A Brief Review of Structural Aspects

of IS 16700:2017
Vikalp Gupta , Sanket Rawat , Ravi Kant Mittal
and G. Muthukumar

Abstract Rapidly increasing urbanisation and subsequently ascending shortage of

land in the urban areas has pushed the design engineers to switch to the utilisation of
the vertical spaces in the form of high-rise buildings and reduce the horizontally vast
design popular in the previous era. However, this step not only enhances the criticality
of the design processes but also increases our dependency on design codes. Talking
specifically about India, the dependency of Indian design community was majorly
on international codes due to the non-availability of a design code for tall buildings.
It also gave rise to a wide gap in the design community about different provisions.
However, recently Bureau of Indian Standards has launched First Tall Building Code
of India, IS 16700:2017 “Criteria of Structural Safety of Tall Concrete Buildings.”
Despite a good effort of bringing the Indian design community at the same base
scale, this code still lacks in a clear depiction of certain aspects. It is also felt that
commentary of this code may be provided in a similar fashion as of ASCE 07:2016,
ACI 318:2014 to facilitate the adoption of the code. As a first step to it, this study
is mainly aimed towards understanding some of the critical structural aspects of the
code so as to develop a better understanding in practitioners and design engineers
about it. Moreover, some critical clauses are also highlighted through a comparison
of the same with various existing international standards.

Keywords Tall buildings · Damping · Moment resisting frame · Urbanisation

1 Introduction

India is considered as the fastest growing developing country in the world with its
construction sector at peak level in the present situation. This has not only given
rise to urbanisation but also has indirectly augmented the scarcity of land. It has
also forced the construction to move in the vertical direction rather than the earlier

V. Gupta (B) · S. Rawat · R. K. Mittal · G. Muthukumar

Department of Civil Engineering, BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus, Pilani 333031, Rajasthan, India
e-mail: h20170079@pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 83

S. Adhikari et al. (eds.), Advances in Structural Engineering
and Rehabilitation, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 38,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7615-3_7
84 V. Gupta et al.

preferred choice of horizontally wide plan structures. In spite of all of these crucial
requirements of multi-storey structures, there existed no code till October 2017 in
India to guide the design engineers of the country about the requisite provisions for
design of structural components of tall building. Though the international standards
are referred in this situation, it cannot be considered effective to use them in Indian
scenario due to difference in quality control, and sometimes, the exact conversion of
different associated parameters also becomes difficult.
Publication of first tall building code of India, IS 16700 [1] in November 2017
is a commendable step taken by Bureau of Indian Standards and is definitely a sig-
nificant measure towards clearing the aforementioned factors responsible for arising
uncertainty in the Indian designs. This code is applicable up to a building height
of 250 m which states the typical condition of India in terms of advancement and
hence would definitely be able to set up a baseline among the practitioners across the
country dealing with the design of tall buildings. Only the clauses related to concrete
buildings are covered in the code, and the steel structures and composite structures
are not discussed. The code emphasises on choices for adoption of structural systems
and methods of structural analysis, height limitation of different structural system,
issues to be considered in design of foundations, etc. However, along with a new
code comes quite a few clarifications at the user’s level. The reason for this may be
attributed to the fact that the clauses are misinterpreted at the user’s level due to lack
of clarity. It is felt by the authors that, to increase the awareness about the proper
design philosophies among the practitioners, a commentary can be made available
for this code in the similar lines as provided for ASCE 7 [2], ACI 318 [5], etc. As a
first step to it, this paper is mainly aimed towards understanding some of the critical
structural aspects of the code so as to develop a better understanding among the prac-
titioners. A brief interpretation of some of the critical clauses related to structural
design has been provided along with the comparison of the same with the existing
international standards. It has been observed that some of the clauses may require a
detailed explanation and may be modified appropriately in the subsequent versions.

2 Review of Some Important Provisions of IS 16700

2.1 Clause 5.4.1: Lateral Drift

When design lateral forces are applied on the building, the maximum inter-storey
elastic lateral drift ratio (max /hi ) under working loads (unfactored wind load combi-
nations with return period of 50 years), which is estimated based on realistic section
properties mentioned in Clause 7.2 of IS 16700 [1], shall be limited to H/500. Here,
max = maximum relative lateral displacement within the storey, hi = inter-storey
height of ith floor in the building and H = building height from base to roof level.
For a single storey, the drift limit may be relaxed to hi /400. For earthquake load
(factored) combinations, the drift shall be limited to hi /250.
A Brief Review of Structural Aspects of IS 16700:2017 85

Author’s interpretation: As per ASCE 7 [2], drift limits are in the order of
1/600–1/400 of the building height. The Indian code limit also falls in this range, and
it has been observed that the above-mentioned limits are sufficient to curtail damage
to cladding and non-structural walls and partitions. For brittle cladding, the smaller
drift limits may be suitable. Truby [3] has mentioned that in spite of successful use
of inter-storey drift limit in the range of hi /500 to hi /200 in the past, hi /300 can also
be a good balance.

2.2 Tables 1 and 2 of IS 16700 [1]

Author’s interpretation: It is observed from Tables 1 and 2 of the IS 16700 [1]

that moment-resisting frame (MRF) cannot be used in seismic Zone IV and V. The
reason for not using moment-resisting frame system for a building of height 50 m is
not made clear. It is also to be noted that a lot of tall building with height greater than
50 m have already been constructed in Zone IV and V and avoiding moment-resisting
frame for 15-storey building does not seem a cost-effective option. Moreover, as per
Truby [3], the MRF is permitted till the height of 75 m. Fintel and Khan [4] also
suggested that for rigid frame system, 20-storey building can be constructed which
is nearly 60 m, considering the height of each storey as 3 m. Here the explanation of
completely eliminating MRF may be certainly required.

Table 1 Different structural systems and their applicability as per limiting height, in metre [1]
S. No. Seismic Structural system
zone
Moment Structural wall Structural Structural Structural
frame wall + wall + wall +
moment perimeter framed
frame frame tube
Located Well
at core distributeda
a. V NA 100 120 100 120 150
b. IV NA 100 120 100 120 150
c. III 60 160 200 160 200 220
d. II 80 180 220 180 220 250
a Well-distributed shear walls are those walls outside of the core that are capable of carrying at least

25% of the lateral loads

86 V. Gupta et al.

Table 2 Maximum slenderness ratio for different structural systems as per zone [1]
S. No. Seismic Structural system
zone
Moment Structural wall Structural Structural Structural
frame wall + wall + wall +
moment perimeter framed
frame frame tube
Located Well
at core distributeda
a. V NA 8 9 8 9 9
b. IV NA 8 9 8 9 9
c. III 4 8 9 8 9 10
d. II 5 9 10 9 10 10

2.3 Clause 5.6.2: Opening in Floor Systems

Clause 5.6.2.1: Openings in floor diaphragm shall not be permitted along any floor
diaphragm edge, unless perimeter members are shown to have stability and adequate
strength.
Clause 5.6.2.2: The maximum area of openings in any floor diaphragm shall not
exceed 30% of the plan area of diaphragm. Transfer of lateral forces from diaphragm
to lateral load resisting vertical elements shall be ensured using collector elements,
if required.
Author’s interpretation: As per ACI 318 [5], opening of any size can be permitted
in slab system if the design strength can be confirmed to be equal to or greater than
the required strength. On a similar note, ASCE 7 [2] has also specified provisions
for providing sufficient reinforcement at the edge of the opening to ensure effective
transfer of forces, confirming that the opening does not interfere with the strength and
stability. Also, it has been mentioned that interrupted reinforcement due to opening
shall be added on the sides of the opening. While modelling slabs in commercial
analysis software, the floor diaphragm is considered as rigid. However, the openings
in diaphragm cause loss in its rigidity and hence reduce stiffness which results in
decrease in member load carrying capacity. Opening results in more complicated and
unpredictable behaviour of floor diaphragm. Khajehdehi and Panahshahi [6] have
also concluded that as the opening size increases, the effect of out-of-plane loading
on in-plane capacity reduction in the slabs becomes less significant; and for smaller
size of opening, a very less variation is observed in the in-plane behaviour of the
slabs in comparison with that of solid slabs. Therefore, while providing interrupted
reinforcement at the edges, it is felt that there is need of more clarity in the bar
scheduling at the edges of the opening to achieve better transfer of forces and ensure
rigidness of diaphragm. This procedure is also adopted internationally, e.g. in NZS
3101 standard [7].
A Brief Review of Structural Aspects of IS 16700:2017 87

As it is mentioned in the IS 1893 [8] that due to opening in slab, the behaviour of
diaphragm changes to flexible, and thus, the lateral shear force is not shared by the
frames and vertical members in accordance with their lateral translational stiffness.
It has been found that more the opening close to the edges of the slab, the effect of
flexible diaphragm upsurges and thus becomes more problematic. In IS 1893 [8], if
opening is more than 50%, then it is said to have in-plane stiffness discontinuity and
the slab will be treated as flexible. Here in this code, they are limiting a maximum
area of opening to 30% of the plan area of diaphragm and thus underestimating the
nature of diaphragm, i.e. flexible or rigid. This lower limit might have been taken to
be on safer side as tall buildings are sensitive structure but reason behind taking 30%
is not clarified which must be important to study the opening aspects in relation to
tall buildings.

2.4 Clause 5.6.3: Natural Frequency of Floor System: The

Natural Vertical Vibration Frequency of Any Floor
System Shall not Exceed 3 Hz Without Demonstration
of Acceptability Using Rational Procedures

Author’s interpretation: This clause might lead to misunderstanding as it implies

that natural frequency of any floor shall not exceed 3 Hz. As stated by AISC [9]
and Murray [10] that conventionally, the design of floors is performed by limiting
the natural frequency between 5 and 8 Hz, and it suggests that deflection due to live
load should be less than span/360 which was common in construction practice long
time back. However, after the development of limit state design, the floor system
has become lighter in weight and hence is more flexible resulting in higher natural
frequencies. Also, it is mentioned that fundamental frequency of floor system should
not be less than 3 Hz and we need to avoid such floor system with such low fre-
quency because the “rogue jumping” may take place. From the studies performed by
Allen and Rainer [11], Allen et al. [12], it has been observed that human interaction
and the associated activity with the structure impart dynamic forces to a floor at
frequencies in the range of 2–6 Hz. If the vibration of the floor system occurs with
the fundamental frequency between this range and is periodic in nature e.g. vibration
arising from dancing, cheering by a large number of people etc., it may cause reso-
nant amplification. To prevent resonance caused due to rhythmic activities, tuning of
floor system is necessary so as to avoid the coincidence of the natural frequency with
the frequency of the excitation. Also, the natural frequency of structural elements
and assemblies should be greater than 2.0 times the frequency of any steady-state
excitation can be followed as a general rule to which they are exposed; otherwise,
the vibration isolation is the best available solution to provide.
Several investigations have revealed that control of floor stiffness is a very efficient
way to reduce the objectionable vibrations arising due to walking and other similar
88 V. Gupta et al.

human activities [10]. The fundamental frequency of vibration (f o ) of this type of

system is given by:

π EI
fo = (1)
2L 2 ρ

Also,

18
fo = (2)


Here,
EI flexural rigidity of the floor,
L span length,
ρ mass per unit length and
 maximum deflection caused by dead load plus participating live load (in mm).
The frequency obtained with the above relations can be compared with the min-
imum natural frequencies for mitigating walking vibrations in various occupancies.
This guideline to limit floor vibration seems to be provided only to identify the crucial
situations where special considerations may be given.

2.5 Clause 6.2.2.4: The Damping Ratio Considered Shall

not Be Greater Than 2% of Critical for Concrete
Buildings

Author’s interpretation: This clause plays a very important role from the modelling
point of view. It is also to be noted here that in the draft version of IS 16700 [1],
BIS had provided the damping ratio as 1.5% for composite buildings and 1% for
steel buildings, but it was removed afterwards in the final version. The important
parameter to keep in mind is that the value of damping as mentioned here in the code
as 2% is to be used for site-specific wind tunnel studies and not taken in context
of IS 1893 [8] which is given as 5% in case of seismic analysis. Hence, it can be
understood that the designer has to consider two types of damping, i.e. 2 and 5% for
wind tunnel studies and earthquake analysis respectively.
A Brief Review of Structural Aspects of IS 16700:2017 89

2.6 Clause 6.3.1: Vertical Shaking Shall Be Considered

Simultaneously with Horizontal Shaking for Tall
Buildings in Seismic Zone V

Author’s interpretation: This clause can be better explained from IS 1893 [8] which
suggests that the vertical shaking must be considered for the following cases—build-
ings lying in zone IV or V, structure has plan or irregularity, structure is rested on soft
soil, structural members or sub-systems with large horizontal overhangs. Therefore,
just to be in coherence with the guidelines of IS 1893 [8], zone IV should also be
added in the clause.

2.7 Table 3 of IS 16700 [1]: Cracked RC Section Properties

from the Table for Structural Elements i.e. Walls
for Factored Loads Moment of Inertia Is Given as 0.7Ig
(Where Ig = Gross Moment of Inertia)

Author’s interpretation: It is observed that Table 3 of the code IS 16700 [1] matches
well with the provisions of ACI 318 [5]. However, ACI 318 [5] has mentioned two
sections, i.e. cracked and uncracked for all type of structural elements, which seems
to be more appropriate and justified. For walls with cracked section, the moment of
inertia is taken as 0.35I g , which is taken nearly double in Indian code. The cracked
√ analysis is based on computing modulus of rupture (f cr ) given by f cr =
section
0.7 f ck (here f ck = 28-day characteristic cube compressive strength of concrete)
and if after the analysis stress obtained is greater than f cr , resulting in cracking
of the wall, and thus, there is a need to design that element with stiffness modifiers
considering it as a cracked wall. Although if the stress obtained in a structural element
(walls) is less than f cr (Signifying that the element will behave as an uncracked
section), a value of 0.70I g can be applied as stiffness modifier. The purpose of these
modifiers is to provide more realistic result for a particular value of element forces
and displacement taking into account the cracking effect. Here it can be inferred
that while taking 0.35I g , the overall stiffness of a particular structure will drop due
to reduction in stiffness modifiers resulting in sufficiently large lateral displacement
[13]. At the same time, while assuming the lower stiffness of a particular element
(due to cracking) means the less force is attracted by the element which results in
higher transfer of forces in the nearby adjacent members with high stiffness which
is not cracked. Therefore, considering cracked and uncracked section for crucial
structural member like walls seems to be a more realistic reflection in the calculation
of its stiffness.
90 V. Gupta et al.

Table 3 Cracked reinforced section properties [1]

S. No. Structural element Unfactored loads Factored loads
Area Moment of inertia Area Moment of inertia
a. Slabs 1.0Ag 0.35I g 1.0Ag 0.25I g
b. Beams 1.0Ag 0.70I g 1.0Ag 0.35I g
c. Columns 1.0Ag 0.9I g 1.0Ag 0.70I g
d. Walls 1.0Ag 0.9I g 1.0Ag 0.70I g

2.8 Clause 7.3.11: Stiffness of Slab Frames (That Is,

Slab-Column Frames) Shall Be Ignored in Lateral Load
Resistance, in All Seismic Regions

Author’s interpretation: It is not clearly mentioned whether out-of-plane stiffness

or in-plane stiffness can be neglected. In general, only the out-of-plane stiffness of
flat slab which contributes to the lateral stiffness of the building can be neglected
and not the in-plane stiffness which should be considered at lower and upper bound
for sensitivity analysis.

3 Conclusions

The study of codal provisions of IS 16700:2017 and other international standards has
led to an observation that several structural-related aspects need further explanation
to provide clarity among practitioners and design engineers. For instance, completely
neglecting the moment-resisting frames in Zone IV and V in tall buildings, limiting
the maximum area of openings to 30% and overlooking the effect of Vertical shaking
in Zone IV may desire serious concern that needs to be clarified. The clause about
limiting the natural frequency of floor system below 3 Hz should also be relooked.
Overall, this study provides a brief explanation of a few important clauses of IS
16700:2017 which will be helpful in imparting the design engineers a deeper insight
about the same, and it can be perceived as a recommendable initiative in the field of
tall buildings, hence can be considered as a good start towards the development of a
complete commentary for this code.

4 Notation

EI = Flexural rigidity of the floor

f cr = Modulus of rupture (in MPa)
f ck = 28-day characteristic cube compressive strength of concrete (in MPa)
A Brief Review of Structural Aspects of IS 16700:2017 91

f o = Fundamental frequency of vibration

hi = Inter-storey height of ith floor in the building
H = Building height from the base to its roof level,
(a) Excluding the height of the basement storeys when the basement walls are
connected with the ground floor slab or basement walls are fitted between the
building columns, but
(b) Including the height of basement storeys if basement walls are not connected
with the ground floor slab and basement walls are not fitted between the
building columns.
L = Span length
ρ = Mass per unit length
 = Maximum deflection caused by dead load plus participating live load (in mm)
max = Maximum relative lateral displacement within the storey
I g = Gross Moment of Inertia.

References

1. IS 16700 (2017) Criteria for structural safety of tall concrete buildings. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India
2. ASCE/SEI 7 (2016) Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other
structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia
3. Truby A (2014) Structural design of concrete buildings up to 300 m tall. International Federation
for Structural Concrete (Fib), Lausanne, Switzerland
4. Fintel M, Khan FR (1969) Effect of column creep and shrinkage in tall structures—prediction
of inelastic column shortening. ACI J 66(2):957–967
5. ACI 318 (2014) Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI
6. Khajehdehi R, Panahshahi N (2016) Effect of openings on in-plane structural behaviour of
reinforced concrete floor slabs. Elsevier J Build Eng 7:1–11
7. NZS 3101 Part 1 (2006) Concrete structures standard. Wellington, New Zealand
8. IS 1893 Part-1 (2016) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India
9. Murray TM, Allen DE, Ungar EE (2003) Floor vibrations due to human activity. American
Institute of Steel Construction, USA
10. Allen DE, Murray TM (1993) Design criterion for vibrations due to walking NRCC-34140.
Eng J (American Institute of Steel Construction) 30(4):117–129
11. Allen DE, Rainer JH (1976) Vibration criteria for long-span floors. Can J Civ Eng 3(2):165–173
12. Allen DE, Rainer JH, Pernica G (1985) Vibration criteria for assembly occupancies. Can J Civ
Eng 12(3):617–623
13. Rokhgar N (2014) A comprehensive study on parameters affecting stiffness of shear wall-frame
buildings under lateral loads. M.Sc. thesis, The State University of New Jersey, New Jersey,
USA