A CRITICAL REVIEW OF IS:13920-2016

By
Prof. Dr Ashok K. Jain
Retd. Professor of Civil Engineering, IIT Roorkee
Indirapuram, GZB 201014
<ashokjain_iitr@yahoo.co.in>

ABSTRACT
IS:13920 1993 has been revised and 2016 edition has been released recently after nearly 25 years.
It was under revision for nearly a decade. It is a very widely used Code and all buildings in seismic
zones III, IV and V have to conform to this Code. This paper critically reviews this Code. It also
provides background matter for confinement reinforcement in circular and rectangular RC
columns based on ACI 318 Code that has been adopted in IS:13920 with some modifications. It
was noted that (i) there are a few serious typographical errors; (ii) it requires nonlinear analysis to
adopt flat slab construction as well as irregular buildings; and (iii) there are a few places where
drafting needs improvement. 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. Therefore, to jump directly onto
nonlinear static or dynamic analysis is scary. It can lead to unnecessary confusion and litigation.
Further, this code ignores the shear capacity of concrete for designing shear reinforcement in
beams based on ACI 318-2011. However, there were two important conditions in the ACI that
have been dropped in IS:13920 without any justification making the latter even more conservative.
The ACI 318-2014 clarifies that the shear resistance of concrete is significant and needs to be
considered. This is missing in the Indian version.
The rules for confinement in circular and rectangular columns are based on ACI-318. The rules
for circular columns have been revised in accordance with the revisions in the ACI but not for
rectangular columns. The current reinforcement requirements for rectangular columns in IS:13920
are nearly three times of those in the ACI-318. There are many such changes that have been made
in the original specifications borrowed from other sources without any solid experimental or
theoretical calculations. They are based purely on arbitrary reasons. Finally, it is concluded that
the Code is becoming more conservative and rigid while leaving little scope for innovation.

1
INTRODUCTION
IS:13920 1993 has been revised and 2016 edition has been released recently after nearly 25 years.
It was under revision for nearly a decade. It is a very widely used Code and all buildings in seismic
zones III, IV and V have to conform to this Code. The object of this paper is to critically review
this Code. There can be no scope of typographical mistakes or misinterpretation as it can lead to
serious consequences.
This paper presents the matter in two parts: First, a critical examination of the various clauses;
and second, it explores background of expressions for confinement reinforcement in RC
rectangular and circular columns.

2
Table 1 Critical Review of IS 13920-2016
First a clause has been reproduced followed by critical comments.

1.1.2 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 adequate, appropriate experimentation
and nonlinear dynamic structural analysis.

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:
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) The Code says adequacy must be demonstrated 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?
(4) At present even the IS:1893-draft 2016 does not define 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.
Such a matter must not be left to specialist literature alone as it is liable to be misused.

5.3.3 The ratio of actual ultimate strength to the actual 0.2% proof strength shall be at least 1.15.

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 6.3 makes use of factor 1.4 = 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 Indian context, this factor 1.4 ought to be reduced to 1.15/0.87 = 1.30.

5.4 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.

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 look at the sequence of construction, this restraint does not lead to
large forces. Therefore, a stage construction analysis must be done to account for sequence of
construction in such cases and arrive at correct column forces.

5.5 If a building with any kind of irregularity as listed in IS:1893-1 is adopted, detailed
nonlinear analysis shall be performed to demonstrate that there is no threat to loss of life and
property.

3
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 I-O or L-S 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 not require any nonlinear analysis.

6.1.4 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.

This clause is adopted from ACI 318. In Fig. 1A, the direction of analysis should have been
shown as in the original ACI figure.

6.3.4 In the calculation of design shear force capacity of RC beams, contribution of the following
shall not be considered:
(a) bent-up bars
(b) inclined links, and
(c) concrete in RC section

In the previous edition (1993), only the first two points were included. Now a third point has
been incorporated, that is, concrete.
It is based on the assumption that the entire concrete has cracked under reversal of seismic
force. However, 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.

The ACI 318-2008, clause 21.6.5.2 — Transverse reinforcement

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:

(a) The earthquake-induced shear force, calculated in accordance with 21.6.5.1, represents
one-half or more of the maximum required shear strength within lo;
(b) The factored axial compressive force, Pu, including earthquake effects is less than Ag
fc’/20.

The ACI 318-2014 has added a commentary to this clause:

“However, this stratagem chosen for its relative simplicity should not be 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.”

The two conditions are missing in the Indian code. Moreover, the new commentary in ACI
318-2014 gives the importance of shear strength of concrete.

7.1.1 The minimum dimension of a column shall not be less than 20 db (Fig. 7).

4
The term dimension is misleading. Is it width or depth or both? Moreover, Fig 7 shows 15 db
instead of 20 db. It is a typo error.

7.1.2 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.

It is silent for members whose aspect ratio falls between 0.40 and 0.45? How to design them?
In the last line, instead of clause 9 it should refer to clause 10. It is a typo error. Clause 9 refers
to beam-column joints.
Clause 10 refers to special shear walls only. Clause 10.1.3 says: The minimum ratio of length
of wall to its thickness shall be 4. That is,
𝑳𝒘
≥ 𝟒. 𝟎,
𝒕𝒘
𝒕𝒘
𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬, ≤ 𝟎. 𝟐𝟓
𝑳𝒘
In other words, an aspect ratio should be less than 0.25. Now a look at Clause 7.1.2 says for
aspect ratio less than 0.40, refer Clause 9 (that is, 10). It is very confusing indeed.

7.2.1 This Clause deals with the relative strength of beam and column at a joint

∑ 𝑴𝒄 ≥ 𝟏. 𝟒𝟎 ∑ 𝑴𝒃

This Clause is similar to that in ACI 318

∑ 𝑴𝒄 ≥ 𝟏. 𝟐𝟎 ∑ 𝑴𝒃

There appears to be no justification for using 1.40 instead of 1.20. It is an unnecessary

prescriptive over strength without any rational. It is worth mentioning here that the draft
13920-2014 had a factor of 1.7.

Let us look at Clause 4.4.2.3 of Eurocode 8 part 1: has a factor 1.3 instead of 1.2.

(3)P In multi-storey buildings formation of a soft storey plastic mechanism shall be prevented,
as such a mechanism might entail excessive local ductility demands in the columns of the soft
storey.

(4) Unless otherwise specified in Sections 5 to 8, to satisfy the requirement of (3)P, in frame
buildings, including frame-equivalent ones as defined in 5.1.2(1), with two or more storeys,
the following condition should be satisfied at all joints of primary or secondary seismic beams
with primary seismic columns:

∑ 𝑴𝒄 ≥ 𝟏. 𝟑𝟎 ∑ 𝑴𝒃

5
 (5) The rules of (4) and (5) of this sub clause are waived at the top level of multi-storey
buildings.

Thus factor 1.3 has been included to take care of soft storey mechanism. Moreover, Clause (5)
is missing in IS:13920.

8 SPECIAL CONFINEMENT REINFORCEMENT

The requirements of this section shall be met with in beams and columns, unless a larger
amount of transverse reinforcement is required from shear strength considerations given in
6.3.3 for beams and 7.5 for columns.

8.1(b) (1) ¼ of minimum member dimension of the beam or column,

8.1(b)(2) 6 times diameter of the smallest longitudinal bars,

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.
The special confinement reinforcement in beams has already been covered in 6.3 and Fig. 6.

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?
Clause 8 should refer only to columns and not beams. Also, Fig. 12 and clause 8.1(a) and (c)
refer only to columns.
It is a clear case of bad drafting.

9.1.3 Width of beam column joint

This is a repetition of Clause 7.1.1 and Fig. 7. It is a bad drafting.

10.1.2(a) The minimum thickness of special shear walls has been fixed at 150 mm. Earlier it
was preferably not less than 150 mm.

There is apparently no rational behind making it a minimum value of 150 mm. The earlier
clause gave some freedom to the designer.

10.1.6 Table 1 for squat walls, intermediate walls and slender walls
(i) Under squat walls, it says
𝒉𝒘
(𝝆𝒗 )𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟐𝟓 + 𝟎. 𝟓 (𝟏 − ) (𝝆𝒉 − 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟐𝟓)
𝒕𝒘

(iii) Under slender walls, it says

𝒉𝒘
(𝝆𝒉 )𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟐𝟓 + 𝟎. 𝟓 ( − 𝟐) (𝝆𝒉 − 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟐𝟓)
𝑳𝒘

6
 In Eq. (i), Is it
𝒉𝒘 𝒉𝒘
𝒐𝒓 ?
𝒕𝒘 𝑳𝒘

The expression for slender walls shows that it should be hw/Lw similar to the ACI 318. The
term (1 – hw/tw) will be negative and reduce the minimum vertical steel to less than 0.25%.

How to use Eq. (iii) is not clear? How can (𝝆𝒉 )𝒎𝒊𝒏 be a function of 𝝆𝒉 ? What is 𝝆𝒉 in this
equation?
In fact, there was no need to have three categories of shear walls. Only two categories would
have sufficed as in the ACI 318-2014 from where this idea has been adopted.

B. BACKGROUND HISTORY OF CONFINEMENT STEEL IN RC COLUMNS

Let us discuss the background of the expressions recommended for determining the
confinement steel in RC columns in Indian and the ACI 318 codes.
IS:4326-1976
The confinement lateral steel in a circular column was based on the ACI Code of 1971 and was
given by the following equation:
𝑓𝑐′ 𝐴𝑔
𝑎𝑠𝑝 = 0.1125 𝑝𝐷𝑐 ( − 1) (1)
𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑐

Or, if ratio of the volume of spiral reinforcement to the volume of core (Outer to outer of spirals)
is defined as
4 𝑎𝑠𝑝
𝜌𝑠 = (2a)
𝐷𝑐 𝑝
Then,
𝑓𝑐′ 𝐴𝑔
𝜌𝑠 = 0.45 ( − 1) (2b)
𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑐

where,
p = pitch of spirals
Dc = diameter of the core, outer to outer of spirals
asp = area of spiral wire
In Eq. (2b), 𝑓𝑐′ is the cylinder strength of concrete = 0.8 𝑓𝑐𝑘 .
or, in terms of cube strength of concrete,

7
 𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝐴𝑔
𝑎𝑠𝑝 = 0.09 𝑝𝐷𝑐 ( − 1) (2c)
𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑐
𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝐴𝑔 (2d)
𝜌𝑠 = 0.36 ( − 1)
𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑐

For a rectangular column, the area of a lateral tie was given by twice the area required for a circular
helical (Eq. (2c)) to maintain the same level of confinement, that is,
𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝐴𝑔 (3)
𝑎𝑠𝑝 = 0.18 𝑆ℎ ( − 1)
𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑐

where, S = spacing of lateral ties

h = longer dimension of the rectangular confining tie
Eq. (2c), (2d) and (3) were adopted in IS:4326-1976. In these equations, fck is the cube strength of
concrete.
Later, ACI 318 (around 1983) added Eq. 2(e) for area of confinement steel in circular columns
given as follows:
𝑓𝑐′
𝜌𝑠 = 0.12 (2e)
𝑓𝑦

where,
𝑓𝑐′ = cylinder strength of concrete = 0.8 𝑓𝑐𝑘
Eq. (2e) was introduced to take care of an anomaly in large columns where the ratio A g/Ac may
approach unity, and therefore, Eq. (1) or (2b) will require a very low area of confinement steel.
Similarly, for rectangular columns, the revised ACI equations were as follows:
𝑓𝑐′ 𝐴𝑔 𝑓𝑐′ 𝐴𝑔 (4a)
𝜌𝑠 = (0.45 × 0.75) ( − 1) ≈ 0.30 ( − 1)
𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑐 𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑐

Or,
𝑓𝑐′ 𝐴𝑔 (4b)
𝑎𝑠𝑝 = 0. 075 𝑆ℎ ( − 1)
𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑐

and
𝑓𝑐′ 𝑓𝑐′
𝜌𝑠 = (0.12 × 0.75) = 0.09 (4c)
𝑓𝑦 𝑓𝑦

These revisions were based on the experimental evidence that the efficiency of rectangular
transverse reinforcement corresponds to 75% of that of the same volume of circular spiral
reinforcement.

8
Further, there was one more understanding behind these equations. That is, the philosophy of
maintaining the axial load strength of the section after spalling of the cover concrete in both
circular and rectangular columns. But Eqs. (2) and (4) were independent of the axial load.
Nevertheless, these equations still continue in ACI 318-2014.
IS:4326-1993 and IS:13920-1993
Later, in 1993, IS:4326 was split in several codes. The specifications for RC frames were
contained in IS:13920-1993. This Code retained the expressions for area of spiral/ties in circular
and rectangular columns, that is, the original Eq. (2c), (2d) and (3).
IS:13920-2016
Let us take a look at its Clause 8.
For Circular Column Sections
It has retained Eq (2c) and (2d) for a circular column with spirals and adopted Eq. (2e) of the
ACI 318 as it is:
𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝑓𝑐𝑘
𝜌𝑠 = (0.12 × 0.80) = 0.096 (5a)
𝑓𝑦 𝑓𝑦

or,
0.096 𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝑓𝑐𝑘
𝑎𝑠𝑝 = ( ) 𝑝𝐷𝑐 = 0.024 𝑝𝐷𝑐 (5b)
4 𝑓𝑦 𝑓𝑦

Eq. (2c) and (5b) give

𝐴𝑔
0.09 ( − 1) = 0.024 (5c)
𝐴𝑘
𝐴𝑔 (5d)
≥ 1.266
𝐴𝑘
Thus, a lower limit of the gross area of cross-section to the confined core area has been imposed
for circular sections so that a very low area of spiral may not be used.
For Rectangular Column Sections
The area of cross-section of the ties is the maximum of
𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝐴𝑔
𝑎𝑠𝑝 = 0.18 𝑆ℎ ( − 1) (6a)
𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑐
𝑓𝑐𝑘
𝑎𝑠𝑝 = 0.05 𝑆ℎ (6b)
𝑓𝑦
These two equations give

9
 𝐴𝑔
0.18 ( − 1) = 0.05 (7)
𝐴𝑐
𝐴𝑔
≥ 1.277
𝐴𝑐
This ratio is nearly the same as for the circular sections. Thus, a lower limit of the gross area of
cross-section to the confined core area has been imposed so that a very low area of ties may not
be used.
The latest revision of IS:13920 – 2016 has retained the older equation for rectangular columns
instead of the revised equation used in ACI 318 for the last nearly 3 decades.
As per the ACI 318 code, the corresponding equation for a rectangular column should have been
as follows:
𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝐴𝑔
𝑎𝑠𝑝 = (0. 075 × 0.8) 𝑆ℎ ( − 1) (4b)
𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑐

Or,
𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝐴𝑔
𝑎𝑠𝑝 = 0.06 𝑆ℎ ( − 1) (8a)
𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑐

and
𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝑓𝑐𝑘
𝜌𝑠 = (0.09 × 0.8) = 0.072
𝑓𝑦 𝑓𝑦

or, making use of Eq. (2a)

𝑓𝑐𝑘 (8b)
𝑎𝑠𝑝 = 0.018 𝑆ℎ
𝑓𝑦

On comparing Eq. (6a) and (8a), the IS:13920-2016 code requires (0.18/0.06 =) 3 times more steel
than the latest ACI 318; similarly, on comparing Eq. (6b) and (8b), the IS:13920-2016 code
requires (0.05/0.018 =) 2.78 times more steel than the latest ACI 318.
DISCUSSION
It is a prescriptive code as is the case with other Codes such as IS:456, IS:800, IS:1343, IS:1893
etc. However, it has been observed over the past few years that the prescriptive requirements are
becoming too conservative leaving little scope for innovation and flexibility to the designers. Most
of the code is based on ACI 318 code. However, at places, some of the clauses have been made
too conservative without any convincing rational or concrete evidence.
At present even the IS:1893-draft 2016 does not define a time history method for linear dynamic
analysis because of various reasons. None of the two main Codes on Earthquake Engineering
(IS:1893-part 1 Draft 2016 and IS:13920-2016), say how to model nonlinear strength and stiffness

10
of various elements, moment-curvature relations, hysteresis models, carry out the non-linear
analysis, and interpret the results. It is a specialized job and requires special training, experience
and understanding. Both ASCE 7 and Eurocode 8 have refrained from resorting to nonlinear
analysis; both of them have given simplified rules for the benefit of the designers. The IS:1893
and IS:13920 should also have followed a similar approach.
It was noted that (i) there are a few typographical errors; (ii) it requires nonlinear analysis to
adopt irregular buildings as well as flat slab construction; and (iii) there are a few places where
drafting needs improvement.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
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. The significant points that need urgent attention of the Code
are as follows:
(1) 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).
(2) Drafting has been poor at some places such as Clause 7.1.2, 8, 9.1.3 and Table 1.
(3) 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. 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. There are a large number of parameters related to the material
characteristics, member sectional properties, reinforcement detailing, hysteresis models,
moment-curvature relations, loading, selection of appropriate number of ground motions,
parameters related to the nonlinear algorithms that need considerable experience and
understanding. A slight oversight may lead to absurd results and their interpretation.
(4) 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. It is an unnecessary conservatism. Moreover, there is no experimental research in
India to justify retaining the old conservative clause.

REFERENCES
ACI 318-2014 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, American Concrete Institute,
Michigan, USA.
Eurocode 8 – Part 1 – 2004 Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1 General rules,
seismic actions, and rules for buildings, 2013.
IS:13920-2016 Ductile Design and Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to
Seismic Forces – Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

11