Overview of

Earthquake Design Codes

in India

TODAY…
– Past
– Present
– Future

1
3
Basics

Earthquake

An earthquake is a sudden, rapid shaking of the Earth

caused by sudden release of strain energy stored in rocks.

2
Earthquake Shaking
• Earthquake Effects versus Wind Force
∆roof

Fw

Ground Deformation Pressure on Building

Earthquake Shaking
• Earthquake Effects versus Wind Force

Zero Mean :: Cyclic

Time

Non-zero Mean :: Oscillatory

Time

3
Earthquake Shaking
• Earthquake Effects versus Wind Force
∆

H
Lateral Load H

Earthquake Behaviour
:: Inelastic

Wind Behaviour
:: Elastic

0
Deformation ∆

Earthquake Shaking
• Earthquake Effects
– Damage expected in normal structures
• Earthquake RESISTANT Structures
– NOT Earthquake PROOF Structures

4
 Earthquake-Resistant Buildings
∆
• Displacement demand
depends on shaking intensity H

Moderate Shaking
H
Severe Shaking

Minor Shaking

0 ∆

Objectives of EQRD
No structural damage
No non-structural damage

Some non-structural damage

Minor (Frequent) Shaking

Moderate Shaking

Structural damage,
but NO collapse

Severe (Infrequent) Shaking

5
4 Virtues of Eq. Resistant Structures ∆
Configuration

Stiffness
Lateral Load H

Strength

Ductility

Lateral Deformation ∆

4 Generations of Eq. Design Codes ∆

Configuration 2
H

Stiffness
1

2
Lateral Load H

Strength

2
Ductility
4
Energy

3
Lateral Deformation ∆

6
The Tethys Sea
…the island nation

7
 Seismic Hazard in India
• Seismic Zones
– IV & V
•Most Severe

16 …Past

8
Stiffness ∆

• Concept of Defiance
H
1
Stiffness
Lateral Load H

Lateral Deformation ∆

Stiffness
• The early constructors believed that…
– Earthquake can be countered by
constructing a stiff and massive structure
•LARGE Stiffness
•LARGE Mass

9
End of Dynasties
• 1556 Shaanxi (Jiajing) earthquake
– Deadliest earthquake on record
•~8,30,000 people dead
•840 km wide area destroyed
•~60% of population killed in some counties

10
Seismic Design
1
Stiffness-Based Strength-Based Deformation-Based Energy-Based
Design Design Design Design
Design for Ki only Design for Ki and VBd Design for Ki, VBd and ∆max Design for Ki, VBd (??), ∆max and E

Insufficient for
Earthquake-Resistant Design

Force Design Capacity Design

1. No srtength heirarchy
2. Design of members for shear Indian Standards for
1. Strong-Column Weak-beam
2. Design of members for shear
independent of P-M interaction
Earthquake Resistant Design started here in 1962
dependent of P-M interaction

Levels of EQRD 1 2 3
Mandatory for Normal buildings Normal buildings Critical and Lifeline buildings
in low seismic zones in moderate/high seismic in all seismic zones
zones
Optional for - Normal buildings Normal buildings
in low seismic zones in moderate/high seismic
zones

Configuration
• Concept of
Seismic Structural Configuration
– Convex Shapes

Directions of earthquake shaking

Convex Form Directions of earthquake shaking

Concave Form

11
Configuration
• Concept of
Seismic Structural Configuration
– Convex Shapes

Convex form

Concave form

Configuration
• Concept of
Seismic Structural Configuration
– Convex Shapes

Simple Shapes Complex Shapes

12
Configuration
• Concept of
Seismic Structural Configuration
– “If we have a POOR Configuration to start with,
all the Engineer can do is to provide a band-aid
– improve a basically poor solution as best as he
can.
• Conversely, if we start-off with a GOOD
Configuration and reasonable framing system,
even a poor Engineer can’t harm its ultimate
performance too much”
– Henry Degenkolb, a noted Earthquake Engineer

• Poor earthquake performance…

13
14
Strength
2A
• Most stakeholders opine
– Earthquake applies a FORCE on the Structure
– Structure should possess large lateral strength

•But because…
we don’t want to pay more money,
we won’t design for the lateral force ∆
– SAFETY jeopardized

15
Strength
2A
• Earthquake Design Lateral Force

VB = Ah (T) ⋅ W
where
Ah(Ta) = Design horizontal acceleration spectrum
W = Seismic weight
Ah (Ta)

?
T

Strength
2A
• 1920s

VB = 0.1W
where
W = Seismic Weight

Ah (Ta)

16
Strength
2A
• 1962

VB = CW
where
C = Flexibility Coefficient ( ∝ 1/T )

Strength
2A
• 1984
 Sa (T) 
VB =  βIF0 W

 g 
VB/W

17
Strength
2A
• Concept of Force ∆

2
Configuration H

2
Lateral Load H

Strength

Lateral Deformation ∆

…+ Configuration + Strength
• Even today, most believe
– Earthquake applies a FORCE on the Structure

– But, the Structure should possess

1. Good Seismic Structural Configuration
2. Reasonable Initial Lateral Stiffness
∆
3. At least a minimum Lateral Strength
H

18
 Seismic Design
2A
Stiffness-Based Strength-Based Deformation-Based Energy-Based
Design Design Design Design
Design for Ki only Design for Ki and VBd Design for Ki, VBd and ∆max Design for Ki, VBd (??), ∆max and E

Insufficient for
Earthquake-Resistant Design

Force Design Capacity Design

1. No srtength heirarchy 1. Strong-Column Weak-beam
2. Design of members for shear 2. Design of members for shear
independent of P-M interaction dependent of P-M interaction

Levels of EQRD 1 2 3
Mandatory for Normal buildings Normal buildings Critical and Lifeline buildings
in low seismic zones in moderate/high seismic in all seismic zones
zones
Optional for - Normal buildings Normal buildings
in low seismic zones in moderate/high seismic
zones

38 Present

19
Ductility
2B
• Concept of Ductility ∆

∆max H
µ=
Lateral Load H

∆y

Ductility

∆y Lateral Deformation ∆ ∆max

20
Ductility
2B
• Concept of Ductility INDIRECTLY ∆

– Detailing

Configuration
2 H

2
Lateral Load H

Strength

2
Ductility

Lateral Deformation ∆

Ductility
2B
• Concept
Desirable Collapse Mechanism
– Mechanisms that result in Ductile Behaviour
∆

21
Ductility
2B∆
• 2002
H
He H

Strength Hmax
R=Rµ RΩ

RΩ
Design Kmin
Strength HD

0 ∆elastic ∆e, demand ∆capacity ∆

Ductility
2B
• 2002
 S (T) 
ZI a 
g 
VB =  W
2R

VB/W

22
 Collapse Mechanism
2B
• Global Collapse Mechanism NOT guaranteed

H (kN)

1,200
Elastic

Plastic Hinges
1,000

800

600
Plastic

400

200
∆ (mm)
0 125 250 375 500 625 750

Collapse Mechanism
2B
• Global Collapse Mechanism
NOT predetermined
– ONLY Member Hierarchy addressed

GOOD Mechanism

POOR Mechanisms

23
Collapse Mechanism
2B
• Presumed
– Prescriptive Detailing
•Ductility NOT QUANTIFIED

High
Ductility

Moment M
Medium
Ductility
Low
Ductility

0 Rotation θ

Collapse Mechanism
• Design • Verification
2B
– 2R = 10
• IF Ω = 2,
Rµ = 5
– Does the structure have a
µ =5
H/Hp
?
(assuming it is a short
period structure)? 1.5

1.0

0.5

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

∆ /L

24
…+ Ductility + Collapse Mechanism
• Today, some stakeholders believe 2B
– Earthquake induces a FORCE on the Structure

– Structure should possess

1. Good Seismic Structural Configuration
2. Reasonable Initial Lateral Stiffness
3. At least a minimum Lateral Strength ∆

4. Good Ductility
H
5. Desired Collapse Mechanism

Prescriptive Detailing IS13920 (2016)

Ductility
Fully
2B
Welded
Strong-axis Connection
Top and Bottom Plates Flexibility
Relative Strength
Extended End Plates
Connection Moment M/Mjy

Tee Stub

Flush End Plates

Rigid
Rigid
Semi-Rigid
Semi-Rigid Flange Angles
and Web Angles

Flange Angles
Flexible
Flexible
Web Plates

Weak Web Angles

Weak
0 Connection Rotation θ

25
 Seismic Design
2B
Stiffness-Based Strength-Based Deformation-Based Energy-Based
Design Design Design Design
Design for Ki only Design for Ki and VBd Design for Ki, VBd and ∆max Design for Ki, VBd (??), ∆max and E

Insufficient for
Earthquake-Resistant Design

Force Design Capacity Design

1. No srtength heirarchy 1. Strong-Column Weak-beam
2. Design of members for shear 2. Design of members for shear
independent of P-M interaction dependent of P-M interaction

Levels of EQRD 1 2 3
Mandatory for Normal buildings Normal buildings Critical and Lifeline buildings
in low seismic zones in moderate/high seismic in all seismic zones
zones
Optional for - Normal buildings Normal buildings
in low seismic zones in moderate/high seismic
zones

52 Future…

26
New Method Needed
• Closed Loop Method
σ
∆

ε
0

∆
0

New Method Needed

• EQ-Resistant Design Development Process
Design

Behaviour Earthquake Behaviour

Seismic Design Code
Real Earthquake Ground Shaking
Start

Analysis
Design

Analysis

Synthetic/Recorded Earthquake Ground Shaking

27
New Method Needed
• Pre-Earthquake Safety Assessment Process
Earthquake
Start Behaviour
Analytical Analysis
Assessment
Real
Earthquake Ground Motion
Synthetic/Recorded
Earthquake Ground Motion

Behaviour Design

Retrofit

Seismic Design Code

Deformability
∆
3
H
Lateral Load H

3
Deformability

Lateral Deformation ∆ ∆max

28
Deformability
3
• Displacement Based Design ∆

– How does it help?

H
Lateral Load H

∆max ∆cap ∆max

Lateral Deformation ∆

Deformability
3
Lateral Load H

?
0
Lateral Deformation ∆

29
…+ Deformability
3
• In time ahead…
all stakeholders need to believe
– Earthquake induces a FORCE on the Structure

– Structure should possess

1. Good Seismic Structural Configuration
2. Reasonable Initial Lateral Stiffness ∆

3. At least a minimum Lateral Strength

4. Good Ductility H

5. Desired Collapse Mechanism

6. Required Deformability

Displacement Based Design

Current Future
3
– δmax and VB – At least a Minimum VB
– Performance,
δmax and ∆max

Ki Ki
H H

VB

∆ ∆
∆cap

30
Energy
4
• Ground Motions
– Amplitude
– Duration of Significant Shaking
– Frequency Content 1985 Mexico Earthquake (SCT 1A; N90E)

1940 Imperial Valley Earthquake (El Centro; S00E)

1971 San Fernando Earthquake (Pacoima Dam; N76W)

0 20 40 60 Time (sec)

0.5g 1991 Uttarkashi Earthquake (Uttarkashi, N75E)

Energy
• Ground Motions

Dynamics of Structures
Chopra,A.K.

31
Elastic Energy
4
• Total Energy input by Earthquake to Structure

Input Energy
Energy

Duration of Earthquake Shaking

Elastic Energy
4
• WITHOUT Structure Ductility

Kinetic and
Energy

Strain Energy

Viscous Damping
Energy

Duration of Earthquake Shaking

32
Elastic Energy
4
• WITH Structure Ductility
Kinetic and Strain
Energy
Energy

Hysteretic
Energy

Viscous Damping
Energy

Duration of Earthquake Shaking

Energy
4
• Absorbed under cyclic loading

H H

Δ Δ

Bad Good

33
Energy
4
• Cyclic behaviour
– Stable Hysteretic Response
V
Joint Shear V/Vy γ

0
Joint Distortion γ

Seismic Design
3
Stiffness-Based Strength-Based Deformation-Based Energy-Based
Design Design Design Design
Design for Ki only Design for Ki and VBd Design for Ki, VBd and Dmax Design for Ki, VBd (??), ∆max and E

Insufficient for
Earthquake-Resistant Design

Force Design Capacity Design

1. No srtength heirarchy 1. Strong-Column Weak-beam
2. Design of members for shear 2. Design of members for shear
independent of P-M interaction dependent of P-M interaction

Levels of EQRD 1 2 3
Mandatory for Normal buildings Normal buildings Critical and Lifeline buildings
in low seismic zones in moderate/high seismic in all seismic zones
zones
Optional for - Normal buildings Normal buildings
in low seismic zones in moderate/high seismic
zones

34
Energy
4
∆

H
Lateral Load H

4
Inelastic Energy

Lateral Deformation ∆

Energy
4
• In some more time ahead…
all stakeholders need to believe
– Earthquake induces a FORCE on the Structure

35
…+ Energy
4
• In some more time ahead…
all stakeholders need to believe
– Structure should possess
1. Good Seismic Structural Configuration
2. Reasonable Initial Lateral Stiffness ∆

3. At least a minimum Lateral Strength

4. Good Ductility H

5. Desired Collapse Mechanism

6. Required Deformability
7. Guaranteed Energy Absorption Capacity

Energy Based Design

Current Future
4
– Ki and VB – May not need VB
– Performance Req.,
Ki, ∆max and Emin

Ki Ki
H H

VB Emin

∆ ∆max ∆

36
Seismic Design
4
Stiffness-Based Strength-Based Deformation-Based Energy-Based
Design Design Design Design
Design for Ki only Design for Ki and VBd Design for Ki, VBd and Dmax Design for Ki, VBd (??), Dmax and E

Insufficient for
Earthquake-Resistant Design

Force Design Capacity Design

1. No srtength heirarchy 1. Strong-Column Weak-beam
2. Design of members for shear 2. Design of members for shear
independent of P-M interaction dependent of P-M interaction

Levels of EQRD 1 2 3
Mandatory for Normal buildings Normal buildings Critical and Lifeline buildings
in low seismic zones in moderate/high seismic in all seismic zones
zones
Optional for - Normal buildings Normal buildings
in low seismic zones in moderate/high seismic
zones

The Way Forward…

37
 4 Virtues of Eq. Resistant Structures ∆
Configuration

Stiffness
Lateral Load H

Strength

Ductility

Lateral Deformation ∆

Seismic Design

Stiffness-Based Strength-Based Deformation-Based Energy-Based

Design Design Design Design
Design for Ki only K i and VBd K i, VBd and Dmax K i, VBd(??), Dmax and E

INSUFFICIENT for
Earthquake-Resistant Design
Currently IN PRACTICE
Currently
under
Force Design Capacity Design Currently
RESEARCH
under
Collapse
(1) No hierarchy of (1) Strong-Column Weak-Beam DEVELOPMENT
relative strengths of members Philosophy Mechanism
Collapse Mechanism Deformability
(2) Design of members for shear (2) Design of members for shear
independent of P-M interaction dependent of P-M interaction Deformability Energy Absorbed

Levels of EQRD 1 2 3
Mandatory for Normal buildings Normal buildings in Critical and Lifeline buildings
in low seismic zones moderate & high seismic zones
Optional for - Normal buildings in Normal buildings in
low seismic zones moderate/high seismic zones

38
7 Virtues of Eq. Resistant Structures ∆

1 Configuration
Desirable
6 Collapse H
Mechanism
2 Stiffness

3
Lateral Load H

Strength
5 Deformability

7 Energy 4 Ductility

Lateral Deformation ∆

39
 Stiffness
Balancing the Unknowns… Strength
Ductility
Deformation
• DEMAND Energy

– Nature
• Can have only REASONABLE ESTIMATE
of Earthquake Demand on the Structure

• CAPACITY
– Manmade
∆
• Need to have CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE
of Structural Capacity
to resist the Earthquake Effects H

Seismic Hazard Assessment

• Earthquake Demand is a key unknown
– Severity of Earthquake
• Deterministic
– Too little data of damaging past earthquakes in India
• Probabilistic
– Probability assigned by Code writers
» Not easy to get a physical feel of the % probability
» Just a number
∆

40
Seismic Hazard Assessment
• Extreme Event Earthquake
– Future events can be bigger than that considered
•0.10g to 0.36g

1967 Koyna EQ 1993 Killari EQ

PGA ~0.63 g PGA ~ 0.5 g
PGI ~ VIII PGI ~ VIII+

Seismic Zone IV Seismic Zone III

0.24g 0.16g
0.12g 0.08g

Seismic Hazard Assessment

• What FORCE to design for?
– Return Period YR of Earthquake
– Life YL of 1.0
STRUCTURE

0.1

0.01

YL
p= 0.001
YR
0.0001

0.00001 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8PGA ( g )

41
Seismic Hazard Assessment
• How much chance to take…

1.0

0.1

0.01
Maximum
CONSIDERED
YL
p= 0.001
YR
0.0001 Maximum
CREDIBLE
0.00001 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8PGA ( g )

Seismic Hazard Assessment

• Common Perception
– Buildings versus Other Structures
1.0
Maximum CONSIDERED
0.1

Buildings
0.01
Bridges
YL
p= 0.001 Lifelines
YR
Maximum
0.0001 Dams CREDIBLE
NPPs
0.00001 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8PGA ( g )

42
 1.0 g
0.36 g 0.40 g
0.32 g
0.35 g 0.40 g 0.11 g
??
0.36 g

0.36 g 0.40 g

0.30g

0.22 g 1.2 g

ZeMCE  Sa 
HD = I W = AhW
R  g 
Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration

Seismic Hazard Assessment

• Response Reduction Factor
– SMRF in RC Z S 
HD = eMCE I  a W = Ah W
12 R g 
Response Reduction Factor

10

0
Philippines
Canada

India

Indonesia
Turkey
Mexico
IBC
ASCE 07-5

Iran

New Zealand
Pakistan

Japan
EC8
Chile

43
Seismic Hazard Assessment
• Design Seismic Coefficient Ah
Country PGA Z/ZIndia Ah Ah/Ah, India Ah/Z
Greece 0.36 1.00 0.26 2.88 0.72
Turkey 0.40 1.11 0.13 1.44 0.33
Iran 0.35 0.97 0.14 1.56 0.40
Pakistan 0.40 1.11 0.19 2.11 0.48
India 0.36 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.25
Nepal - - 0.09 1.00 -
Indonesia 0.30 0.83 0.19 2.11 0.63
Philippines 0.40 1.11 0.11 1.22 0.28
Australia 0.22 0.61 0.15 1.66 0.68
Japan 1.00 2.78 0.30 3.33 0.30
New Zealand 1.20 3.33 0.25 2.78 0.21

Seismic Hazard Assessment

• Underestimated in India
– MSK Scale FAILS

Best of the World

India

44
Choosing the Design Seismic Hazard
• Impact Total

Total Cost of a Structure Original

Retrofit

0 Ah
Collapse No Collapse

PSHA
• Inputs
PGA
– Potential events
– Faults
– Rock properties
– Local soil 0.5g to 1.2g
properties

•YR = 5,000 years

S. T. G. Raghukanth

45
PSHA
• Inputs
PGA
– Potential events
– Faults
– Rock properties
– Local soil 0.7g to 1.5g
properties

•YR = 10,000 years

S. T. G. Raghukanth

Displacement Ground Motions

• Near-Field Motions
– Peak Ground Residual Displacement

46
 Displacement Ground Motions
• Near-Field Motions
– Peak Ground Residual Displacement

Displacement Ground Motions

• Near-Field Motions
– Pulse Actions Chi-Chi Earthquake
Acceleration
Displacement

47
 Displacement Ground Motions
Chi-Chi Earthquake
• Near-Field Motions
– Pulse Actions

Velocity

Displacement Ground Motions

• Near-Field Motions
– Pulse Actions
•Attenuation
Displacement (cm)

Iyengar and Raghukanth (2006)

48
 Near-Field Motions
Finite Element Modeling

S.T.G.Raghukanth

Displacement Ground Motions

• Near-Field Motions
– Peak Ground
Displacement
Displacement (cm)

S.T.G. Raghukanth

49
 Displacement Ground Motions
• Near-Field Motions
– Peak Ground
Residual

Displacement (cm)
Displacement

S.T.G. Raghukanth

Eurasian
EurasianPlate
Plate

Indian Plate
Arabian
Sea Bay of
Bengal

Indian Ocean

50
Near – Field Ground Motion

51
52
Seismic Hazard Assessment
• Deformation Demand Needed
– Larger displacement demand under
higher intensity of earthquake shaking

SEVERE Shaking
H

MODERATE Shaking

MINOR Shaking

0 ∆

53
What is needed…

Competence
= Attitude
+ Skills
+ Knowledge

What is needed…
• Attitude…
– SAVE people (and property)
through Earthquake Resistant Structures
•Not to unduly LOWER the cost

54
What is needed…
• Skills…
– Hand Calculations

•Dynamic Analysis
•Nonlinear Analysis

What is needed…
• Knowledge…
– Displacement-controlled loading

•Need for Ductility

•Deformation Capacity of the Structure
•Inelastic Energy Absorption Capacity

•GEOTECHNICAL Engineering ∆

55
The Mission
Earthquake Structural Safety Program
Governments + Stakeholders
2016 onwards

Duc.-bD Def.-bD EbD

2016 2018 2020 2025

Academics and Practitioners

Bureau of Indian Standards
Professional Societies

Today…
IS 1893 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures
Part 1 General Provisions and Buildings (6th Revision)
Part 2 Liquid Retaining Tanks (5th Revision)
Part 3 Bridges and Retaining Walls
Part 4 Industrial Structures Including Stack-Like Structures (1st Revision)
IS 4326 Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings
(3rd Revision)
IS 13827 Improving Earthquake Resistance of Earthen Buildings
IS 13828 Improving Earthquake Resistance of Low Strength Masonry
IS 13920 Ductile Design and Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures
Subjected to Seismic Forces (1st Revision)
IS 13935 Seismic Evaluation Repair & Strengthening of Masonry Buildings
(1st Revision)
IS 15988 Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening of Existing Reinforced
Concrete Buildings

56
Coming up…
• Coming up
– REVISED Seismic Zone Map
– NEW Displacement-based Design of Buildings

– Seismic Design of Non-Structural Elements

– Seismic Design of Base Isolated Buildings
– Seismic Design of Buried Pipelines ∆

Expansion of Earthquake Codes

Part System Indian Standard
IS 1893 IS 13920 IS 15988
Code of Code of Guidelines
Practice Practice
Criteria for Ductile Design Assessment
Earthquake and Detailing and
Resistant of New Strengthening
Design of Structures of Existing
Structures subjected to Structures
subjected to Seismic Effects subjected to
Seismic Effects Seismic Effects
General Provisions and
1 Buildings
(a) RC Buildings
(b) Masonry Buildings
(c) Steel Buildings

57
Expansion of Earthquake Codes
Part System Indian Standard
IS 1893 IS 13920 IS 15988
Code of Code of Guidelines
Practice Practice
Criteria Ductile Design Assessment
and Detailing and
Strengthening
Liquid Retaining Tanks —
2 Elevated and Ground
Supported
Bridges and Retaining
3 Walls
Industrial Structures and
4 Stack-like Structures
Dams and Embankments
5

Expansion of Earthquake Codes

Part System Indian Standard
IS 1893 IS 13920 IS 15988
Code of Code of Guidelines
Practice Practice
Criteria Ductile Design Assessment
and Detailing and
Strengthening
Non-Structural Elements
6
Base Isolated Structures
7
Energy Dissipation
8 Devices
Pipelines
9
(a) Buried
(b) Overground

58
Hierarchy in IS Documents
• Requirements, Specifications, Criteria, …
– Concepts
•Precise
– SHALL : Largely POLICY (Rare changes)
• Guidelines
– Technology
•Narrow Range
– SHOULD : IMPLEMENTATION (Regular changes)
• Manuals
– Practices
•Wide Band
– MAY : ACTIONS (Frequent changes)

Complexity
• Balance
– SAFETY
– FUNCTIONALITY
– DURABILITY & SUSTAINABILITY
– AESTHETICS
– ECONOMY

59
The Truth…
• Teachers
– Still consider Earthquake to be a force
• Nonlinear Analysis
– Is not taught as part of mandatory curriculum
• Seismic Design Codes
– Revised in decades

60
The Truth…
• Structural Safety is a pointed question
– Answers have to be precise
•Lives are at stake

Constitution of India
Article 3

Every citizen is responsible for

the SAFETY of all other citizens also

61
 Asatoma Sadgamaya
Tamasoma Jyotirgamaya
Mrutyorma Amrutamgamaya

Grateful
• Bureau of Indian Standards
– Sanjay Pant, Head, Civil Engineering Division
– S. Arun Kumar, Secretary, CED 39

• Local Hosts
– IE(I)
– IAStructE
– CEAI

Clipart and Photos from Internet

62
Thank you…

Jai Hind!!

63
Thank you!!

64