Abstract: Is there a need of a code for tall buildings? What is the purpose of a code?

What
should be the criteria for limiting height of a building in a given location in the country? Who
should specify that limit? A history of some of the most fascinating tall structures (Empire
State, World Trade Center, Sears Towers (Wills), John Hancock, Burj-Al-Dubai, and Burj-
Khalifa among others) around the world during the past 100 years show that a code is
secondary for such buildings. The design team engages the best brains and best practices
from around the world and come up with very innovating systems, materials, construction
techniques, and solutions. IS:875-part 3 on wind loads, and IS:13920 have been revised
during the past few months; IS:1893-part 1 is under printing. A new Code on Safety of RC
Tall Buildings is under preparation. A discussion of various provisions of these codes show
that a lot of work is still required to make them more comprehensive, logical, and therefore,
more user friendly.
Introduction

Do we need a code at all for a tall building? What is the purpose of a code? What should be
the criteria for limiting height of a building in a given location in the country? Who should
specify that limit? The answer to these questions lies partly in the selection of the structural
system, nature of geotechnical strata, materials and magnitude of various loads. In other
words, level of risk to life and property. Height limitations can be imposed by the local
authorities based on the availability of services or heritage considerations, or by the codes
based on technical considerations. Among the various loads acting on a tall building, the
wind loads, earthquake loads, snow loads (if applicable), fire and temperature changes are
the most critical. The design of tall buildings is mainly governed by serviceability limit state
against vibrations, lateral drift and fire. The energy and water requirements need to be
minimized to take care of temperature variations. It is very rare that a building has
collapsed under wind loads. It is the earthquake loading code that specifies different types
of structural systems appropriate under different seismic zones and for various heights.
The 381 m Empire State Building in New York city was built in 1931 and remains even today
its most iconic building. In those days there were no codes and not even calculators. Later
in 1971, the twin towers of 110 storey World Trade Center (419 m) were built in New York
city. This was followed by the Sears tower (now Willis Tower 442 m) and John Hancock
building (344 m) in Chicago. These buildings used different innovative structural systems to
resist the various loads under serviceability conditions. The knowledge and understanding of
wind, earthquake, snow and temperature loadings were scanty. The subject of dynamics of
structures was still evolving. These and many other tall buildings were built in various parts
of the USA based on the experience and judgment of engineers and architects. Similarly,
Burj-Al-Arab (280 m), Burj Khalifa, Dubai (829.8 m) and Shanghai Tower (632 m) are
among the recent wonders. They employed the best brains and put together the best
construction teams, materials and practices from across the globe to build such iconic tall
buildings. They developed their own design criteria, performance criteria and measurements
to achieve their objectives. These magnificent structures were not subservient to the codes.
A few tall buildings in the range of 75 m to 100 m have been built in Mumbai during the
past few decades. However, during the past one decade more buildings in the range of 40 m
to 75 m range have come up in various parts of the country including Bangalore, Chennai,
Hyderabad, Kolkata, Pune, and the NCR region of Delhi. Among all these regions, the NCR
region appears to be more critical because of seismic zone IV, while others were in seismic
zone II or III. In the first two seismic zones II and III, a properly designed moment
resistant frame building or a shear wall frame building would be sufficient. They do not pose
a great risk to life and property. However, a tall building in seismic zones IV and V would
certainly require more precautions. Nevertheless, it appears that the Committee on
Earthquake Loads perhaps did not apply its mind seriously towards the essential provisions
for taller buildings greater than about 100 m. Jain (2014) published a paper on the state of
codes on structural engineering in India highlighting various issues. The purpose of a Code
is to facilitate the designers and construction engineers to innovate and excel while
maintaining safety under all probable loads rather than choke logical thinking and solutions.

Federal Emergency Management Authority, USA (FEMA) is engaged in developing state of

the art codal provisions through extensive research grants and very detailed publications to
mitigate the aftermath of various disasters including earthquake. In addition, Council on Tall
Buildings, Chicago is an international association of professionals working in the analysis
and design of tall buildings. It also publishes reports and guides to supplement the code
provisions for designing better tall buildings (CTBUH 2010).
Recently, IS:875-part 3 on wind loads and IS:13920 on ductile detailing for earthquake
resistance have been released. IS:1893-part 1 draft 2016 is under printing. A new draft
code on RC tall buildings is under circulation. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the
challenges posed by tall buildings to Indian Codes.
Current Provisions in Codes on Structural Safety on Tall Buildings (Draft 2016) and IS:1893-
Part 11 Draft 2016
Both these codes deal with buildings and specify seismic forces. There are a few overlapping
clauses that could have been easily avoided as it will lead to confusion and possible lack of
compliance. It is interesting to know that the draft code on Tall Buildings excludes steel
buildings which happens to be the finest material for constructing tallest buildings the world
over. The following points are brought out for discussion.
(A) Conflict in the scope
The scope of the Code on Tall Buildingsis defined as follows:
1.1 This code is applicable for reinforced concrete (RC) buildings of heights greater than 45
m, but less than 250 m, normally intended for use as residential, office and other
commercial buildings.
1.2 This code is not applicable for tall buildings located in the near-field of seismogenic
faults. For the purposes of this code, near-field is taken as 10 km (shortest distance) from a
seismogenic fault.
1.3 This code may be used for design of medium- and low-rise buildings (of heights equal to
or less than 45m) also; the good practices mentioned in this standard will add value to the
design of the said buildings.
1.4 This standard is a prescriptive code covering design aspects of tall buildings. These
aspects include:
(a) Selection of appropriate structural system;
(b) Geometric proportioning of the building;
(c) Integrity of Structural System;
(d) Resistance to Wind and Earthquake effects; and
(e) Other special considerations related to high-rise buildings.
1.5 This code is applicable only for buildings that house 20,000 or fewer persons.
The scope of the IS:1893-part 1 Draft 2016 is defined as follows:
This standard primarily deals with earthquake hazard assessment for earthquake-resistant
design of (1) buildings, (2) liquid retaining structures, and so on.
The conflict is obvious.
(B) Conflict in the minimum base shear coefficient
The minimum seismic coefficient for a building in any seismic zone is shown in Table 1.

An attempt was made to understand the background of these numbers.

Z = 0.10; 0.16; 0.24; 0.36 for zone II to V
For I = 1, R = 5, and given by Table 1,
Case 1:
= 0.7%, 1.1%, 1.6% and 2.4%
Thus, Sa/g = 0.70, 0.6875, 0.667 and 0.666. It means, for a hard soil, period of structure is
given by
T = 1/(Sa/g)= 1.43; 1.45; 1.5 and 1.5 sec.
It means a structure up to 120 m high cannot have a fundamental period more than 1.5 sec
for the purpose of computing the base shear.
Case 2:
= 0.5%, 7.5%, 1.25% and 1.75%
Thus, Sa/g = 0.50, 0.468, 0.520 and 0.486. It means, for a hard soil, period of structure is
given by
T = 1/(Sa/g)= 2.0, 2.14,1.92 and 2.05 sec.
It means a structure more than 200 m high cannot have a fundamental period more than
2sec for the purpose of computing the base shear.
This has been included only in the present draft and has no basis what so ever. The point is
that the Code does not seem to have confidence in its calculation of the design seismic
coefficient as well as scaling of base shear obtained by modal analysis.
(C) Limiting height of a structural system
The “Structural System” is the key term in tall buildings. Apparently, it is a very wide
qualitative term and some of the architects and designers may not be fully aware of its full
meaning and implications. Moreover, there are very few major earthquakes that have
shaken the urban cities in India except the 2001 Bhuj Earthquake. Therefore, it appears
that many designers are not convinced about the seriousness of structural systems and
their correlation with level of seismicity and risk especially in zones IV and V. It is well
known that loss of rationale will lead to loss of compliance.
There is no clause in IS:1893 Part 1 Code that explicitly limits height of any building in any
seismic zone. A structural system is either permitted in a given zone or not permitted.
Clause 7.1 specifies various irregularities in plan and elevation that are permissible. Clause
7.7 does specify when a dynamic analysis must be carried out in a given seismic zone
depending upon the height and irregularity of a building. Moreover, Clause 7.2 does specify
response reduction factor R for a given structural system depending upon the perceived
seismic damage performance of the structure, characterized by ductile or brittle mode of
collapse. Although there are doubts if this factor R does justice with its objective or is it just
a calibration factor for the seismic forces between the earlier edition of the code and the
current edition (Prakash et al 2006). Clause 7.2 of IS:1893-Part 1 (Table 6) requires as
shown in Table 2:
However, in the Code on tall buildings, Clause 5.1.1 deals with height limitations and 5.1.2
deals with maximum slenderness ratios.
(D) Definition of weak and soft storeys
Both these draft codes have adopted a uniform definition of soft and weak storeys as
follows:
Soft storey – Lateral translational stiffness of any storey shall not be less than that of the
storey above.
Weak storey – Lateral translational strength of any storey shall not be less than that of the
storey above.
Now apparently this is a very vague clause. IS:1893-part 1-2002 had the following
definitions similar to ASCE 7-2010 that were more logical and practical.
4.20 Soft Storey
It is one in which the lateral stiffness is less than 70 percent of that in the storey above or
less than 80 percent of the average lateral stiffness of the three storeys above.
4.25Weak Storey
It is one in which the storey lateral strength is less than 80 percent of that in the storey
above. The storey lateral strength is the total strength of all seismic force resisting elements
sharing the storey shear in the considered direction.
Let us look at EC 8 part 1 – 4.2.3.3 Criteria for regularity in elevation
Both the lateral stiffness and the mass of the individual storeys shall remain constant or
reduce gradually, without abrupt changes, from the base to the top of a particular building.
In framed buildings the ratio of the actual storey resistance to the resistance required by
the analysis should not vary disproportionately between adjacent storeys. Within this
context the special aspects of masonry infilled frames are treated in 4.3.6.3.2.
(B) Load Combinations
Both these Codes including IS:456 and IS:800 still do not reflect load combinations with
temperature changes. Moreover, the world over the load factor for earthquake force in
combination with dead and live loads has been lowered to 1.0 instead of 1.2 or 1.5 used
earlier. The Indian codes are reluctant to pass on this benefit to the structures.
(C) Requirement of Nonlinear analysis
Both these draft codes are silent about carrying out a static pushover nonlinear analysis or
dynamic nonlinear analysis of the building to show that under severe loads there is no
adverse formation of plastic hinges anywhere in the building.Both IS:1893-part1 and
IS:1320-2016 do require nonlinear analysis vide clauses 7.2.2 on redundancy; and 1.1.2 on
flat slab system and 5.5 on irregularity, respectively. But the objective is different.
Moreover, none of these codes give any guidelines on how to model strength and stiffness
of various elements, carryout nonlinear analysis, and interpret the results (Jain 2016a).
Let us look at EC8 – 4.3.3 Methods of analysis
Depending on the structural characteristics of the building one of the following two types of
linear-elastic analysis may be used:
a) the “lateral force method of analysis” for buildings meeting the conditions given in
4.3.3.2;
b) the “modal response spectrum analysis”, which is applicable to all types of buildings (see
4.3.3.3).
As an alternative to a linear method, a non-linear method may also be used, such as:
c) non-linear static (pushover) analysis;
d) non-linear time history (dynamic) analysis,
Non-linear analyses should be properly substantiated with respect to the seismic input, the
constitutive model used, the method of interpreting the results of the analysis and the
requirements to be met.
(G) Stability of structural system or progressive failure
Draft code on Tall Buildings does provide general guidelines to avoid progressive collapse of
structure. But it falls short of the following requirement of ASCE 7 and NEHRP 2009.
IS:1893-part 1 is also silent in this regard.
NEHRP 2009 (FEMA P750): 12.3.4 Redundancy
The desirability of redundancy, or multiple lateral-force-resisting load paths, has long been
recognized. The redundancy provisions of this section reflect the belief that an excessive
loss of story shear strength or development of an extreme torsional irregularity may lead to
structural failure. The redundancy factor determined for each direction may differ.
The first approach is a check of the elements outlined in Table 12.3-3 for cases where the
story shear exceeds 35 percent of the base shear. Parametric studies (conducted by
Building Seismic Safety Council Technical Subcommittee 2 but unpublished) were used to
select the 35 percent value. Those studies indicated that stories with at least 35 percent of
the base shear include all stories of low-rise buildings (buildings up to 5 to 6 stories) and
about 87 percent of the stories of tall buildings. The intent of this limit is to exclude
penthouses and the uppermost stories from the redundancy requirements. This approach
requires the removal (or loss of moment resistance) of an individual lateral-force-resisting
element to determine its effect on the remaining structure. If the removal of elements, one-
by-one, does not result in more than a 33 percent reduction in story strength or an extreme
torsional irregularity, may be taken as 1.0. For this evaluation, the determination of story
strength requires an in-depth calculation. The intent of the check is to use a simple measure
(elastic or plastic) to determine whether an individual member has a significant effect on
the overall system. If the original structure has an extreme torsional irregularity to begin
with, the resulting is 1.3.
More details of the recent provisions in IS:1893-part 1 draft and IS:13920 can be found in
Jain (2016b and c).
Current Provisions In IS:875 Part 3
IS:875- Part 3 (2015) specifies wind pressures at different heights through wind profiles.
However, it is silent about the structural system, modern intricacies in the building plan and
elevation and their effect on the wind pressure distribution. Neither has it given any patch
loading nor change in pressure distribution due to change in vertical offsets in elevations.
The latest edition does cover interference effects in buildings close to each other. The
Eurocode 1-Part 1.4 (2005)and other international codes deal with these aspects in more
detail.
Characteristics of Typical Buildings in the NCR Region – 30 m to 75 m height range
The following observations can be made in a large number of buildings in the NCR region
(Figs. 1 and 2):
(1) Use of very large number of small size shear walls of varying cross-sections
(2) Changing the alignment of beams and columns along a grid line laterally by about 30 cm
to 100 cm
(3) Use of a large number of re-entrant corners leading to horizontal irregularity
(4) Use of flat slabs in seismic zones IV and V without proper slab-column joint detailing
(5) Use of normal weight brick walls both as internal partition walls and external walls.
In order to understand the implications of item 1 of these features, Dehuri (2014) carried
out pushover analysis on a 20-storey MRF building and a 25-storey shear wall building
shown in Figs. 1 and 2. ETABS 13 software was used to carry out the static non-linear
analysis. Moment hinges were introduced in beams, while moment and axial force hinges
were introduced in columns. The shear walls were modeled using layered element. The
pushover analysis was carried out in accordance with FEMA 440 (2005). It was concluded
that although the shear wall building had a higher target displacement (55 cm) but many
beams behaved like coupled beams. It was difficult to design them for shear unless their
depth was increased considerably to be able to provide diagonal reinforcement. The
behaviour of the MRF frame was quite satisfactory in terms of ductility demand and
plastification. The latter should be preferred over the former.
(a) Use of large number of shear walls by definition in IS:13920
As far as the author’s understanding goes, a tall building should have fewer shear walls but
of considerable length, say 6 m to 12 m each. There should be at least two walls in each
direction preferably located on the periphery. However, in accordance with IS:13920, any
column whose width to depth ratio lies beyond 0.4 is classified as a shear wall. Thus, the
designers are coming up with structural systems having a very large number of so called
shear walls in each direction scattered all over the plan. These walls are of varying cross-
sections – I, L, C, Z or any other. Such walls pose another challenge – how to design these
unsymmetric cross-sections under bi-axial bending at collapse? Some designers model such
shear walls as membrane area elements and try to avoid bi-axial bending. Moreover, such
an arrangement also gives rise to large number of small span beams connected to “shear
walls” at each end subjected to very high shear. Some of these beams may be classified as
coupled beams and need to be detailed accordingly. Certainly such an arrangement of shear
walls would neither be desirable nor acceptable in a higher seismic zone. The detailing of
reinforcement in coupling beams in IS:13920 needs revision to be in line with ACI318.
(b) Changing the alignment of beams and columns along a grid line
By changing the alignmentof beams and columns along a grid line laterally by about 30 cm
to 100 cm, there are many beams that have to be supported on cross beams. These beam
junctions may be very close to a column or away from a column. How these junctions and
beam segments will behave at collapse is any body’s guess. These beams do introduce
torsion in the cross-beams. Many designers introduce torsion release in the computer
model, but it is not certain if these joints are appropriately detailed. Even so, their non-
linear behaviour is difficult to conceive.
(c) Use of a large number of re-entrant corners leading to horizontal irregularity
This practice is quite rampant for the sake of architectural aesthetics. It is difficult to
envisage the post-inelastic ductile behaviour of such buildings. As stated earlier, a building
having horizontal irregularity is prohibited in SDC E and F in USA. However, the current
Indian provision only requires it to be analyzed using the modal analysis. IS:13920-2016
goes a step forward. It permits an irregularity provided a nonlinear analysis shows that
there is no threat to life and property.
The author carried out extensive nonlinear static analysis of many 10 to 20 storeyresidential
buildings with different plan irregularities. It was noticed that in most of the cases, the
buildings were in I-O to L-S states only owing to very high lateral strength and stiffness at
5% lateral drift.
(d) Use of flat slabs in seismic zones IV and V
There is no restriction on the height of such systems in seismic zones IV and V even while
providing shear walls to carry the lateral forces. The only condition is that this system
should be able to displace laterally along with the shear wall system and must account for
P-delta effects. Moreover, IS:13920 does not give any provision on slab-column joint
detailing under seismic conditions. As per the ASCE 7 classification, in high seismic zones,
its height will be restricted to 50 m but not in India. Clause 18.14 of ACI 318 (2014) gives
provisions for members not designated as part of the seismic-force-resisting system and
covers slab-column systems. For two-way slabs without beams, slab-column connections
must meet the requirements of ACI 318.Even the flat slab- column joint detailing in IS:456
dates back to 1976 since no changes were made in this part in its 2000 edition.
It is again pertinent to note that IS:13920 (2016) also does not cover the detailing of joints
of flat slab systems in seismic zones.
(e) Use of normal weight brick walls
These are the most dangerous elements in a tall building. There is absolutely no restriction
on their use. These walls are neither anchored nor is it possible to anchor them. Therefore,
in the event of a seismic activity, there is a strong possibility that they may topple and fall
outside the building perimeter. The resulting causality on the ground would be
unimaginable. Currently, hollow blocks and AAC blocks having a density of about 600 kg/m3
are easily available in India and must be used. However, this would require change of
mindset of the Indian users before such elements can become acceptable.
Detailing for Ductility
The latest IS:13920 code prescribes the same level of detailing for ductility in any building
in any seismic zone. It is highly unfair. The detailing must conform to the level of risk. The
Eurocode 8 (2004) specifies three classes of ductility detailing – Ductility Class L, Class M
and Class H. There is a need to introduce this concept in the Indian Code also. In taller
buildings, the designacceleration may be less, but the seismic weight is very high,
therefore, the base shear will also be high. The different classes of ductility can be related
to building heights for acceptable structural systems in different seismic zones. The next
step will be to develop detailing for different ductility classes for beams, columns and walls
as available in Eurocode8-part 1(2004). Such a classification will help save precious national
resources. After all, it is well known that loss of rationale will lead to loss of compliance.
Energy Dissipating Devices and Base Isolation
Use of active and passive energy dissipation is an emerging technology that enhances
building performance by reducing the demands through addition of damping devices and
stiffening elements. There are quite a large number of buildings that have been built in
Japan and California using this concept. However, most codes are silent about their design
perhaps because it involves use of non-linear analysis which is fairly complicated and is
difficult to codify at present. Therefore, the design of such buildings is left to the experts
who can demonstrate the safety of such devices either experimentally or theoretically or
both. In the Foreword to the IS:1893-part 1draft, it states that:
“Only standard devices having detailed experimental data on the performance should be
used. The designer must demonstrate by detailed analyses that these devices provide
sufficient protection to the buildings and equipment as envisaged in this standard.
Performance of locally assembled isolation and energy absorbing devices should be
evaluated experimentally before they are used in practice. Design of buildings and
equipment using such device should be reviewed by the competent authority. Base isolation
systems are found useful for short period structures, say less than 0.7s including soil-
structure interaction”.
There is a need to include detailed specifications on these aspects in the Code (Jain 2014,
2016a).
Conclusions
Taller and innovative buildings are coming up fast in various parts of the country.1 They will
continue to be designed and built using the best practices around the world irrespective of
whether there are any Indian codes or not. A history of some of the most innovative tall
buildings around the world during the past 100 years prove that a Code cannot be a
constraint to innovation and safety. Nevertheless, if there is a code, then it must reflect the
latest specifications and must be a facilitator to the design team and let them work more
enthusiastically rather than prove to be a hurdle. There are still many shortcomings in
IS:1893-part 1- Draft 2016, IS:13920-2016, and Draft code on tall buildings 2016 that
need to be addressed and make them more comprehensive, flexible and user friendly. There
is no logical reason as to why steel buildings should be excluded from the Code on Tall
Buildings when the world over most of the tallest buildings are in steel.