Document No. :: IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.

0
Draft Report: IS1893 (Part 1) Solved Examples
IITGN – World Bank Project on Seismic Codes

Explanatory Examples on Indian Seismic

Code IS 1893 (Part I)
by

Dr. Sudhir K Jain

Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar
Gandhinagar

Dr. O R Jaiswal
Dr. R K Ingle
Department of Applied Mechanics
Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology
Nagpur
 This document has been made available as a “Draft for Comment” and
is not ready for use. It is still under development as a part of the ongoing
World Bank-sponsored Project on Improving Seismic Resilience of Built
Environment in India, at the Indian Institute of Technology
Gandhinagar.
 The solved examples presented in this document have been developed
to illustrate the provisions of IS:1893 Part 1 (2016) or the provisions that
are proposed herein as the case may be. Some of the examples were
developed and presented earlier in IITK-GSDMA Project on Building
Codes (https://nicee.org/IITK-GSDMA_Codes.php) and have been
suitably modified wherever appropriate.
 The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and not
necessarily of the World Bank, IIT Gandhinagar, VNIT Nagpur or the
Bureau of Indian Standards.
 Comments and feedbacks may please be forwarded to:
Prof. Sudhir K Jain, IIT Gandhinagar, Palaj, Gandhinagar 382355
email: skjain@iitgn.ac.in
 Examples on IS 1893(Part 1)

CONTENTS

Sl.
Title Page No.
No
1. Calculation of Design Seismic Force by Static Analysis Method 4
2. Calculation of Design Seismic Force by Dynamic Analysis Method 7
3. Location of Centre of Mass 10
4. Location of Centre of Stiffness 11
5. Lateral Force Distribution as per Torsion Provisions of IS 1893-2016 (Part I) 12
6. Seismic Analysis Using Gross (Ig) and Effective (Ie) Moment of Inertia 14
7. Seismic Analysis Including Stiffness Effect of Infill Walls 19
8. Calculation of Time Period for a Building with Structural Walls 25
9. Design for Anchorage of an Equipment 27
10. Anchorage Design for an Equipment Supported on Vibration Isolator 29
11. Design of a Large Sign Board on a Building 31
12. Liquefaction Analysis Using SPT Data 32
13. Liquefaction Analysis Using CPT Data 34

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0
 Examples on IS 1893(Part 1)

– Calculation of Design Seismic Force by Static Analysis

Method
Problem Statement:
Consider a four-storey reinforced concrete office building shown in Figure 1.1. The building is located in
Shillong (seismic zone V). The soil conditions are medium stiff and the entire building is supported on a raft
foundation. The R. C. frames are infilled with brick-masonry. The lumped weight due to dead loads is 12
kN/m2 on floors and 10 kN/m2 on the roof. The floors are to cater for a live load of 4 kN/m2 on floors and 1.5
kN/m2 on the roof. Determine design seismic load on the structure as per new code.

[Problem adopted from Jain S.K, “A Proposed Draft for IS:1893 Provisions on Seismic Design of Buildings;
Part II: Commentary and Examples”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.22, No.2, July 1995, pp.73-90 ]

y
(2) (3) (4)
(4) (5)
(1)
(A)

(B)
3 @ 5000

(C)

(D) x
4 @ 5000

PLAN

3200

3200

3200

4200

ELEVATION

Figure 1.1 – Building configuration

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 1/Page 4

  0.09(13.8) / 20
Solution: = 0.28 sec
The building is located on Type II (medium soil).
Design Parameters:
From Fig. 2 of IS: 1893, for T=0.28 sec, S a =
For seismic zone V, the zone factor Z is 0.36 g
(Table 3 of IS: 1893 Part 1). Being an office 2.5
building, the importance factor, I, is 1.0 (Table 8 of ZI S a
IS: 1893 Part 1). Building is required to be Ah 
2R g
provided with moment resisting frames detailed as
0.36  1.0
per IS: 13920-2016. Hence, the response reduction   2.5
factor, R, is 5 (Table 9 of IS: 1893 Part 1). 25
 0.09
Seismic Weights: (Clause 6.4.2 of IS: 1893 Part 1)
The floor area is 1520=300 sq. m. Since the lie Design base shear
load class is 4kN/sq.m, only 50% of the live load VB  AhW
is lumped at the floors. At roof, no live load is to  0.09 15,600
be lumped. Hence, the total seismic weight on the = 1,404 kN
floors and the roof is: (Clause 7.6.1 of IS: 1893 Part 1)
Floors:
W1=W2 =W3 =300(12+0.54) Force Distribution with Building Height:
= 4,200 kN The design base shear is to be distributed with
Roof: height as per clause 7.6.3a. Table 1.1 gives the
W4 = 30010 calculations. Fig. 1.2(a) shows the design seismic
= 3,000 kN force in X-direction for the entire building.
(clause7.3.1, Table 10 of IS: 1893 Part 1)
Total Seismic weight of the structure, EL in Y-Direction:
W = ΣW i = 34,200 + 3,000 T  0.09 h d
= 15,600 kN
 0.09(13.8) / 15
Fundamental Period:  0.32 sec
Lateral load resistance is provided by moment Sa
= 2.5;
resisting frames infilled with brick masonry g
panels. Hence, approximate fundamental natural Ah = 0.09
period: Therefore, for this building the design seismic
(Clause 7.6.2.c of IS: 1893 Part 1) force in Y-direction is same as that in the X-
direction. Fig. 1.2(b) shows the design seismic
EL in X-Direction: force on the building in the Y-direction.
T  0.09h / d

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 1/Page 5

 Table 1.1 – Lateral Load Distribution with Height by the Static Method
Storey Wi kN  hi (m) Wi hi2  (1000) Wi hi2 Lateral Force at ith
W h
Level 2 Level for EL in
i i
direction (kN)
X Y
4 3,000 13.8 571.3 0.424 595 595
3 4,200 10.6 471.9 0.350 492 492
2 4,200 7.4 230.0 0.171 240 240
1 4,200 4.2 74.1 0.055 77 77
 1,347.3 1,000 1,404 1,404

Figure 1.2 -- Design seismic force on the building for (a) X-direction, and (b) Y-direction.

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 1/Page 6

 – Calculation of Design Seismic Force by Dynamic
Analysis Method
Problem Statement:
For the building of Example 1, the dynamic properties (natural periods, and mode shapes) for vibration in the
X-direction have been obtained by carrying out a free vibration analysis (Table 2.1). Obtain the design seismic
force in the X-direction by the dynamic analysis method outlined in cl. 7.7.5.4 and distribute it with building
height.

Table 2.1 – Free Vibration Properties of the building for vibration in the X-Direction
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Natural Period (sec) 0.860 0.265 0.145
Mode Shape
Roof 1.000 1.000 1.000
3rd Floor 0.904 0.216 -0.831
2nd Floor 0.716 -0.701 -0.574
1st Floor 0.441 -0.921 1.016

[Problem adopted from, Jain S.K, “A Proposed Draft for IS: 1893 Provisions on Seismic Design of Buildings;
Part II: Commentary and Examples”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.22, No.2, July 1995, pp.73-90]

Solution:
Table 2.2 -- Calculation of modal mass and modal participation factor (clause 7.7.5.4)
Storey Weight
Level i Wi kN  Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3

4 3,000 1.000 3,000 3,000 1.000 3,000 3,000 1.000 3,000 3,000
3 4,200 0.904 3,797 3,432 0.216 907 196 -0.831 -3,490 2,900
2 4,200 0.716 3,007 2,153 -0.701 -2,944 2,064 -0.574 -2,411 1,384
1 4,200 0.441 1,852 817 -0.921 -3,868 3,563 1.016 4,267 4,335
 15,600 11,656 9,402 -2,905 8,822 1,366 11,620

Mk 
 w   i ik
2
11,6562 14,450kN

2,9052 957kN

1,3662

161kN
g w  i
2
ik
9,402 g g
= 14,45,000 kg
8,822 g g
=95,700 kg
11,620 g g
= 16,100 kg
% of Total weight 92.6% 6.1% 1.0%

Pk 
w  i ik
 2,905
w 
11,656 1,366
i
2
ik  1.240  0.329  0.118
9,402 8,822 11,620

The lateral load Qik acting at ith floor in the kth

It is seen that the first mode excites 92.6% of the mode is
total mass. Hence, in this case, codal requirements Qik  Ahk ik Pk Wi
on number of modes to be considered such that at
(clause 7.7.5.4c of IS: 1893 Part 1)
least 90% of the total mass is excited, will be
The value of Ahk for different modes is obtained
satisfied by considering the first mode of vibration
from clause 6.4.2.
only. However, for illustration, solution to this
Mode 1:
example considers the first three modes of
T1  0.860 sec;
vibration.

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 2/Page 7

 1.0 = 0.09
(S a / g )   1.16 ; Qi1  0.09  (0.329)  i 2  Wi
0.86
ZI Mode 3:
Ah1  (S a / g ) T3  0.145 sec;
2R
0.36  1 (S a / g )  2.5 ;
  (1.16) ZI
25 Ah 3  (S a / g )
= 0.0418 2R
Qi1  0.0418 1.240 i1  Wi 0.36  1
  (2.5)
Mode 2: 25
T2  0.265 sec; = 0.09
(S a / g )  2.5 ; Qi 3  0.09  (0.118)  i 3  Wi
ZI
Ah 2  (S a / g ) Table 2.3 summarizes the calculation of lateral
2R
load at different floors in each mode.
0.36  1
  (2.5)
25

Table 2.3 – Lateral load calculation by modal analysis method (earthquake in X-direction)

Floor Weight
Level Wi Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
i kN   i1 Q i1 V i1  i2 Q i2 V i2  i3 Q i3 V i3
4 3,000 1.000 155.5 155.5 1.000 -88.8 -88.8 1.000 31.9 31.9
3 4,200 0.904 196.8 352.3 0.216 -26.8 -115.6 -0.831 -37.1 -5.2
2 4,200 0.716 155.9 508.2 -0.701 87.2 -28.4 -0.574 -25.6 -30.8
1 4,200 0.441 96.0 604.2 -0.921 114.6 86.2 1.016 45.4 14.6

Since all of the modes are well separated (clause We may interpret “base shear calculated using a
3.1), the contribution of different modes is fundamental period as per 7.6.2” in two ways:
combined by the SRSS (square root of the sum of
the square) method 1. We calculate base shear as per Cl. 7.6.1. This
V4 = [(155.5)2+ (88.8)2+ (31.9)2]1/2 = 182 kN was done in the previous example for the same
building and we found the base shear as 1,404 kN.
V3 = [(352.3)2+ (115.6)2+ (5.2)2]1/2 = 371 kN Now, dynamic analysis gives us base shear of 610
kN which is lower. Hence, all the response
V2 = [(508.2)2+ (28.4)2+ (30.8)2]1/2 = 510 kN quantities are to be scaled up in the ratio
(1,404/610 = 2.30). Thus, the seismic forces
V1 = [(604.2)2+ (86.2)2+ (14.6)2] 1/2 = 610 kN obtained above by dynamic analysis should be
(Clause 7.7.5.3b of IS: 1893 Part 1) scaled up as follows:
The externally applied design loads are then Q4 = 182  2.30 = 419 kN
obtained as: Q3 = 189  2.30 = 435 kN
Q4 = V4 = 182 kN Q2 = 139  2.30 = 320 kN
Q3 = V3 – V4 = 371 – 182 = 189 kN Q1 = 100  2.30 = 230 kN
Q2 = V2 – V3 = 510 – 371 = 139 kN
Q1 = V1 – V2 = 610 – 510 = 100 kN 2. We may also interpret this clause to mean that
(Clause 7.7.5.4f of IS: 1893 Part 1) we redo the dynamic analysis but replace the
fundamental time period value by Ta (= 0.28 sec).
Clause 7.7.3 requires that the base shear obtained In that case, for mode 1:
by dynamic analysis (VB = 610 kN) be compared T1 = 0.28 sec; (S a / g )  2.5
with that obtained from empirical fundamental Ah1 ZI
period as per Clause 7.6.2c. If VB is less than that = (S a / g )
2R
from empirical value, the response quantities are to =0.09
be scaled up.

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 2/Page 8

 instance, the external seismic forces at floor levels
Modal mass times Ah1 will now be:
= 14,450  0.09
= 1,300 kN Q4 = 182  2.14 = 389 kN
Base shear in modes 2 and 3 is as calculated earlier: Q3 = 189  2.14 = 404 kN
Now, base shear in first mode of vibration =1300 Q2 = 139  2.14 = 297 kN
kN, 86.2 kN and 14.6 kN, respectively. Q1 = 100  2.14 = 214 kN
Total base shear by SRSS
Clearly, the second interpretation gives about 10%
= 1300  86.2  14.6
2 2 2
lower forces. We could make either interpretation.
= 1,303 kN Herein we will proceed with the values from the
Notice that most of the base shear is contributed by second interpretation and compare the design
first mode only. In this interpretation of Cl 7.7.3, values with those obtained in Example 1 as per
we need to scale up the values of response static analysis:
quantities in the ratio (1,303/610 = 2.14). For
Table 2.4 – Base shear at different storeys
Floor Q (static) Q (dynamic, Storey Shear V Storey ShearV Storey Moment, Storey
Level scaled) (static) (dynamic, M (Static) Moment, M
i scaled) (Dynamic)
4 611 kN 389 kN 611 kN 389 kN 1,907 kNm 1,245
kNm
3 504 kN 404 kN 1,115kN 793 kN 5,386 kNm 3,782
kNm
2 297 kN 297 kN 1,412kN 1,090 kN 9.632 kNm 7,270
kNm
1 79 kN 214 kN 1,491 kN 1,304 kN 15,530 kNm 12,750
kNm

Note - Even though the base shear by the static and the dynamic analyses are comparable, there is
considerable difference in the lateral load distribution with building height, and therein lies the advantage
of dynamic analysis. For instance, the storey moments are significantly affected by change in load
distribution.

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 2/Page 9

 Examples on IS 1893(Part 1)

– Location of Centre of Mass

Problem Statement:
Locate centre of mass of a building having non-uniform distribution of mass as shown in the Figure 3.1
10 m

4m
1200 kg/m2

1000 kg/m2

8m

20 m

Figure 3.1 –Plan

Solution:
Let us divide the roof slab into three rectangular Y 
10  4  1200  6  10  4  1000  6  20  4  1000  2
parts as shown in Figure 3.2 10  4  1200  10  4  1000  20  4  1000
= 4.1 m
10 m Hence, coordinates of centre of mass are
(9.76, 4.1)

4m I II
1200 kg/m2
8m
1000 kg/m2
III

20 m
Figure 3.2
Mass of part I is 1200 kg/m2, while that of the
other two parts is 1000 kg/m2. .
Let origin be at point A, and the coordinates of
the centre of mass be at (X, Y)

X 
10  4  1200  5  10  4  1000  15  20  4  1000  10
10  4  1200  10  4  1000  20  4  1000
= 9.76 m

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 3 /Page10

 Examples on IS 1893(Part 1)

– Location of Centre of Stiffness

Problem Statement:
The plan of a simple one storey building is shown in Figure 4.1. All columns and beams are same. Obtain its
centre of stiffness.

5m

5m

5m 5m 10 m

Figure 4.1 –Plan

Solution:
In the X-direction there are three identical frames
located at uniform spacing. Hence, the y-
coordinate of centre of stiffness is located
symmetrically, i.e., at 5.0 m from the left bottom
corner.
In the Y-direction, there are four identical frames
having equal lateral stiffness. However, the
spacing is not uniform. Let the lateral stiffness of
each transverse frame be k, and coordinating of
center of stiffness be (X, Y).
k  0  k  5  k  10  k  20
X  = 8.75 m
k k k k
Hence, coordinates of centre of stiffness are
(8.75, 5.0).

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 4 /Page11

 Examples on IS 1893(Part 1)

–Lateral Force Distribution as per Torsion Provisions

of IS 1893-2016 (Part 1)
Problem Statement:
Consider a simple one-storey building having two shear walls in each direction. It has some gravity
columns that are not shown. All four walls are in M25 grade concrete, 200 thick and 4 m long. Storey
height is 4.5 m. Floor consists of cast-in-situ reinforced concrete. Design shear force on the building is
100 kN in either direction.
Compute design lateral forces on different shear walls using the torsion provisions of 2016 edition of
IS 1893 (Part 1).
Y
2m 4m 4m

A B 8m
4m

X
D 16m

Figure 5.1 – Plan

Solution:
KC
Grade of concrete: M25 FCT  F  50.0 kN
E  5000 25  25000 N/mm2
KC  K D
Storey height h = 4500 m KD
FDT  F  50.0 kN
Thickness of wall t = 200 mm KC  K D
Length of walls L = 4000 mm
All walls are same, and hence, spaces have Lateral forces in the walls due to torsional
same lateral stiffness, k. moment:
Centre of mass (CM) will be the geometric FiR 
K i ri
Fed 
centre of the floor slab, i.e., (8.0, 4.0).  K i ri2
i  A, B ,C , D
Centre of rigidity (CR) will be at (6.0, 4.0).
where ri is the distance of the shear wall from
EQ Force in X-direction: CR.
Because of symmetry in this direction, All the walls have same stiffness, KA = KB = KC
calculated eccentricity = 0.0 m = KD = k, and
Design eccentricity: rA = -6.0 m
ed  1.5  0.0  0.05  8  0.4 , rB = -6.0 m
And rC = 4.0 m
ed  0.0  0.05  8  0.4 rD = -4.0 m,
and ed  0.4 m
(Clause 7.8.2 of IS 1893:2002)
Lateral forces in the walls due to translation: Therefore,

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 5/Page 12

 Examples on IS 1893(Part 1)

rA k FCR = -14.62 kN
FAR  Fed   4.62

rA  rB  rC2  rD2 k
2 2
 FDR = 14.62 kN
Total lateral forces in the walls:
=  2.31 kN FA = 50 - 21.92= 28.08 kN
Similarly, FB = 50 +20.77= 71.92 kN
FBR =  2.31 kN FC = -14.62 kN
FCR =  1.54 kN FD = 14.62 kN
FDR =  1.54 kN Similarly, when ed = 1.2 m, then the total
Total lateral forces in the walls due to seismic lateral forces in the walls will be,
load in X direction: FA = 50 – 6.93 = 43.07 kN
FA = 2.31 kN FB = 50 + 6.93 = 56.93 kN
FB = 2.31 kN FC = - 4.62 kN
FD = 4.62 kN
FC = Max (50  1.54 ) = 51.54 kN
Maximum forces in walls due to seismic load
FD = Max (50  1.54 ) = 51.54 kN in Y direction:
FA = Max (28.08, 43.07) = 43.07 kN;
EQ Force in Y-direction: FB = Max (71.92, 56.93) = 71.92 kN;
Calculated eccentricity= 2.0 m FC = Max (14.62, 4.62) = 14.62 kN;
Design eccentricity: FD = Max (14.62, 4.62) = 14.62 kN;
ed  1.5  2.0  0.05  16  3.8 m Combining the forces obtained from seismic
or  2.0  0.0516  1.2 m loading in X and Y directions:
Lateral forces in the walls due to translation: FA = 43.07 kN
KA FB = 71.92 kN
FAT  F  50.0 kN FC = 51.54 kN
KA  KB FD = 51.54 kN.
KB
FBT  F  50.0 kN It is to be noted that 2002 version of IS 1893
K A  KB Part 1, as per clause 7.9.1 states that “However,
Lateral force in the walls due to torsional negative torsional shear shall be neglected”.
moment: when ed = 3.8 m Hence, wall A should be designed for not less
rA k
Fed  = 4.62
than 50 kN.
FAR 
 2
A
2
B 
r  r  rC2  rD2 k However, in the 2016 version of IS 1893
there is no such provision. Hence, wall A will
- 21.92 kN now be designed for 43.07 kN.
Similarly,
FBR = 21.92 kN

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 5/Page 13

 – Seismic Analysis Using Gross (Ig) and Effective (Ie)
Moment of Inertia
Problem Statement:
Consider a four-storey reinforced concrete moment resisting frame building shown in Figure 6.1. The
building is located in seismic zone V with medium soil. The R.C. frames are infilled with brick-
masonry. Slab thickness is 150 mm, beams are 300 × 400 mm and columns are 350 × 350 mm. The
objective of this example is to perform seismic analysis using gross moment of inertia (Ig) and effective
moment of inertia (Ie) and compare various response quantities.
Y
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(4) (5)
(A)

(B)
3@5m

(C)

(D) X

4@5m

PLAN

3.2 m

3.2 m

3.2 m

4.2 m

ELEVATION

Figure-6.1 Building configuration

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 6 /Page 14

Solution: Seismic analysis is performed for X-direction.
The approximate fundamental time period
Other data considered in this example is : along X direction is 0.28 sec (clause 7.6.2 c of
Grade of concrete = M25, live load on floor = 4 IS 1893 Part 1).
kN/m2, live load on roof = 1.5 kN/m2, floor
finish = 1 kN/m2 and roof finish = 2.5 kN/m2.
Here, zone factor, Z = 0.36, importance factor,
I = 1, response reduction factor, R = 5, soil type
Seismic weights of various floors are : is medium soil. Hence Design horizontal
1st Floor, W1 = 4,333 kN acceleration coefficient, Ah = 0.09 (clause 6.4.2
2nd Floor, W2 = 4,300 kN of IS 1893 Part 1).
3rd Floor, W3 = 4,300 kN
4th Floor, W4 = 2,920 kN As per equivalent static analysis method, design
base shear, ̅̅̅
𝑉𝐵 = 0.09 × 15,850 = 1,427 kN.
Total seismic weight = 15,850 kN The lateral load distribution in X direction by
equivalent static analysis method (clause 7.6.3
a of IS 1893 Part 1) is shown in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 - Lateral load distribution with height by the equivalent Static method
Storey Wi hi2 Lateral Force at ith Level
Wi kN  Wi hi2
W h
Level hi (m) 2 for EL in X direction (kN)
i i

4 2,920 13.8 5,56,085 0.412 587

3 4,300 10.6 4,83,148 0.358 510
2 4,300 7.4 2,35,468 0.174 249
1 4,330 4.2 76,381 0.057 81
 15,850 13,51,082 1.000 1,427

Dynamic analysis using Ig :

For this building, dynamic properties in X-
direction using gross moment of inertia (Ig) of
beams and columns are shown in Table 6.2

Table 6.2 – Dynamic properties of building in the X- direction using Ig

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Natural Period (sec) 1.271 0.397 0.222
Mode Shape coefficient
Roof 1.000 1.000 1.000
3rd Floor 0.904 0.221 -0.786
2nd Floor 0.709 -0.702 -0.547
st
1 Floor 0.424 -0.898 0.990
Modal mass Mk (%) 92.0 6.7 1.2
Modal participation
1.247 -0.347 0.133
factor, Pk

Using response spectrum analysis (7.7.5.4 of The total base shear from this dynamic
IS 1893 Part 1), lateral forces at each floor are analysis, VBG = 171+178+127+94 = 570 kN.
obtained as: Since dynamic base shear is less than the base
Q4 = 171 kN shear obtained from equivalent static analysis,
Q3 = 178 kN the dynamic response quantities are scaled up
Q2 = 127 kN in the ratio of ̅̅̅
𝑉𝐵 ⁄𝑉𝐵𝐺 (1,427⁄570 = 2.50).
Q1 = 94 kN (clause 7.6 of IS 1893 Part 1)

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 6 /Page 15

The scaled up lateral design seismic forces at Dynamic analysis using Ie :
each floor are: Now, effective moment of inertia (Ie) is used.
Q4 = 171  2.50 = 428 kN As per clause 6.4.3.1 of IS 1893 Part 1
Q3 = 178  2.50 = 445 kN effective moment of inertia are as below:
Q2 = 127  2.50 = 317 kN
Q1 = 94  2.50 = 237 kN Ie =0.35 Ig for beams
Ie =0.7 Ig for columns

Dynamic properties using effective moment of

Inertia are shown in Table 6.3

Table 6.3 - Dynamic properties of building in the X- direction using Ie

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Natural Period (sec) 1.773 0.541 0.289
Mode Shape coefficient
Roof 1.000 1.000 1.000
3rd Floor 0.886 0.141 -0.872
2nd Floor 0.669 -0.744 -0.442
1st Floor 0.367 -0.836 1.059
Modal mass Mk (%) 89.8 8.1 1.8
Modal participation
1.272 -0.391 0.156
factor, Pk

Using response spectrum analysis (7.7.5.4 of Table 6.4 Comparison of responses from Ig
IS 1893 Part 1), lateral forces at each floor are and Ie
obtained as: Ig Ie
Q4 = 151 kN st
1 modal period (sec) 1.271 1.773
Q3 = 116 kN
Q2 = 73 kN 1st modal mass (%) 92.0 89.8
Q1 = 71 kN ̅̅̅
𝑉𝐵 /VB 2.50 3.47
Scaled up design forces (kN)
The total base shear from this dynamic analysis
Q4 428 524
VBE = 151+116+73+71 = 411 kN.
Q3 445 404
Since dynamic base shear is less than base shear Q2 317 252
obtained from equivalent static analysis, the Q1 237 247
dynamic response quantities are scaled up in the
ratio of ̅̅̅
𝑉𝐵 ⁄𝑉𝐵𝐸 (1,427⁄411 = 3.47). Following observations are noted:
(clause 7.6 of IS 1893 Part 1) 1. For building with Ie time period is more
since building becomes more flexible.
The scaled up lateral design seismic forces at 2. The mode shape and modal mass have
each floor are: changed due to change in moment of inertia.
Q4 = 151  3.47 = 524 kN For building with Ig first modal mass is
Q3 = 116  3.47 = 404 kN 92.0% whereas for the case of Ie, first modal
Q2 = 73  3.47 = 252 kN mass is 89.8%.
Q1 = 71  3.47 = 247 kN 3. After scaling with static base shear, total
base shear in both the cases is same, but
Observations: distribution of seismic forces on various
Comparison of various response quantities floors is different.
obtained from dynamic analysis of model with
Ig and Ie is given in Table 6.4. Drift calculation:
As per clause 7.11.1 of IS 1893 Part 1,
following points are to be noted:

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 6 /Page 16

 1) Deformation of RC building shall be based
on analysis using effective moment of D4 = 29.9 mm
29.9−25.8
Storey Drift d4 : = 0.00128 (0.128%)
inertia. 3200

3.2 m
2) Storey Drift is to be obtained for lateral
earthquake loads without any load factors, D3 = 25.8 mm 25.8−19.5
Storey Drift d3 : = 0.00209 (0.209%)
3200
i.e., with partial safety of 1.0. (clause
7.11.1.1)

3.2 m
3) Displacement estimates obtained from D2 = 19.1 mm Storey Drift d2 :
19.1−10.5
= 0.00268 (0.268%)
dynamic analysis methods shall not be 3200

scaled up by the ratio ̅̅̅

𝑉𝐵 ⁄𝑉𝐵 .

3.2 m
Here, in order to demonstrate the comparison of D1 = 10.5 mm Storey Drift d1 : 10.5−0 = 0.00250 (0.250%)
4200
Ig and Ie, drift calculations are done for both the
cases. Unscaled dynamic forces of model with

4.2 m
Ig and Ie are given in Table 6.5. The
displacement at each floor due to these lateral
earthquake forces is shown in Figure 6.2 and
Figure 6.3 for Ig and Ie respectively. Figure 6.3 Storey displacement and drift for
building model with Ie
Table 6.5 Lateral earthquake forces with Ig
and Ie A comparison of storey displacement and drift
Unscaled lateral earthquake obtained from the analysis of building model
forces with Ig and Ie and using respective lateral
model with Ig model with Ie earthquake forces is given in Table 6.6.
Q4 171 kN 151 kN Table 6.6 Storey deformation and drift
Q3 178 kN 116 kN
Q2 127 kN 73 kN Storey For model For model
Q1 94 kN 71 kN using Ig using Ie
Base shear 570 kN 411 kN D(mm) d(%) D(mm) d(%)
th
4 20.1 0.069 29.9 0.128
floor
D4 = 20.1 mm
3rd 17.9 0.125 25.8 0.209
20.1−17.9
Storey Drift d4 : = 0.00069 (0.069%) floor
3200
2nd 13.9 0.175 19.1 0.268
3.2 m

17.9−13.9
floor
D3 = 17.9 mm Storey Drift d3 : = 0.00125 (0.125%)
3200 1st 8.3 0.197 10.5 0.250
floor
3.2 m

13.9−8.3
D2 = 13.9 mm Storey Drift d2 : = 0.00175 (0.175%)
3200
From these results it is noted that lateral
earthquake forces are less for the case of
3.2 m

building model with Ie, but drift and

D1 = 8.3 mm Storey Drift d1 : 8.3−0 = 0.00197 (0.197%)
4200 deformation are higher for this model.
However, the drift are less than 0.4% as per
4.2 m

clause 7.11.1.1 of IS 1893 Part 1.

Note – It is reiterated here that in this example,

Figure 6.2 Storey displacement and drift for drift calculations with Ig and Ie are done for
building model with Ig the purpose of comparison only. In practice
drift is to be calculated using Ie model.

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 6 /Page 17

Member forces: forces. For some of the members these forces
Forces in various beams and columns are to be are shown in Table 6.7 and Table 6.8. In these
obtained using scaled up forces, i.e., after Tables, the percentage difference in maximum
multiplying by, ̅̅̅
𝑉𝐵 ⁄𝑉𝐵 . The member forces are forces is also listed.
obtained using both the building model with Ig
and Ie, by applying respective earthquake

Table 6.7 Comparison of Beam Forces by Considering Ig and Ie for EQ load case

Member force Left end Centre Right end

using Shear Moment Shear Moment Shear Moment
(kN) (kN-m) (kN) (kN-m) (kN) (kN-m)
Ground Floor Beam D1D2
Ig 58.7 157.0 58.7 10.4 58.7 -136.3
Ie 51.7 134.6 51.7 5.3 51.7 -124.0
% difference 11.9 14.3
Ground Floor Beam D2D3
Ig 48.8 120.8 48.8 -1.2 48.8 -123.2
Ie 46.2 115.0 46.2 -0.4 46.2 -115.8
% difference 5.4 6.0
Roof Beam D1D2
Ig 11.2 30.5 11.2 2.4 11.2 -25.7
Ie 15.0 39.5 15.0 2.0 15.0 -35.6
% difference -33.7 -29.7
Roof Beam D2D3
Ig 10.0 24.9 10.0 0.0 10.0 -25.0
Ie 13.4 33.2 13.4 -0.1 13.4 -33.5
% difference -33.7 -34.1

Table 6.8 Comparison of Column Forces by Considering Ig and Ie for EQ load Case
Member force Bottom end Top end
using Axial Shear Moment Axial Shear Moment
(kN) (kN) (kN-m) (kN) (kN) (kN-m)
Ground Floor Column D1
Ig 140.7 63.6 161.8 140.7 63.6 -105.2
Ie 138.9 63.2 178.2 138.9 63.2 -87.2
% difference 1.3 0.6 -10.2
Ground Floor Column D2
Ig -18.7 77.1 180.5 -18.7 77.1 -143.2
Ie -12.2 77.1 197.6 -12.2 77.1 -126.4
% difference 34.6 -0.1 -9.5
Roof Column D1
Ig 11.2 13.3 12.2 11.2 13.3 -30.5
Ie 15.0 15.3 9.4 15.0 15.3 -39.5
% difference -33.7 -14.6 -29.7
Roof Column D2
Ig -1.2 26.9 35.6 -1.2 26.9 -50.6
Ie -1.7 33.8 39.4 -1.7 33.8 -68.8
% difference -34.2 -25.5 -35.9

Comparison of member forces from building

with Ig and Ie indicates that roof beams and
columns have large difference in their forces.
Further, column forces are consistently more in
the building model with Ie.

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 6 /Page 18

Example 7– Seismic Analysis Including Stiffness Effect Infill
Walls
Problem Statement:
For the building consider in Example 6 include the stiffness effect of external wall of 230 mm thick in
the X-direction (Figure 7.1). Compressive Strength of masonry prism is 5.4 MPa. Perform seismic
analysis and compare the forces with those obtained without including the wall stiffness effect.

Y
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(A)

(B)
3@5m

(C)

(D) X

4@5m

PLAN
Figure-7.1 Plan of building in with infill walls

Solution: infill wall. However, in the approach by Paulay

and Priestley, 1992, openings can also be
Plan of the building in Example 6 is considered considered. Here, three cases are considered:
with the infill wall on the periphery along the A) Strut model as per IS 1893 Part 1
X-direction is shown in Figure 7.1. The B) Strut model as per Paulay and Priestly, 1092
building is considered to have Unreinforced C) Strut model as per Paulay and Priestly, 1992
Masonry (URM) infill wall. Compressive with 20% opening
Strength of masonry prism is 5.4 MPa. The
thickness of infill is taken as 230 mm. Infill is A) Strut as per IS 1893 Part 1:
modelled as equivalent strut as per Clause The modulus of elasticity Em (in MPa) of
7.9.2.2 of IS 1893 Part 1. Diagonal struts are masonry infill is calculated as per Clause
considered to be pin-jointed with the RC frame. 7.9.2.1 of IS 1893 Part 1:
It is to ben noted that analysis is being done in 𝑓𝑚 = 5.4 MPa
X-direction, and hence, infill wall is modelled 𝐸𝑚 = 550𝑓𝑚 = 2970 MPa
in X-direction only.
Where
Equivalent Diagonal Strut for URM Infill fm is compressive strength of masonry prism, in
Wall: MPa.
There are various approaches for modelling the Diagonal strut are considered to be pin-joined
infill wall as strut. Here, strut will be modelled to RC frame at the junction of beam and column
as per IS 1893 Part 1 approach and by Paulay (Figure 7.2). Width Wds, of the equivalent
and Priestley, 1992. In IS 1893 Part 1, there is diagonal strut shall be taken as per clause
no provision for considering opening in the 7.9.2.2 of IS 1893 Part 1:

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 7 /Page 19

𝑤𝑑𝑠 = 0.175 × 𝛼ℎ −0.4 × 𝐿𝑑𝑠 At ground storey clear height (h) is 3.8 m and
Where 𝜃 is 400 with the horizontal, clear length is of
4.65 m and length of the diagonal strut (𝐿𝑑𝑠 )
4 𝐸𝑚 𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑛(2𝜃) of 6 m, 𝐸𝑓 of 25000 MPa and Ic = 1.25 ×
𝛼ℎ = ℎ (√ )
4 𝐸𝑓 𝐼𝑐 ℎ 10−3 m4)
At ground storey clear height (h) is 4 m,
𝐸𝑓 is modulii of elasticity of RC frame 𝛼ℎ and 𝑤𝑑𝑠 is
𝐼𝑐 is moment of inertia of adjoining column 𝛼ℎ
𝑡 is thickness of the infill wall 4 2970 × 0.23 × sin(2 × 40)
= 3.8 ( √ )
𝜃 is the angle of the diagonal strut with horizontal 4 × 25000 × 1.25 × 10−3 × 3.8
ℎ is the clear height of URM infill wall = 4.2
𝐿𝑑𝑠 is the lenght of the diagonal strut 𝑤𝑑𝑠 = 0.175 × (4.2)−0.4 × 6 = 0.592 m
For the remaining storeys of higher floors,
height h = 2.8 m and 𝜃 is 310, 𝐿𝑑𝑠 = 5.42 m,
𝛼ℎ and 𝑤𝑑𝑠 are:
𝛼ℎ
4 2970 × 0.23 × sin(2 × 31)
= 2.8 ( √ )
4 × 25000 × 1.25 × 10−3 × 2.8
= 3.2
𝑤𝑑𝑠 = 0.175 × (3.2)−0.4 × 5.42 = 0.596 m
Figure-7.2 Equivalent diagonal strut of
URM infill wall
Now, including the stiffness effect of external
wall in X-direction, dynamic analysis of
building is performed and dynamic properties
are shown in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 – Dynamic properties of building in the X- direction using strut as per IS 1893 Part 1
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Natural Period (sec) 0.564 0.189 0.117
Mode Shape coefficient
Roof 1.000 1.000 1.000
rd
3 Floor 0.904 0.251 -0.744
2nd Floor 0.706 -0.712 -0.622
1st Floor 0.428 -0.953 0.999
Modal mass Mk (%) 92.1 6.9 1.1
Modal participation
1.248 -0.343 0.121
factor, Pk

Using response spectrum analysis (7.7.5.4 of The total base shear from this dynamic analysis
IS 1893 Part 1), lateral forces at each floor are VBG = 330+417+320+204 = 1271 kN.
obtained as: Since dynamic base shear is less than the base
Q4 = 330 kN shear obtained from equivalent static analysis,
Q3 = 417 kN the dynamic response quantities are scaled up
Q2 = 320 kN in the ratio of ̅̅̅
𝑉𝐵 ⁄𝑉𝐵𝐺 (1427⁄1271 = 1.12).
Q1 = 204 kN (Clause 7.6 of IS 1893 Part 1)

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 7 /Page 20

The scaled up lateral design seismic forces at height (h) = 3.8 m, 𝜃 = 400 and clear
each floor are: horizontal length = 4.65 m. Thus, one gets,
Q4 = 330  1.12 = 371 kN length of the diagonal strut (𝐿𝑑𝑠 ) = 6 m, and
Q3 = 417  1.12 = 468 kN 𝑤𝑑𝑠 = 0.25 × 6 = 1.5 m. For remaining
Q2 = 320  1.12 = 359 kN storeys h = 2.8 m, 𝜃 = 310, 𝐿𝑑𝑠 = 5.42 m,
Q1 = 204  1.12 = 229 kN and 𝑤𝑑𝑠 = 1.36 m.

B) Strut as per Paulay and Priestley 1992: Again dynamic analysis is performed and
The width of the equivalent diagonal strut dynamic properties in X-direction are shown
𝑤𝑑𝑠 = 0.25 × 𝐿𝑑𝑠 , At ground storey clear in Table 7.2

Table 7.2 – Dynamic properties of building in the X- direction using strut model of Paulay and
Priestley 1992
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Natural Period (sec) 0.339 0.137 0.086
Mode Shape coefficient
Roof 1.000 1.000 1.000
rd
3 Floor 0.889 0.207 -0.980
2nd Floor 0.678 -0.750 -0.547
1st Floor 0.395 -0.948 1.268
Modal mass Mk (%) 90.9 8.3 1.4
Modal participation
1.267 -0.374 0.121
factor, Pk

Using response spectrum analysis (7.7.5.4 of C) Strut as per Paulay and Priestley 1992
IS 1893 Part 1), lateral forces at each floor are with 20% openings:
obtained as:
Q4 = 348 kN For the case of opening in the wall, the
Q3 = 431 kN reduced width of strut is given by (Mondal and
Q2 = 323 kN Jain 2008):
Q1 = 200 kN wdo = 𝜌𝑤 wds
𝜌𝑤 = 1 − 2.5 𝐴𝑟
The total base shear from this dynamic Considering 20% opening
analysis VBG = 348+431+323+200 = 1302 kN. 𝜌𝑤 = 1 − 2.5 (0.2) = 0.5
Since dynamic base shear is less than the base Hence, at the ground floor, 𝑤𝑑𝑠 = 1.5 ×
shear obtained from equivalent static analysis, 0.5 = 0.75 m, and at remaining storey 𝑤𝑑𝑠 =
the dynamic response quantities are scaled up 1.36 × 0.5 = 0.68 m.
in the ratio of ̅̅̅
𝑉𝐵 ⁄𝑉𝐵𝐺 (1427⁄1302 = 1.10).
(Clause 7.6 of IS 1893 Part 1) Dynamic properties of this model in X-
direction are shown in Table 7.3
The scaled up lateral design seismic forces at
each floor are:
Q4 = 348  1.10 = 382 kN
Q3 = 431  1.10 = 472 kN
Q2 = 323  1.10 = 354 kN
Q1 = 200  1.10 = 219 kN

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 7 /Page 21

Table 7.3 – Dynamic properties of building in the X- direction using strut as per Paulay and
Priestley 1992 with 20% opening
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Natural Period (sec) 0.525 0.178 0.111
Mode Shape coefficient
Roof 1.000 1.000 1.000
rd
3 Floor 0.898 0.232 -0.588
2nd Floor 0.692 -0.737 -0.743
1st Floor 0.406 -0.945 0.973
Modal mass Mk (%) 91.3 7.5 1.2
Modal participation
1.257 -0.357 0.130
factor, Pk

Using response spectrum analysis (7.7.5.4 of Q4 = 345  1.09 = 377 kN

IS 1893 Part 1), lateral forces at each floor are Q3 = 432  1.09 = 472 kN
obtained as: Q2 = 327  1.09 = 357 kN
Q4 = 345 kN Q1 = 203  1.09 = 221 kN
Q3 = 432 kN
Q2 = 327 kN Observations:
Q1 = 203 kN 1) Due to inclusion of infill wall stiffness,
building lateral stiffness increases, and
The total base shear from this dynamic hence, time period has reduced.
analysis VBG = 345+432+327+203 = 1307 kN. 2) Width of strut as per IS 1893 Part 1 is
Since dynamic base shear is less than the base quite low as compared to that given by
shear obtained from equivalent static analysis, Paulay and Priestley, 1992.
the dynamic response quantities are scaled up 3) With the inclusion of opening, strut width
in the ratio of ̅̅̅
𝑉𝐵 ⁄𝑉𝐵𝐺 (1427⁄1307 = 1.09). reduces.
(Clause 7.6 of IS 1893 Part 1) 4) Distribution of forces on the floor changes
The scaled up lateral design seismic forces at with the inclusion of strut.
each floor are: A comparison of major dynamic characteristics
from various strut models is shown in Table 7.4.

Table 7.4 Comparison of dynamic proprieties using different strut models

Strut Model
IS 1893 Paulay and Paulay and Priestley
Bare Frame
Part 1 Priestley with 20% openning
1st modal period (sec) 1.271 0.564 0.339 0.525
1st modal mass (%) 92.0 92.1 90.9 91.3
Width of Ground Floor 0.592 1.5 0.75
strut (m) Other Floors 0.596 1.36 0.68
̅̅̅
𝑉𝐵 /VB 2.5 1.12 1.10 1.09
Scaled up design forces (kN)
Q4 (kN) 428 371 382 345
Q3 (kN) 445 468 472 432
Q2 (kN) 317 359 354 327
Q1 (kN) 237 229 219 203

Member forces:
Effect of infill wall stiffness on selected It is seen that with the inclusion of infill wall
members obtained and in Table 7.5 results for stiffness forces in columns and beams get
beams of outer frame are shown and in Table reduced drastically.
7.7 results of beams in inner frame are shown. Here, it shall be pointed out that in the present
Similarly, column forces are shown in Tables example, strut is concentrically connected to
7.6 and 7.8 the beam-column joint. However, there are

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 7 /Page 22

other approaches (ERDC/CERL TR-02-1) joint and some portion of the joint is modelled
wherein, strut is eccentrically connected to the as rigid.

Table 7.5 Forces in beams of outer frame for earthquake load case
Member force using Left end Centre Right end
Shear Moment Shear Moment Shear Moment
(kN) (kN-m) (kN) (kN-m) (kN) (kN-m)
Ground Floor Beam D1D2
Bare Frame 58.7 157.0 58.7 10.4 58.7 -136.3
IS 1893 11.0 29.6 11.0 2.0 11.0 -25.5
Paulay and Priestley 5.3 14.1 5.3 1.0 5.3 -12.2
20% opening 9.5 25.4 9.5 1.7 9.5 -21.9
Ground Floor Beam D2D3
Bare Frame 48.8 120.8 48.8 -1.2 48.8 -123.2
IS 1893 9.5 23.7 9.5 -0.2 9.5 -24.0
Paulay and Priestley 4.7 11.7 4.7 0.0 4.7 -11.8
20% opening 8.3 20.5 8.3 -0.1 8.3 -20.8
Roof Beam D1D2
Bare Frame 11.2 30.5 11.2 2.4 11.2 -25.7
IS 1893 1.5 4.2 1.5 0.4 1.5 -3.3
Paulay and Priestley 0.8 2.1 0.8 0.3 0.8 -1.6
20% opening 1.4 3.8 1.4 0.4 1.4 -3.0
Roof Beam D2D3
Bare Frame 10.0 24.9 10.0 0.0 10.0 -25.0
IS 1893 1.8 4.6 1.8 0.1 1.8 -4.4
Paulay and Priestley 1.0 2.7 1.0 0.1 1.0 -2.5
20% opening 1.7 4.3 1.7 0.1 1.7 -4.0

Table 7.6 Forces in column of outer frame for earthquake load case
Member force using Top end Bottom end
Axial Shear Moment Axial (kN) Shear Moment
(kN) (kN) (kN-m) (kN) (kN-m)
Ground Floor Column D1
Bare Frame 140.7 63.6 161.8 140.7 63.6 -105.2
IS 1893 286.4 12.6 32.1 286.4 12.6 -20.8
Paulay and Priestley 299.5 5.8 14.9 299.5 5.8 -9.3
20% opening 292.0 10.2 26.4 292.0 10.2 -16.6
Ground Floor Column D2
Bare Frame -18.7 77.1 180.5 -18.7 77.1 -143.2
IS 1893 132.6 15.2 35.7 132.6 15.2 -28.3
Paulay and Priestley 161.2 7.1 16.7 161.2 7.1 -13.0
20% opening 140.1 12.5 29.5 140.1 12.5 -23.1
Roof Column D1
Bare Frame 11.2 13.3 12.2 11.2 13.3 -30.5
IS 1893 23.5 1.6 0.9 23.5 1.6 -4.3
Paulay and Priestley 26.1 0.8 0.5 26.1 0.8 -2.2
20% opening 24.2 1.5 0.8 24.2 1.5 -3.9
Roof Column D2
Bare Frame -1.2 26.9 35.6 -1.2 26.9 -50.6
IS 1893 28.0 4.1 5.2 28.0 4.1 -8.0
Paulay and Priestley 34.5 2.3 2.9 34.5 2.3 -4.4
20% opening 29.3 3.8 4.8 29.3 3.8 -7.3

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 7 /Page 23

 Table 7.7 Forces in beams of inner frame for earthquake load case
Member force using Left end Centre Right end
Shear Moment Shear Moment Shear Moment
(kN) (kN-m) (kN) (kN-m) (kN) (kN-m)
Ground Floor Beam C1C2
Bare Frame 58.7 157.0 58.7 10.4 58.7 -136.3
IS 1893 11.4 30.6 11.4 2.0 11.4 -26.6
Paulay and Priestley 5.7 15.2 5.7 1.0 5.7 -13.2
20% opening 9.9 26.5 9.9 1.7 9.9 -23.0
Ground Floor Beam C2C3
Bare Frame 48.8 120.8 48.8 -1.2 48.8 -123.2
IS 1893 9.5 23.6 9.5 -0.2 9.5 -24.0
Paulay and Priestley 4.7 11.7 4.7 -0.1 4.7 -11.9
20% opening 8.3 20.4 8.3 -0.2 8.3 -20.8
Roof Beam C1C2
Bare Frame 11.2 30.5 11.2 2.4 11.2 -25.7
IS 1893 2.0 5.3 2.0 0.4 2.0 -4.5
Paulay and Priestley 1.2 3.2 1.2 0.3 1.2 -2.7
20% opening 1.8 5.0 1.8 0.4 1.8 -4.2
Roof Beam C2C3
Bare Frame 10.0 24.9 10.0 0.0 10.0 -25.0
IS 1893 1.8 4.5 1.8 0.0 1.8 -4.4
Paulay and Priestley 1.1 2.7 1.1 0.0 1.1 -2.7
20% opening 1.7 4.1 1.7 0.0 1.7 -4.1

Table 7.8 Forces in column of inner frame for earthquake load case
Member force using Bottom end Top end
Axial Shear Moment Axial Shear Moment
(kN) (kN) (kN-m) (kN) (kN) (kN-m)
Ground Floor Column C1
Bare Frame 140.7 63.6 161.8 140.7 63.6 -105.2
IS 1893 31.9 12.7 32.2 31.9 12.7 -21.2
Paulay and Priestley 19.8 5.9 15.1 19.8 5.9 -9.6
20% opening 29.3 10.4 26.5 29.3 10.4 -17.0
Ground Floor Column C2
Bare Frame -18.7 77.1 180.5 -18.7 77.1 -143.2
IS 1893 -0.7 15.3 35.9 -0.7 15.3 -28.6
Paulay and Priestley 1.6 7.2 16.9 1.6 7.2 -13.3
20% opening -0.1 12.6 29.7 -0.1 12.6 -23.4
Roof Column C1
Bare Frame 11.2 13.3 12.2 11.2 13.3 -30.5
IS 1893 3.2 2.2 1.7 3.2 2.2 -5.3
Paulay and Priestley 2.5 1.4 1.3 2.5 1.4 -3.2
20% opening 3.1 2.0 1.6 3.1 2.0 -4.9
Roof Column C2
Bare Frame -1.2 26.9 35.6 -1.2 26.9 -50.6
IS 1893 0.5 4.7 6.0 0.5 4.7 -8.9
Paulay and Priestley 0.8 2.8 3.7 0.8 2.8 -5.3
20% opening 0.6 4.3 5.6 0.6 4.3 -8.3

References:
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Mondal, G., and Jain, S. K., 2008. Lateral stiffness of masonry infilled reinforced concrete (RC)
frames with central opening. Earthquake spectra, 24(3), 701-723.

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 7 /Page 24

Example 8 – Calculation of Time Period for a Building with
Structural Walls
Problem Statement:
Consider a four storey RC building from Example 6, where now shear walls are added as shown in
Figure 8.1. These shear walls extend upto the roof slab. Consider grade of concrete as M25. The total
height of the building is 13.8 m and the thickness of the structural wall is 0.2 m. Calculate time period
of building using clause 7.6.2 b of IS 1893 Part 1.

Figure-8.1 Plan of building in example 6 with structural wall

Solution:
For a building with a structural wall, an For Earthquake in X Direction:
approximate time period is obtained as per There are two shear walls are present with a
clause 7.6.2 b of IS 1893 part 1. length of 10 m each.
0.075ℎ0.75 0.09ℎ
𝑇𝑎 = ≥
√𝐴𝑤 √𝑑 𝐿𝑤1 = 𝐿𝑤2 = 10 m
Where 𝐴𝑤 is total eeffective area (m2) of walls Effective length = 0.8 × 10 = 8 𝑚
in the first storey of the building given by: 𝐴𝑤1 = 𝐴𝑤2 = 8 × 0.2 = 1.6 𝑚2
10 2
𝑁𝑤 𝐴𝑤 = [1.6 {0.2 + ( ) }] × 2 = 2.32 𝑚2
13.8
𝐿𝑤𝑖 2
𝐴𝑤 = ∑ [𝐴𝑤𝑖 {0.2 + ( ) }]
ℎ
𝑖=1 0.075×13.80.75
𝑇𝑎 = = 0.35 𝑠
√2.32
Where
ℎ = height of the building Now, the value of time period for RC building
𝐴𝑤𝑖 = effective cross-sectional area of wall i in with infill walls is
first storey of the building, in m2 0.09 × 13.8
𝑇= = 0.27 𝑠
𝐿𝑤𝑖 = length of structural wall i in first storey √20
in the considered direction of lateral forces, in which is less than 0.35 sec.
m
𝑑 = base dimension of the building at the For Earthquake in Y Direction:
plinth level along the considered direction of There are four shear walls are present with
the earthquake shaking, in m length of 5 m each.
𝑁𝑤 = number of walls in the considered 𝐿𝑤1 = 𝐿𝑤2 = 𝐿𝑤3 = 𝐿𝑤4 = 5 m
direction of the earthquake shaking Effective length = 0.8 × 5 = 4 𝑚

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 8 /Page 25

𝐴𝑤1 = 𝐴𝑤2 = 𝐴𝑤3 = 𝐴𝑤4 = 4 × 0.2 = 0.8 𝑚2 Now, the value of time period for RC building
2 with infill walls is
5
𝐴𝑤 = [0.8 {0.2 + ( ) }] × 4 = 1.06 𝑚2 0.09 × 13.8
13.8 𝑇= = 0.32 𝑠
√15
0.075×13.80.75 which is less than 0.52 sec.
𝑇𝑎 = = 0.52 𝑠
√1.06

Note:
As per Amendment No.1 dated September 2017 of IS1893:2016 Part 1, the formula for Aw is changed as
follows:
𝑁𝑤
𝐿𝑤𝑖 2
𝐴𝑤 = ∑ [𝐴𝑤𝑖 {0.2 + ( )} ]
ℎ
𝑖=1

As per this formula, the value of Time period in X direction is 0.32 s as against 0.35 s. Similarly, in Y
direction time period is 0.53 s as against 0.52 s.
However, the changed formula given in amendment is not correct and one shall use the original formula
given in the code.

Note:
As per proposed modifications to IS1893:2016 Part 1, the formula for Aw and Ta is modified as:

100 𝑁𝑤 ℎ 2 𝐴𝑤𝑖 0.0062ℎ

𝐴𝑤 = ∑𝑖=1 [( ) ℎ 2
], 𝑇𝑎 =
𝐴𝐵 ℎ𝑖
{1+0.83( 𝑖 ) } √ 𝐴𝑤
𝐿𝑤𝑖

As per this formula, for X-diection, 𝐴𝑤 = 0.413 and Time period is 0.134 s. Similarly, for Y direction
𝐴𝑤 = 0.146 and Time period is 0.224 s.

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 8 /Page 26

Example 9 – Design for Anchorage of an Equipment
Problem Statement:
A 100 kN equipment (Figure 9.1) is to be installed on the roof of a five storey building in Simla
(seismic zone IV). It is attached by four anchored bolts, one at each corner of the equipment,
embedded in a concrete slab. Floor to floor height of the building is 3.0 m. except the ground storey
which is 4.2 m. Determine the shear and tension demands on the anchored bolts during earthquake
shaking.
(This example is based proposed new clauses of IS 1893 Part 1. Reference has been made to
figures and tables of these new clauses)

Wp

Fp
CG
1.5 m

Anchor Anchor bolt

bolt 1.0 m

Figure 9.1– Equipment installed at roof

Solution: The design seismic force

Zone factor, Z = 0.24 (for zone IV, Table 3 Z  x  ap
Fp  1   I pWp
of IS 1893 Part 1), 2  h  Rp
Height of point of attachment of the
equipment above the foundation of the
0.24  16.2  1.0
building, x = (4.2 +3.0 × 4) m = 16.2 m,  1   1100  kN
Height of the building, h = 16.2 m, 2  16.2  2.5
Amplification factor of the equipment,  9.6 kN < 0.1Wp  10.0kN
a p  1 (rigid component, Table 11), Hence, design seismic force, for the
Response modification factor Rp = 2.5 equipment
(Table 11), Fp =10.0 kN.
Importance factor Ip = 1 (not life safety
The anchorage of equipment with the
component, Table 12),
building must be designed for twice of this
Weight of the equipment, Wp = 100 kN
force (C7.13.3.4 of draft IS 1893)
Shear per anchor bolt, V = 2Fp/4
=2  10.0/4 kN
=5.0 kN

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 9/Page 27

The overturning moment is
M ot  2.0  (10.0 kN)  (1.5 m)
= 30.0 kN-m

The overturning moment is resisted by two

anchor bolts on either side. Hence, tension
per anchor bolt from overturning is
(30.0)
Ft  kN
(1.0)(2)
=15.0

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 9/Page 28

Example 10 – Anchorage Design for an Equipment Supported
on Vibration Isolator
Problem Statement:
A 100 kN electrical generator of a emergency power supply system is to be installed on the fourth
floor of a 6-storey hospital building in Guwahati (zone V). It is to be mounted on four flexible
vibration isolators, one at each corner of the unit, to damp the vibrations generated during the
operation. Floor to floor height of the building is 3.0 m. except the ground storey which is 4.2 m.
Determine the shear and tension demands on the isolators during earthquake shaking.

(This example is based proposed new clauses of IS 1893 Part 1. Reference has been made to
figures and tables of these new clauses)

Vibration CG
Isolator

Figure 10.1 – Electrical generator installed on the floor

Solution:
Weight of the generator, Wp = 100 kN
Zone factor, Z = 0.36 (for zone V, Table 3 of
The design lateral force on the generator,
IS 1893 Part 1),
Height of point of attachment of the generator Z  x  ap
Fp  1   I pWp
above the foundation of the building, 2  h  Rp
x = (4.2 + 3.0 × 3) m
0.36  13.2  2.5
= 13.2 m,  1   1.5100  kN
Height of the building, 2  19.2  2.5
h = (4.2 + 3.0 × 5) m  45.6 kN
= 19.2 m, 0.1Wp  10.0kN
Amplification factor of the generator, a p  Since the generator is mounted on flexible
vibration isolator, the design force is doubled
2.5 (flexible component, Table 11), i.e.,
Response modification factor Rp = 2.5
(vibration isolator, Table 13), Fp  2  45.6 kN
Importance factor Ip = 1.5 (life safety  91.2 kN
component, Table 14), Shear force resisted by each isolator,
V = Fp/4

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 10/Page 29

 = 22.8 kN
The overturning moment,
M ot   91.2 kN    0.8 m 
= 73.0 kN-m
The overturning moment (Mot) is resisted by
two vibration isolators on either side.
Therefore, tension or compression on each
isolator,

Ft 
 73.0
kN
1.2  2 
= 30.4 kN

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 10/Page 30

Example 11 – Design of a Large Sign Board on a Building
Problem Statement:
A neon sign board is attached to a 5-storey building in Ahmedabad (seismic zone III). It is attached
by two anchors at a height 12.0 m and 8.0 m. From the elastic analysis under design seismic load,
it is found that the deflections of upper and lower attachments of the sign board are 35.0 mm and
25.0 mm, respectively. Find the design relative displacement.

(This example is based proposed new clauses of IS 1893 Part 1. Reference has been made to
figures and tables of these new clauses)

Solution:
(ii) Alternatively, assuming that the analysis
Since sign board is a displacement sensitive
of building is not possible to assess
nonstructural element, it should be designed
deflections under seismic loads, one may use
for seismic relative displacement.
the drift limits (this presumes that the
building complies with seismic code).
Height of level x to which upper connection
point is attached, hx = 12.0 m
Maximum interstorey drift allowance as per
clause 7.11.1.1 of IS 1893 Part 1 is 0.004
Height of level y to which lower connection
times the storey height, i.e.,
point is attached, hy = 8.0 m
 aA
Deflection at building level x of structure A  0.004
due to design seismic load determined by hsx
elastic analysis = 35.0 mm  aA
D p  R(hx  h y )
hsx
Deflection at building level y of structure A
due to design seismic load determined by =5 (12000.0 – 8000.0)(0.004) mm
elastic analysis = 25.0 mm = 80.0 mm

Response reduction factor of the building R The neon board will be designed to
= 5 (special RC moment resisting frame, accommodate a relative motion of 80 mm.
Table 9 of IS 1893 of Part 1)

 xA =5512.0
x 35
= 175.0 mm
 yA =5 59.0
x 25
= 125.0 mm

(i) Dp   xA   yA
= (175.0 – 125.0) mm
= 50.0 mm
Design the connections of neon board to
accommodate a relative motion of 50 mm.

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 11/Page 31

 Examples on IS 1893(Part 1)
Example: 12 Liquefaction Analysis using SPT data

Problem Statement:
Assessment of liquefaction susceptibility for raw SPT (conducted with donut hammer, rope and
pulley, without using a liner within an uncased borehole of 100 mm diameter) blow count of 17
measured in a layer of poorly graded sand containing 8 % non plastic fines at a site in Zone IV and
water table is 6.0 m below ground surface for a 7.5 magnitude earthquake:
(This example is based proposed new clauses of IS 1893 Part 1. Reference has been made to
figures and tables of these new clauses)

Solution: 1  0.75 for donut hammer, rope and

pulley
Site Characterization: 2  1.00 since depth is more than 10 m
This site consists of loose to dense poorly 3  1.00 since the sampler was without a
graded sand to silty sand (SP-SM). The SPT
values ranges from 9 to 26. The site is located liner
in zone IV. The peak horizontal ground 4  1.00 since bore hole was uncased with
acceleration value for the site will be taken as diameter less than 120 mm
0.24g corresponding to zone factor Z = 0.24 N1 60  0.77  0.75  17  10
Liquefaction Potential of Underlying Soil Cyclic Resistance Ratio:
For N1 60 of 10and fines content of 8%
Step by step calculation for the depth of
12.75m is given below.
CRR7.5  0.11 (Figure 8)
For Zone IV amax g  0.24 and assuming
Corrected Critical Stress Ratio Resisting
for the design earthquake M w  7.5 , and Liquefaction:
 sat  18.5 kN/m3 and  w  9.8 kN/m3 CRR  CSR7.5  MSF  K  K
The magnitude scaling factor, MSF, is 1 since
Initial stresses: the design earthquake is of magnitude 7.5.
 v 0  12.75  18.5  235.9 kPa Correction factor, K, depends on the relative
density. Since the relative density in percent,
u0  (12.75  6.00)  9.8  66.2 kPa Dr, can be estimated from (Skempton 1986):
 v0   v 0  u0   235.9  66.2 ( N1 )60  10 and  v0  169.7 kPa
= 169.7 kPa relative density is about 37 %. Accordingly,
K   v0 Pa   169.7 / 100
f 1 0.81
 0.90
Since initial static shear is zero (assuming free
Stress reduction factor: field condition and the ground surface is
horizontal) K  1
rd  1  0.015z  1  0.015  12.75  0.81
CRR  0.11  1  1  0.90  0.10
Cyclic stress ratio due to earthquake:
Factor of safety against liquefaction:
CSR  0.65  amaz / g   rd   v 0 /  v0 
FS L  CRR / CSReq  0.10 / 0.18  0.56
CSReq  0.65  0.24  0.81 235.9 / 169.7
Dr  N1 60 0.28 v  27
0.5
= 0.18

Correction for raw SPT blow count(N) for

overburden pressure:
N1 60  CN 1 s 3 4  N 60
CN  100 /  v0   0.77
1/ 2

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 12/Page 32

Example: 13 Liquefaction Analysis using CPT data

Problem Statement:
Prepare a plot of factors of safety against liquefaction versus depth. The results of the cone
penetration test (CPT) of 20m thick layer in Zone V are indicated in Table 13.1. Assume the water
table to be at a depth of 2.35 m, the unit weight of the soil to be 18 kN/m3 and the magnitude of 7.5.
(This example is based proposed new clauses of IS 1893 Part 1. Reference has been made to
figures and tables of these new clauses)

Table 13.1: Result of the Cone penetration Test

Depth Depth Depth
(m) qc fs (m) qc fs (m) qc fs
0.50 144.31 0.652 7.50 45.46 0.132 14.50 46.60 0.161
1.00 95.49 0.602 8.00 39.39 0.135 15.00 46.77 0.155
1.50 39.28 0.281 8.50 36.68 0.099 15.50 47.58 0.184
2.00 20.62 0.219 9.00 45.30 0.129 16.00 41.99 0.130
2.50 150.93 1.027 9.50 51.05 0.185 16.50 48.94 0.329
3.00 55.50 0.595 10.00 46.39 0.193 17.00 56.69 0.184
3.50 10.74 0.359 10.50 58.05 0.248 17.50 112.90 0.392
4.00 9.11 0.144 11.00 48.94 0.159 18.00 104.49 0.346
4.50 33.69 0.297 11.50 63.75 0.218 18.50 77.75 0.256
5.00 70.69 0.357 12.00 53.93 0.193 19.00 91.58 0.282
5.50 49.70 0.235 12.50 53.60 0.231 19.50 74.16 0.217
6.00 51.43 0.233 13.00 62.39 0.275 20.00 115.02 0.375
6.50 64.94 0.291 13.50 54.58 0.208
7.00 57.24 0.181 14.00 52.08 0.173

Solution: Critical stress ratio induced by

earthquake:
Liquefaction Potential of Underlying 
CSReq  0.65  amaz / g   rd   v /  v' 
Soil: CSReq  0.65  0.36  0.997  81 / 59.93
Step by step calculation for the depth of 4.5m
is given below. Detailed calculations are given  0.32
in Table 13.2. This table provides the factor
of safety against liquefaction (FSliq). Corrected Critical Stress Ratio Resisting
The site is located in zone V. The peak Liquefaction:
horizontal ground acceleration value for the CSRL  CSReq k m k k
site will be taken as 0.36g corresponding to k m  Correction factor for earthquake
zone factor Z = 0.36
magnitude other than 7.5
(Figure F-4)
amax/g = 0.36, Mw=7.5,  1.00 for M w  7.5
 sat  18 kN / m 3 ,  w  9.8 kN / m 3 k   Correction factor for initial driving
Depth of water level below G.L. = 2.35m static shear
Depth at which liquefaction potential is to be (Figure F-6)
evaluated = 4.5m  1.00 , since no initial static shear
Initial stresses: k  Correction factor for stress level larger
than 96 kPa
 v  4.5  18  81.00 kPa (Figure F-5)
u 0  (4.5  2.35)  9.8  21.07 kPa  1.00
 v'   v  u 0   81  21.07  59.93 kPa CSRL  0.32  1  1  1  0.32
Correction factor for grain characteristics:
K c  1.0 for I c  1.64 and
Stress reduction factor:
K c  0.403I c  5.581I c  21.63I c
4 3 2
rd  1  0.000765 z
 1  0.000765  4.5  0.997   33.75I c  17.88 for I c  1.64
The soil behavior type index, I c , is given by

IITGN-WB-EQ3-V1.0 Example 13 /Page 33

Ic  3.47  log Q2  1.22  log F 2
Ic  3.47  log 42.192  1.22  log 0.9032
 2.19
Where,

F  f qc   v   100
F  29.7 / 3369  81  100  0.903 and
Q  qc   v  Pa Pa  v 
n

Q  3369  81 101.35  101.35 59.93

0.5

 42.19
K c  0.4032.19  5.5812.19  21.632.19
4 3 2

  33.752.19  17.88  1.64

Normalized Cone Tip Resistance:
qc1N cs  K c Pa  v n qc Pa 
qc1N cs  1.64101.35 59.930.5 3369 101.35
 70.77
Factor of safety against liquefaction:
For qc1N cs  70.77 ,
CRR =0.11 (Figure F-6)
FS liq  CRR / CSRL
FS liq  0.11 / 0.32  0.34

Summary:
Analysis shows that the strata between depths
0-1m are liable to liquefy under earthquake
shaking corresponding to peak ground
acceleration of 0.36g. The plot for depth
verses factor of safety is shown in
Figure 13.1

IITK-GSDMA-EQ21-V2.0 Example 11/Page 34

 Table 13.2: Liquefaction Analysis: Water Level 2.35 m below GL (Units: kN and Meters)
qc fs
Depth v v ' rd (kPa) (kPa) CSReq CSRL F Q Ic Kc (qc1N)cs CRR FSliq
0.50 9.00 9.00 1.00 14431 65.20 0.23 0.23 0.45 241.91 1.40 1.00 242.06 100.00 434.78
1.00 18.00 18.00 1.00 9549 60.20 0.23 0.23 0.63 159.87 1.63 1.00 160.17 100.00 434.78
1.50 27.00 27.00 1.00 3928 28.10 0.23 0.23 0.72 65.43 1.97 1.27 83.53 0.13 0.57
2.00 36.00 36.00 1.00 2062 21.90 0.23 0.23 1.08 33.54 2.31 1.99 68.04 0.11 0.47
2.50 45.00 43.53 1.00 15093 102.70 0.24 0.24 0.68 226.55 1.53 1.00 227.23 100.00 416.67
3.00 54.00 47.63 1.00 5550 59.50 0.26 0.26 1.08 79.10 2.01 1.31 105.02 0.19 0.73
3.50 63.00 51.73 1.00 1074 35.90 0.28 0.28 3.55 13.96 2.92 5.92 87.81 0.14 0.50
4.00 72.00 55.83 1.00 911 14.40 0.30 0.30 1.72 11.15 2.83 5.01 60.64 0.10 0.33
4.50 81.00 59.93 1.00 3369 29.70 0.32 0.32 0.90 42.19 2.19 1.64 70.77 0.11 0.34
5.00 90.00 64.03 1.00 7069 35.70 0.33 0.33 0.51 86.63 1.79 1.10 96.60 0.16 0.48
5.50 99.00 68.13 1.00 4970 23.50 0.34 0.34 0.48 58.62 1.93 1.22 72.68 0.12 0.35
6.00 108.00 72.23 1.00 5143 23.30 0.35 0.35 0.46 58.85 1.92 1.21 72.45 0.12 0.34
6.50 117.00 76.33 1.00 6494 29.10 0.36 0.36 0.46 72.50 1.83 1.13 83.61 0.13 0.36
7.00 126.00 80.43 0.99 5724 18.10 0.36 0.36 0.32 62.00 1.83 1.13 71.56 0.11 0.31
7.50 135.00 84.53 0.99 4546 13.20 0.37 0.37 0.30 47.66 1.92 1.21 59.46 0.10 0.27
8.00 144.00 88.63 0.99 3939 13.50 0.38 0.38 0.36 40.04 2.02 1.33 55.18 0.10 0.26
8.50 153.00 92.73 0.99 3668 9.90 0.38 0.38 0.28 36.26 2.02 1.33 50.45 0.09 0.24
9.00 162.00 96.83 0.99 4530 12.90 0.39 0.39 0.30 44.09 1.95 1.24 56.79 0.10 0.26
9.50 171.00 100.93 0.75 5105 18.50 0.30 0.30 0.37 48.78 1.95 1.24 62.62 0.10 0.33
10.00 180.00 105.03 0.73 4639 19.30 0.29 0.29 0.43 43.22 2.02 1.33 59.94 0.10 0.34
10.50 189.00 109.13 0.72 5805 24.80 0.29 0.29 0.44 53.40 1.95 1.23 68.16 0.11 0.38
11.00 198.00 113.23 0.71 4894 15.90 0.29 0.29 0.34 43.84 1.98 1.27 58.01 0.10 0.34
11.50 207.00 117.33 0.69 6375 21.80 0.29 0.29 0.35 56.56 1.88 1.17 68.51 0.11 0.38
12.00 216.00 121.43 0.68 5393 19.30 0.28 0.28 0.37 46.67 1.97 1.26 61.23 0.10 0.36
12.50 225.00 125.53 0.67 5360 23.10 0.28 0.28 0.45 45.53 2.01 1.31 62.48 0.10 0.36
13.00 234.00 129.63 0.65 6239 27.50 0.28 0.28 0.46 52.39 1.96 1.25 68.09 0.11 0.39
13.50 243.00 133.73 0.64 5458 20.80 0.27 0.27 0.40 44.79 2.00 1.29 60.67 0.10 0.37
14.00 252.00 137.83 0.63 5208 17.30 0.27 0.27 0.35 41.93 2.00 1.30 57.21 0.10 0.37
14.50 261.00 141.93 0.61 4660 16.10 0.26 0.26 0.37 36.68 2.06 1.39 53.90 0.09 0.35
15.00 270.00 146.03 0.60 4677 15.50 0.26 0.26 0.35 36.23 2.06 1.38 53.24 0.09 0.35
15.50 279.00 150.13 0.59 4758 18.40 0.25 0.25 0.41 36.31 2.08 1.43 55.02 0.10 0.40
16.00 288.00 154.23 0.57 4199 13.00 0.25 0.25 0.33 31.28 2.11 1.47 49.44 0.09 0.36
16.50 297.00 158.33 0.56 4894 32.90 0.25 0.25 0.72 36.29 2.19 1.65 63.63 0.10 0.40
17.00 306.00 162.43 0.55 5669 18.40 0.24 0.24 0.34 41.80 2.00 1.30 57.28 0.10 0.42
17.50 315.00 166.53 0.53 11290 39.20 0.24 0.24 0.36 84.48 1.73 1.06 91.71 0.15 0.63
18.00 324.00 170.63 0.52 10449 34.60 0.23 0.23 0.34 76.99 1.75 1.07 85.35 0.14 0.61
18.50 333.00 174.73 0.51 7775 25.60 0.23 0.23 0.34 55.92 1.88 1.17 68.46 0.11 0.48
19.00 342.00 178.83 0.49 9158 28.20 0.22 0.22 0.32 65.48 1.81 1.11 75.57 0.12 0.55
19.50 351.00 182.93 0.48 7416 21.70 0.22 0.22 0.31 51.89 1.89 1.18 64.35 0.10 0.45
20.00 360.00 187.03 0.47 11502 37.50 0.21 0.21 0.34 80.93 1.73 1.06 88.47 0.14 0.67

IITK-GSDMA-EQ21-V2.0 Example 11/Page 35

 Factor of Safety
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
0

8
Depth (m)

10

13

15

18

20

Figure 13.1: Factor of Safety against Liquefaction

IITK-GSDMA-EQ21-V2.0 Example 11/Page 36