be less than 0.45.
Vertical members of RC buildings whose cross-section
aspect ratio is less than 0.4 shall be designed as per
requirements of 9.9
21
712
X
Very Confusing
22
Clause 7.2.1
721
23
721
24
7 2 1 cont
cont.
X
25
7 2 1 cont
cont.
X (5) The rules of (4) and (5) of this sub clause are waived
at the top level of multi-storey buildings.
X Thus factor 1.3 has been included to take care of soft

storey mechanism.
X Moreover, Clause (5) is missing in IS:13920.
26
Clause 8
X SPECIAL CONFINEMENT REINFORCEMENT

X The requirements of this section shall be met with in
beams and columns,, unless a larger
g amount of transverse
reinforcement is required from shear strength
considerations given in 6.3.3 for beams and 7.5 for
columns.
columns
X 8.1(b) (1) of minimum member dimension of the beam
or column,,
X 8.1(b) (2) 6 times diameter of the smallest longitudinal
bars,
27
Comment on Clause 8
X This clause should have been numbered as 7.6 (corresponding

to 7.4 of IS:13920-1993) instead of 8. This would have avoided
the confusion whether this clause is applicable to columns
alone or both beams and columns.
X The special confinement reinforcement in beams has already
been covered in 6.3 and Fig. 6.
28
Comment on Clause 8 cont.
cont
X Clause 6.3.5(b) says 8 times the diameter of the

smallest longitudinal bar. Apparently, there is a
confusion. Is it 6 times or 8 times in beams?
X Clause 8 should refer only to columns and not beams.
Al
Also, Fig.
Fi 12 andd clause
l 8
8.1(a)
1( ) andd ((c)) refer
f only
l tto
columns.
X It is a clear case of poor copy and paste.
paste Poor Copy
and Paste
29
Clause 9.1.3
913
X Width of beam column joint
X It is a repetition of Clause 7.1.1 and Fig. 7.
X It is again a poor copy and paste.

Poor Copy
and Paste
30
Clause 10.1.2
10 1 2
X (a) The minimum thickness of special shear walls has been

fixed at 150 mm.
X E li it was preferably
Earlier f bl nott less
l th
than 150 mm.
X Comment
X There is
Th i apparently
tl no rational
ti lbbehind
hi d making
ki it a
minimum value of 150 mm.
X It is killing freedom to the designer and making the code
too conservative without any rational.
31
Clause 10.1.6
10 1 6
32
10 1 6
33
10 1 6 cont
cont.
X
Poor Copy
and
d Paste
P t
34
BACKGROUND HISTORY OF
CONFINEMENT STEEL IN RC COLUMNS
X
35
36
X
37
Comment on Clause 8
X
38
Concluding Remarks
X This Code was under revision for more than a decade. A

number of drafts were circulated. The final Code has
included a number of explanations and a few new clauses
pertaining to flexure and shear strength of beam-column
joints.
joints
X The significant points that need urgent attention of the
Code are as follows:
39
Concluding Remarks cont.
cont
X There are a number of typo errors Clause 6.1.4, 6.3.4,
7.1.1, 7.1.2, 8.1, 10.1.6 (Table 1).
X Drafting has been poor at some places such as Clause
7.1.2, 8, 9.1.3 and Table 1.
X The Code has referred to the use of experimentation and
nonlinear dynamic analysis at Clause 1.1.2 and nonlinear
analysis at Clause 5.5.
5 5 With the easy availability of very
powerful software with nonlinear static and dynamic
analysis capability, there is an urgent need to emphasize
that the designer may undertake such an analysis only if
they have sufficient understanding, exposure and
experience in carrying out a nonlinear analysis and
interpretation of the results. 40
Concluding Remarks cont.
cont
X The Code does not give any guidance on how to model

degradation in strength and stiffness of structural
elements, carryout nonlinear analysis, and interpret the
results.
X A slight
li ht oversight
i ht may llead
d tto absurd
b d results
lt and
d th
their
i
interpretation.
X It can lead to unnecessary confusion and litigation.
litigation
41
Concluding Remarks
X Once the IS:13920-2016 has adopted several figures and

clauses from ACI 318 including the confinement steel for
circular columns, there is no justification for not updating
the expression for confinement steel in rectangular
columns which is 3 times of that in the ACI 318.
318
X It is an unnecessary conservatism.
X Moreover, there is no experimental research in India to
Moreover
justify retaining the old conservative clause.
42
A big Thank You
X Time for Q & A
43

DR Ashok K Jain Former Professor IIT Roorkee PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

DR Ashok K Jain Former Professor IIT Roorkee PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A Critical Review of

X Flat slab structures must have a lateral load resisting

X The ratio of actual ultimate strength to the actual 0.2%

X Please refer to Amendment # 1 dated 2013 to IS:1786-

X In RC buildings plinth beams (where provided), and

X On the face of it, this clause looks correct. If inclined

X If a building with any kind of irregularity as listed in

X It is a very interesting clause. I have carried out extensive

X This Clause deals with the width of a beam with respect

X In the calculation of design shear force capacity of RC

X In the previous edition (1993), only the first two points

X These two critical conditions have been omitted in the

X The minimum dimension of a column shall not be less than

X Where longitudinal beam bars extend through a beam-

X The cross-section aspect ratio (that is, ratio of smaller

X Thus factor 1.3 has been included to take care of soft

X SPECIAL CONFINEMENT REINFORCEMENT

X This clause should have been numbered as 7.6 (corresponding

X Clause 6.3.5(b) says 8 times the diameter of the

X Width of beam column joint

X It is a repetition of Clause 7.1.1 and Fig. 7.

X It is again a poor copy and paste.

X (a) The minimum thickness of special shear walls has been

X This Code was under revision for more than a decade. A

X The Code does not give any guidance on how to model

X Once the IS:13920-2016 has adopted several figures and

X Time for Q & A

Potrebbero piacerti anche