The Bridge and Structural Engineer Volume 44 Number 1 March 2014 1

THE STATE OF CODES ON STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING IN INDIA

safely stated that no research paper has come
out from any of the premier teaching or research
organizations that changed the course of thinking
or understanding of any of the basic structural
elements: bar, beam, slab, wall, column and
beam-column joints be it is in concrete or
steel.To be fair, it is important to mention that
the Government of India is pouring millions of
Rupees in research through its various central
and state agencies. The impact of research in
Structural Engineering and, therefore, on codes
is still invisible.
Table 1: Important Codes on Structural
Engineering
Name of Code Current
Year
Previous
Revision
IS:456 2000 1978
IS:800 2007 1984
IS:875 Part 3 1987 1964
IS:1343 2012 1980
IS:1893 Part 1,3,4 2002, 2005 1984
IS:3370 Parts 1
and 2
2009 1965
IS:4326 2013 1993
IS:13920 1993 NA
IRC 6 2014 2000, 2010
IRC: 18 and 21 2011 as IRC
112
2000
The author served on various BIS committees
since 1984 IS:456, IS:800, IS:1893, IS:3370
and IS:13920 etc.[1,2,4,5,7]. In India, It takes
any thing from 10 to 20 years to revise a code
even with the copy and paste technology. Table
1 summarizes the state of revision of some of
Ashok K. JAIN
Professor of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
Roorkee 247667 INDIA
ashokjain_iitr@yahoo.co.in
Ashok K. J ain, born 1950, received
civil engineering degrees from the
University of Roorkee and Michigan
Ann Arbor, USA. He is a former Director,
MNIT,J aipur. His research area is non-
linear behaviour of steel and concrete
structures.
Summary
Structural engineering is the back bone of
Civil Engineering and infrastructure in any
society. It is crucial that all the codes related to
structural engineering are based on principles
of mechanics, and experimentally veried.They
should be logical, rational and efcient, and
should be revised as frequently as necessary.
This paper highlights some of the signicant
discrepancies & shortcomings in our codes. It
takes about 10 to 20 years to revise any code
even based on copy and paste technology where
the logic and continuity gets lost. It causes huge
embarrassment and confusion to the code users.
It is recommended that India should adopt any of
the code in full from amongst some of the nest
international codes along with commentary. A
national annexure can be appended to address
the local practices and other issues. Performance
based codes need to be introduced at the earliest
so that our engineers may compete globally.
Keywords: Code, Concrete, Earthquake, Structural
engineering, Steel, Shear wall, Water tanks
1. Introduction
Each society has developed its own guidelines
on how to construct safe houses/structures in
its own ways from times immemorial based on
its own experiences with materials, construction
practices and nature. Over the last century
each code has evolved based on scientic and
technical inputs. In India, it is an open fact that
there is no fundamental and focused research in
structural engineering eld including earthquake
engineering. Since independence, it can be
2 Volume 44 Number 1 March 2014 The Bridge and Structural Engineer
our most important codes. The Indian Roads
Congress revised IRC 18 and 21 in 2011 and
introduced the concept of limit state design. The
concept of Ultimate load theory in concrete and
steel structures was introduced in UK and USA
in the early seventies. The limit state design in
steel structures was introduced in India in the
late 2007 and IRC 24 [8] was revised in 2010.
Obviously, the working stress method of IS:800-
2007 is still very much in vogue. The earthquake
engineering codes IS:1893 and 13920 [4,7] are
far away from ground reality. Non-linear response
spectra based on ductility levels is still missing.
Same is the state of recently revised IS:3370 in
2009 [5].Each code committee looks West and
adopts one or more British, European or American
codes depending upon the taste of Convener and
members. The next step is to make that code
look different from the original and adapt it to suit
the so called Indian conditions.This apparently
leads to copy and paste technology where the
logic and continuity gets lost. The sufferer is the
Code user student, teacher and professional
engineer as well as local city authorities.
The purpose of this paper is to highlight some of
the signicant discrepancies and shortcomings
in the Indian codes that become the source of
embarassment and confusion for the structural
engineer. Hopefully, it would lead to better codes
based on basic principles and logical thinking,
that give more freedom and exibility to the
owners, designers and builders and improve
the performance of a structure under a severe
loading.
2. Issues of Concern in Codes
2.1 IS:456, IS:1343 and IRC 112 on Reinforced
Concrete Structures
India is the only country that has two separate
codes IS:456[1] and IS:1343 [3] on reinforced
concrete and prestressed concrete and another
code on ductile detailing. IS:1343 code on
prestressed concrete has been revised in 2012
but the entire limit state design part remains
untouched. In 1996, the Code committee
recorded a decision to integrate IS:456, IS:1343
and IS:13920 on the lines of ACI 318 but this
decision is yet to be implemented even after 20
years. IRC 18 and 21 were apparently based on
IS:456 and IS:1343. The Indian Roads Congress
has recently updated IRC 18 and 21 and issued
IRC112-2011 [9] that deals with all aspects
of concrete in a single code. It is a very long
overdue and welcome change. It is based on
Eurocode 2 which is quite different than IS:456-
2000 and IS:1343-2012. In IS:456 and IS:1343,
the sections on shear and torsion kept changing
from 1964 edition to 2002 edition without any
compelling reason.
2.1.1 Shear Design
In IS:456-1964, once the shear force exceeded
the permissible value, the shear reinforcement
was required for the total shear rather than
the additional value. In IS:456-1978, the shear
reinforcement was required only for the shear
that exceeded the shear capacity of concrete.
Now in IRC112, the shear reinforcement is again
based on the total shear rather than the additional
value. Apparently, the designer is left bafed!
IS:456-1964 Design shear =V
IS:456-2000 Design shear =V
c
bd
IRC 112-2011 Design shear =V =V
Ed
A
x
V
z
sw Ed
ywd

cot
( ) 1
2.1.2 Torsion
In IS:456-1964, the design for torsion was
based on membrane theory. In IS:456-1976,
an empirical equation was introduced that was
unique to the Indian code that required the
calculation of equivalent bending moment and
equivalent shear force. There was no mechanics
or logic behind this formulation. It continues even
today. Now in IRC 112, torsion clause has again
been revised based on the membrane theory.The
torsional resistance of sections is calculated on
the basis of a thin-walled closed section in which
equilibrium is satised by a closed shear ow.
Solid sections may be modeled by equivalent
thin-walled sections. Complex shapes, such as
T- sections, may be divided into a series of sub-
sections and the total torsional resistance taken
as the sum of the capacities of the individual
elements. The membrane theory is more logical
and should never have been discontinued in
IS:456 and IS:1343.
The Bridge and Structural Engineer Volume 44 Number 1 March 2014 3
2.2 IS:800 on Steel Structures
Two issues of concern are brought out in IS:800
code [2].
2.2.1 Compressive Strength of Axial Members
The 1962 edition made use of the well known
Secant formula to determine the permissible
axial stress in a compression member:
For kL/r <160

a
y
a
ec
r
kL
r E
a =
+

1
1
4
2
2
sec( )
( )
For kL/R>160

a a
kL
r
b = ( . )( ) 12
800
2
The 1984 edition made use of the little known
Merchant-Rankine formula to determine the
permissible axial stress in a compression
member:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
1 1 1
3

a
n
e
n
y
n
=
where, n = imperfection factor; = factor of
safety
It was possible to generate multiple column curves
by adopting different values of imperfection
factor n.The 2007edition has made use of the
following formula from Eurocode 3 to determine
the permissible axial stress in a compression
member:

cd
mo
a
y
=
+
/
( )
( )
. 2 2 05
4
= + + ( ( . ) )( ) 1 02 4
2
b

=
y
cc
c ( ) 4
=imperfection factor

cc
=Euler buckling stress
It is possible to derive it from the basic principles.
Depending upon the imperfection factor , it
is possible to derive multiple column curves.
The point of concern is why change the basic
formula to determine the buckling strength of an
axial compression member from one revision to
other when each one of them leads to the same
result (within +5%)? This is very confusing for
a designer.
2.2.2 Design and Detailing of Frames for
Earthquake Loads
Chapter 12 of IS:800-2007 [2] has the following
clause:
2.2.3 Ordinary concentrically braced frames
(OCBF) should be shown to withstand inelastic
deformation corresponding to a joint rotation
of at least 0.02 radians without degradation in
strength and stiffness below the full yield value.
Ordinary concentrically braced frames meeting
the requirements of this section shall be deemed
to satisfy the required inelastic deformation.
2.2.4 Special concentrically braced frames
(SCBF) should be shown to withstand inelastic
deformation corresponding to a joint rotation
of at least 0.04 radians without degradation in
strength and stiffness below the full yield value.
Special concentrically braced frames meeting
the requirements of this section shall be deemed
to satisfy the required inelastic deformation.
Nowhere in IS:800-2007 code, it has been
explained what is the source of these two clauses
nor how to compute the inelastic deformations in
a joint; how to model a non-linear steel structure;
how to apply the loads etc. There is no reference
to convince that meeting the requirements of
this section shall satisfy the required inelastic
deformation? These clauses do not appear in
EC3 from where the rest of the code has been
drafted.
2.3 IS:1893 on Earthquake Force
Three issues of concern are brought out in
IS:1893 code [4].
2.3.1 Approximate Fundamental Natural
Period
IS:1893-1984 gave two equations for determining
the fundamental natural period of vibration
for moment resistant buildings and shear wall
buildings as follows:
4 Volume 44 Number 1 March 2014 The Bridge and Structural Engineer
a) For moment resisting frames without
bracing or shear walls for resisting the
lateral loads
T =0.1 N (5a)
b) For all other buildings T=
009
5
.
( )
H
D
b
IS:1893-2002 Part 1 introduced the following
formula to determine the approximate
fundamental natural period of vibration (T) in
seconds of buildings by the empirical expression:
For moment resistant steel buildings without
masonry in-lls T = 0.085 H
0.75
(6a)
For moment resistant concrete buildings without
masonry in-lls T = 0.075 H
0.75
(6b)
For moment resistant buildings with masonry in-
lls and shear wall or steel braced buildings
Eq. 5b.
In India, most of the multistory construction is
moment resistant RC frames with masonry in-
lls. If the period of vibration is computed using
Eq 5b, the period is reduced signicantly. This in
turn increases the base shear by a factor of 2 to
3. This leads to two problems:
1. The design member forces increase
signicantly. Many private consultants in
various parts of the country are openly
outing this provision. Perhaps, the
designer is convinced about the safety
of the building even by violating the code
and taking a shelter behind the previous
codal practice (IS:1893-1984). Some of the
faculty members of IITs are party to this
practice because they approve the design
while proof checking.
2. The more fundamental question is whether
the current level of seismic forces is
justied especially in seismic zone III
and IV. The historical data about the
occurrence of earthquakes or the damage
to buildings during the past earthquakes do
not convince the designers that there is a
need to design the buildings for a higher
lateral force. During the revision of seismic
map in the current code, there was very
strong objection and resistance from the
Consulting engineers of Mumbai region
for putting Mumbai in seismic zone III from
zone II.
The seismic map of India is based on very
scanty data. Therefore, until the seismic zoning
is done on a more rational basis, such violations
are likely to continue. Even the proposed
probabilistic seismic zoning map (draft 2013)
is very close to that given in IS:1893-2002-part
1. Is it not surprising? Apparently, something is
fundamentally missing.
2.3.2 Flat Slabs In Seismic Zones
The at plate structure is an economical and
widely used form of construction in non-seismic
areas especially for multistory residential or
parking construction. Its weakest feature, as
is well known, is its vulnerability to a punching
shear failure at the slab-column junctions. The
collapse of a number of buildings using such a
system during the 1964 Anchorage, Alaska and
the 1967 Caracas, Venezuela earthquakes,
as well as several buildings using wafe slabs
during the September 1985 Mexican earthquake,
clearly dramatized this vulnerability. The 1994
Northridge earthquake caused the collapse or
partial collapse of at least two parking structures
that could be attributed primarily to the failure of
interior columns designed to gravity loads only.
IS:1893 and IS:13920 both are silent about the
use of a at slab in seismic areas. However,
a note is provided in clause 7.11.2 in IS:1893
on the deformation capability of non-seismic
members as follows:
For instance, consider a at-slab building in
which lateral load resistance is provided by
shear walls. Since the lateral load resistance of
the slab-column system is small, these are often
designed only for the gravity loads, while all the
seismic force is resisted by the shear walls. Even
though the slabs and columns are not required
to share the lateral forces, these deform with
rest of the structure under seismic force. The
concern is that under such deformations, the
slab-column system should not loose its vertical
load capacity.
There is a need to bring this note in the main body
with appropriate caption to attract seriousness.
The columns of the at slab must be designed for
P-delta effects as per 7.11.2 of IS:1893-part-1.
The detailing of connection between shear walls
and the at plate system needs serious attention.
The Bridge and Structural Engineer Volume 44 Number 1 March 2014 5
The ACI 318 and Canadian code are very specic
in this regard.
2.3.3 Response Reduction Factor R
The response reduction factor assigned to
different types of structural systems reects
design and construction experience, as well as
the evaluation of the performance of structures in
major and moderate earthquakes. It endeavors
to account for the energy absorption capacity of
the structural system by damping and inelastic
action through several load reversals. Types
of construction that have performed well in
earthquakes are assigned higher values of R.
The values of R vary between 1.5 and 5. On the
issue of response reduction factor R in the Indian
code, there are two problems:
1. Response reduction factor vis--vis
calibration factor
2. Conict in R values among different parts
of IS:1893-2002
The Code committee borrowed the concept of
response reduction factor R from the SEAOC
Code of California/UBC. However, while writing
IS:1893 2002, they deviated and instead used
the factor R as a calibration factor with respect
to the base shear in IS:1893-1984. No exercise
was ever done to determine the response factors
for different structural systems based on their
non-linear behaviour. The Committee was very
careful not to increase the level of base shear for
buildings from 1984 to 2002 edition. The zone
factor Z and the constant 2 were chosen out of
judgment and calibration. Thus, no attention was
paid to the real character of R.
The second problem arose when other parts of
IS:1893 were undertaken for revision. Notably,
water tanks, bridges, chimneys and industrial
structures. Overhead water tanks are inverted
pendulum type structures. Some professional
think they are very brittle systems and, therefore,
need low R factors. However, during the past 6-7
decades, water tanks designed in accordance with
IS:1893 1984 or earlier editions have performed
quite satisfactorily during the earthquakes. After
the Bhuj earthquake of 2001, in a few tanks,
some horizontal cracks were observed in shell
staging at the construction joint levels. There is
hardly any report of failure of a water tank during
an earthquake in India.The Code Committee
recommended the R factors for the over head
water tanks between 3.5 and 4.5. Obviously,
an anomaly arose between the behaviour of a
ductile framed structure and overhead water tank
supported on ductile RC framed structure.
The question is whether the nonlinear response
of these two systems is close or quite different?
Had the Committee followed a systematic
approach or not called the factor R as a response
reduction factor but a calibration factor, then
there would have been no or less confusion and
controversy.
2.4 IS:3370 on Liquid Retaining Structures
IS:3370-2009 [5] based on British Code BS:8007
1987 has introduced many drastic changes
over its 1965 edition. Some of them are shown
in Table 2.The Committee appeared to be
overwhelmed by the term Limit State Design
for the containers. Also, it did not realize that
the climate in England is quite different than
that of India. Moreover, there are several lakhs
overhead tanks, underground water tanks, water
treatment plants and sewage treatment plants
throughout the country. There was no need to
borrow the specications from any foreign code.
A workshop was organized at the I.I.T. Roorkee
in 2005 on the revision of IS:3370. Many senior
engineers from U.P. J al Nigam, Haryana J al
Nigam and other states participated. There
was absolutely no problem reported from any
part of the country as far as shortcoming in the
design specication was concerned. Yes, it is
true that a few OHT had failed during the initial
water testing. But the cause of failure was poor
workmanship rather than deciency in design
specication. Its recommendations were sent to
the BIS. The Committee did not pay any attention
to the recommendations of this workshop.
Thus, unnecessary drastic cost escalation and
burden on natural resources have come as a
consequence of this revision. Moreover, it is
not easy to design an Intze or circular water
tank based on limit state of collapse because
of irregular shape of the container and non
availability of expressions to compute deection
of such members.
The only revision that would have sufced was an
increase of concrete grade from M20 to M25 for
6 Volume 44 Number 1 March 2014 The Bridge and Structural Engineer
water tanks, and M20 to M30 or M35 for sewage
treatment plants from durability considerations
and equations for crack width etc. The working
stress method for liquid retaining structures is
essentially a limit state of serviceability condition
for no crack. Similarly, there is a tendency to
increase the thickness of shaft of the tank as
well as provide reinforcement in four layers
simply because a few water tanks collapsed
during the testing stage. Several water tanks on
shaft staging in single layer reinforcement built in
1970s are still doing well. Did anybody try to nd
out the real reason of the failure of such tanks?
Whether the real cause of collapse was poor
workmanship and materials rather than a design
defect?
Table 2: Comparison of changes in IS:3370 in 2009 and 1965 editions
Clause on 2009 1965
Minimum Grade of Concrete, Clause
4 of Part 1
As per severe exposure
condition, that is, M30
M20
Minimum reinforcement 0.35% of the surface zone 0.24% of the cross-sectional
area; for sections greater than
100 mm but less than 450 mm,
minimum steel reduced from
0.24% to 0.16%.
Minimum cover to steel As per severe exposure
condition, that is, 45 mm
Greater of 25 mm or bar dia
Permissible tensile stresses in Steel:
On the liquid face
Away from liquid face
130 MPa
same
150 MPa
190 MPa
2.5 IS:13920 on ductile detailing of concrete
structures
IS:13920[7] requires many structural changes.
Some of them are as follows:
2.5.1 Uniform ductile detailing across all
seismic zones, type of building and importance
In IS:1893 code of 1962 and 1966, there were
seven seismic zones that were reduced to ve
in 1970. In any zone, there are buildings having
varying degrees of occupancy, utility, and risk
level. IS:4326-1976 and also 2013 edition [6],
divided masonry buildings in ve categories
depending upon their design seismic coefcient,
and prescribed ductile detailing. At present,
IS:13920 stipulates only one ductile detailing for
all kinds of buildings in any seismic zone. Now
to detail each building, in each seismic zone,
similarly and uniformly, across the board is not
fair and logical. The ACI code species different
detailing based on seismic design category from
A to F of a building. Similarly, the Eurocode EC8
species low, medium and high ductile class
(DCL, DCM, DCH) for various buildings. There
is a need to revise IS:13920 to make ductile
detailing more rational and economical.
2.5.2 Column Vs. Shear Wall
A wall has not been dened in the code. If a
member is not a column, obviously it is a wall.
The intention of this clause was to discourage
elongated columns, that is, columns having sizes
such as 230 mm x 2000 mm etc. Such members
are modeled as columns and also designed as
columns. Only in the detailing stage, the concept
of a wall creeps in. The minimum reinforcement
in vertical and horizontal direction is 0.25% each.
In the case of columns, the minimum vertical
reinforcement is 0.8% of the area required. There
is a need to replace the aspect ratio for columns
from 0.40 to 0.25. This will help accommodate
steel bars in the beam-column joint much better.
The beam-column joints need due attention.
It is a usual practice to compute special
connement reinforcement as per Clause 7.4
and provide it near the top and bottom of the
column. In the middle portion, the above spacing
is usually doubled. However, in some cases this
The Bridge and Structural Engineer Volume 44 Number 1 March 2014 7
doubling of spacing may not be sufcient to meet
the requirements of 0.25% lateral steel. Clause
7.4.3 requires that if the calculated point of contra
exure is not within the middle half of the storey,
special connement reinforcement need to be
provided over the full height. The author in his
35 years of experience has yet to come across
a designer who has time and intention to explore
the point of contra exure in a column? There is
a need to rationalize such clauses.
3. The Future of Codes Prescriptive
Design Vs. Performance Design
At present all Indian codes are based on
prescriptive design criteria. In the prescriptive
design, the Code tells the designer what to do
at each stage. The nal product is expected to
respond as the Code desired. The designer is
not bothered about the nal performance of its
product. It is presumed to behave as the Codes
have envisaged without knowing what exactly
the Codes have desired or intended. Whereas in
the performance based design, the Code simply
tells what performance is expected out of the
given component of the structure as well as the
structural system. A performance based design
code can be expected to be a probabilistic code.
The designer has to choose an appropriate
option how to design it so as to achieve the
specied performance level and probability.
Thus, the designer has to have a very deep and
clear understanding of the behavior of various
structural materials, components and structural
systems under different loading conditions, their
implications and consequences.
It is believed that the Indian Codes will adopt the
performance based specications in the near future
in the interest of rational and innovative design.
4. Concluding Remarks
This paper summarizes the state of some of the
important and most frequently used codes on
structural engineering in India (IS:456, IS:800,
IS:1343, IS:1893, IS:3370, IS:13920, and IRC
112). There is no apparent logic for ip op from
one edition of a code to another in describing
the torsion in concrete codes, buckling strength
in steel code; seismic zoning, time period and
response factor R in IS:1893; uniform ductile
detailing in IS:13920; arbitrary increase in grade
of concrete, cover, minimum steel and decrease
in permissible stress in IS:3370. There should be
no manipulations with the basic principles. This
will help the designers to focus on the logic rather
than on arbitrariness. Some clauses have been
picked up randomly from foreign codes without
any continuity. The copy and paste technology
is not only degrading; it is also leading to very
awkward situations for the structural designers.
How to explain the rational to more inquisitive
young minds?
In the absence of dedicated basic research in
India, it is obvious that rational codes cannot be
developed indigenously. Therefore, one solution
is to adopt one of the nest international codes
of practice in full along with its commentary.
There should be an Indian national annex to the
code to address the local conditions and other
issues. The code commentary will be very useful
for understanding the rationale behind any
given clause. The introduction of performance
based design will help our designers to compete
globally.
5. References
1. IS 456:2000 Plain and Reinforced
Concrete, BIS, New Delhi.
2. IS 800:2007 General Construction in
Steel, BIS, New Delhi.
3. IS 1343:2012 Prestressed Concrete, BIS,
New Delhi.
4. IS 1893:2002 Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1
General Provisions and Buildings, BIS,
New Delhi.
5. IS 3370:2009 Liquid Retaining Structures,
Parts 1 and 2, BIS, New Delhi.
6. IS 4326:2013 Earthquake Resistant
Design and Construction of Buildings,
BIS, New Delhi.
7. IS 13920:1993 Ductile Detailing of
Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected
to Seismic Forces, BIS, New Delhi.
8. IRC 24:2010 Steel Bridges, IRC, New
Delhi
9. IRC 112:2011 Concrete Road Bridges,
IRC, New Delhi.