International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 07 Issue: 06 | June 2020 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Comparative Study of Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete

Building Designed Accordance with Indian Codes and American Codes

Ms. Avhad Varsha1, Prof Dr. S. K. Hirde2

1PG student, Dept. of Applied mechanics Government college of Engineering, Amaravati, India
2Professor, Dept. of Applied Mechanics, Government College of Engineering, Amaravati, India

---------------------------------------------------------------------***----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract -Earthquake forces on the structures are of great decades, the seismic codes are becoming sophisticated with
concern for the engineers. Codes and standards are the rapid development in earthquake engineering practice. [2]
conventional source of information to the design of civil To minimize damage and loss of life, seismic design codes
engineering structures .The seismic codes are primarily based have been developed. Designed codes in america are
on ground motion that erratic in direction, magnitude , advanced and updated in nearly three to five years in order
duration and sequence and the results of the research were to preserve with advances in earthquake engineering and to
carried out to understand the consequence of the ground include research findings, and are reflected in American
motion of the structures This study presents a comparative Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE 7-10 The first Indian seismic
study of the seismic design provision of the Indian Seismic code code was published in 1962, has been revised only six times
IS 1893 ( part 1) : 2002 ,recent code IS 1893 (part 1) : 2016 in the last 50 years; the most recent revision being in 2016 It
and American Seismic code ASCE / SEI 7-10 Minimum Design had been revised six times from last 50 years. Recently, the
Loads for Building and Other Structures to address the Indian seismic design and detailing codes both went under
differences in their philosophies and applicability .In present major revisions which are IS 1893 Part 1 2016 and IS
study a geometrically similar 4 Story , 7 story and 10 story 13920:2016
reinforced concrete special moment resisting frame are Some studies have pointed out a number of
considered. Equivalent static analysis and Response spectrum limitations of the code in terms of seismic hazard protection.
analysis and nonlinear dynamic analysis are done over all the During Bhuj earthquake RC frame were heavily damaged,
models of this study .The structural performance of each Reinforced concrete frame buildings were severely damaged
building is compared in terms of parameter base shear, roof and majority of them undergo sudden failure according to a
and interstory drift in order to understand differences between reconnaissance report prepared by World Seismic Safety
these international standard Initiative. Based on the observations and lessons learned
from Bhuj earthquake, most of the flaws in the 1984 edition
Key Words: ASCE 7-10, IS 1893(part 1): 2002, IS 1893 of IS-1893 were eliminated in the 2002 version of the code.
(part 1): 2016, Seismic design provision RC frame designed according to the U.S. seismic provisions
are generally predictable to perform well. Although the three
1. INTRODUCTION design codes which are ASCE 7-10 , IS 1893 : 2002 and IS
1893 : 2016 share some commonalities, it is unclear whether
Earthquakes have been always a natural occurrence a building designed according to ASCE 7-10, and IS-1893
on our planet. The slow, constant shifting of tectonic plates codes would perform as intended when the building is
builds strain between two plates and once it reaches a subjected to a design level ground motion that has a
critical value, the strain energy is released in the form of response spectrum comparable to the one used in design
ground motion. The motion is felt as acceleration, and
continues until all of this strain energy is dissipated. The First Indian standard was published in 1962 IS 1893
large acceleration of the ground develops internal lateral : 1962 and revised in 1966, 1970, 1975 and 1984. Further, in
interior forces on a structure. As tectonic plates are 2002, the Committee decided to present the provisions for
continuously moving, this process is repeated [FEMA]. different types of structures in separate parts, splitting
Therefore, earthquakes will always be an important seismic code into five parts and Part 1 general provisions
consideration in structural engineering [3] and building were discussed [8] This study consist only part
1 of IS 1893 :2002 and IS 1893 : 2016 for comparing Indian
Codes and standards are the conformist source of and American seismic code
information to the designers of civil engineering structures.
The seismic codes are primarily based on comprehensive 2. LITERATURE SURVEY
data on ground motion that are erratic in direction,
magnitude, duration and sequence and the results of the A comparison was made among seismic design
research were carried out to understand the consequence of codes of building among design provision in Bangladesh
these ground motion on the structures. In the last several (BNBC -1993), India (IS -1893 2002) and U.S. (ASCE 7-10) in

© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 2556
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 07 Issue: 06 | June 2020 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

relation to analysis, design and seismic performance of RC 3.2 Response Spectrum Method
structures based on these codes [1]. Chistopher Zajac
compered equivalent lateral force design provisions for It is linear statistical dynamic analysis method
determining the seismic base shear found in six seismic which measures the contribution from each mode of
international design standard which were from Canada, USA, vibration to indicate the likely maximum seismic response of
Eurocode, Uganda, India and china [3] Rita debnath an elastic structures. Response spectrum Analysis provides
compared seismic provision of the previous Indian seismic insight into dynamic behavior by measuring pseudo –
code IS 1893[ Part 1]: 2002 and recent revision IS 1893 [ spectral acceleration, velocity or displacement as a function
Part 1] : 2016 vision to address the differences in their of structural period for a given time history and level of
philosophies and application Author observed significant damping. Response-spectrum analysis is useful for design
differences in these codes by specifying different parameter decision making because it relates structures of shorter
such as empirical formulas for calculating building period experience greater displacement. Applicability of
importance factor, response reduction factor, time period, response spectrum analysis for regular building as per IS
design acceleration coefficient. [2] R..D. Mcintosh explained 1893: 2002 , IS 1893 : 2016 and ASCE 7-10 as shown in table
about comparison of National Earthquake explained about 2
comparison of National Earthquake hazard reduction Table 2 :Applicability of Dynamic Analysis
programme( 1995), Structural engineers association of Method Of Regular Building
California (SEAOC), ASCE (7-95) and uniform building code
Particular IS 1893 2002 IS 1893 2016 ASCE 7-10
(1994) Y.K.Chock studied on assessment of the current
seismic design procedure in the United States , China , and
Regular Applicable for Applicable for Structures with
Japan based on the various parameter which were design height greater other building no irregularities
building
ground motion, classification of building structures , soil/site than 40 m and height and not
classification, design response spectrum, base shear zone IV and V greater than exceeding 48.76
calculation, analysis procedure and drift limits Mayur Pisode and those 15 m in m
explained about the non linear dynamic response of the greater than seismic zone II
geometrically similar 4 and 8 story building and its seismic 90 m in zone
parameter using IS 1893 : 2002 and IS 1893 : 2016 S.H. C. II and III
Santos focused on comparative study of codes from of
various international standard which were covering US,
European, Italian, Greek, Romanian, Brazilian and Bulgarian
Standards 3.3 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis:
3. METHODOLOGY Nonlinear time-history analysis is the most
comprehensive method for seismic analysis. The earthquake
3.1 Equivalent Static Method record in the form of acceleration time history is input at the
It is linear static analysis .It is based on formulas base of the structure. The response of the structure is
given in seismic code. In this method design lateral force computed at each second for the entire duration of an
shall be calculted for RC frame. This design lateral force shall earthquake. In this method the effect of “time” is considered
then be distributed to the various floor levels. The overall For analysis purpose Imperial Valley(6.95), Kern
design seismic force thus got at each floor level, shall then be country(7.36) , San Fernando (6.61) time histories with their
distributed to individual lateral load resisting elements Richter magnitude are selected .
depending on the floor diaphragm action. Applicability of
4. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
equivalent static method for regular building as per IS 1893 :
2002 , IS 1893 : 2016 and ASCE 7-10 as shown in table 1 Geometrically similar 4,7 and 10 story , 3-bay by 5-
bay reinforced concrete special moment resisting frame has
Table 1: Applicability of Static Analysis Method For
taken for all three codes. The height of bottom story is 4.27
Regular Building
m and remaining stories are 3.66 m each, resulting height
Particular IS 1893 2002 IS 1893 ASCE 7-10 15.25 m, 26.23m and 37.21 m respectively. The width and
2016 length of structure was 15 m and 25 m, respectively with
Regular Applicable for Applicable for Structures column spacing 5 m in both direction. The plan view of
building height less than height less with no structure is as per fig no 1 the selected structure is
40 m zone IV and than 15 m in irregularities commercial building according to that importance factor was
V and those seismic zone and not taken according to respective code
height less than II exceeding The buildings are assumed to be located in high
90 m in zone II 48.76 m seismic region Bhuj (India )and San Francisco (USA) . The
and III site soil classification and the spectral response acceleration

© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 2557
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 07 Issue: 06 | June 2020 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

parameter or zone factors are as shown in table no 4. Details 4.1 Modelling and analysis of structure for design
of Dead and live loads has given in table no III. Details of
dimension of building model are as shown in table V The structure were modeled three dimensionally in
the commercial structural analysis and design software
ETABS 17.0.1.The column were assumed to be fixed at the
foundation . Rigid diaphragm action of slab was simulated
Dead load, live load and seismic loads were applied Using the
calculated design forces, the columns and beams members
were designed and detailed as per the applicability . The
material used were concrete compressive strength fc=48
Mpa and ASTM grade 60 reinforcing steel yield strength,
fy=414 Mpa conforming to ACI 318-14 M50 concrete and
HYSD 415 Mpa conforming to IS 456-2000 Table VI gives
details of frame considered for study

Table 6: Details of frames considered for study

Fig 1 : Plan view of the structure
Sr no Model description Model Name
Table 3: Dead and Live Loads
1. 4 Story RC Frame using IS 1893 2002 4ISTT
Loads ASCE 7-10 IS 875 (1987)
2. 4 story RC frame using IS 1893 2016 4ISTS
Live load Floor 2.4 kN/m2 Floor2.5 kN/m2
Roof 1 kN/m2 Roof 1.5 kN/m2 3. 4 story RC frame using ASCE 7-10 4ASST
Concrete 23.6 kN/m3 25 kN/m2 4. 7 story RC frame using IS 1893 2002 7ISTT
Mechanical 0.24 kN/m2 0.24kN/m2
5. 7 story RC frame using IS 1893 2016 7ISTS
loading
Partion wall 2.63kN/m 4.392 kN/m 6. 7 story RC frame using ASCE 7-10 7ASST
loading 7. 10 story RC frame using IS 1893 2002 10ISTT
Cladding 4.38 kN/m 4.5 kN/m
8. 10 story RC frame using IS 1893 2016 10ISTS
Table 4: Site Location and Classification 9. 10 story RC frame using ASCE 7-10 10ASST

Code Location Zone coefficient Site class

5. RESULTS & GRAPH
ASCE 7- San Spectral response Site class D,
10 Francisco, acceleration parameter 5.1Results of Equivalent Static Analysis
Ss=1.83 ,S1=0.85 Stiff soil
USA Geometrically similar 4 storey, 7 storey and 10
storey RC frame are modelled and analysed in ETABS 17
IS 1893 Bhuj, Gujrat, Seismic zone :V, Zone Type II software using Equivalent static method. According to EQM
India factor =0.36 American code has higher base shear value than Indian code.
(Medium soil) Fig 4.1 shows comparison of base shear using column chart
for EQM Maximum storey response is displacement of story
Table 5: Details and Dimension of Building Model with respect to base of the structure. American code shows
higher max storey response than Indian code Fig 2
Story Column Beam Comparison of seismic code for EQM using maximum storey
response. following fig 4 ,fig 5 and fig 6 represent story
4 story ( 450 X 450 )mm ( 300 X 450 )mm versus drift plot using EQM method.. Following fig 7, fig 8
and fig 9represent story versus drift plot using EQM method
7 story ( 500 X 500 )mm ( 300 X500)mm

10 story ( 600X 600)mm ( 300X600)mm

© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 2558
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 07 Issue: 06 | June 2020 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Fig 2: Comparison of seismic code using base shear values for

Fig 5 :story versus drift plot for models 7 ISTT and 7 ASST for X-
EQM
direction

Fig 3:Comparison of seismic code for EQM using maximum

storey response Fig 6 :story versus drift plot for models 10 ISTT and 10ASST X-
direction

Fig 4:story versus drift plot for models 4ISTT, and 4 ASST for X –
direction
Fig 7:story versus drift plot for models 4ISTT, and 4ASST for X-
direction

© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 2559
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 07 Issue: 06 | June 2020 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Fig 8:story versus drift plot for models 7 ISTT and 7 ASST for Y- Fig 10: Comparison of seismic code for using base shear values
direction
Interstorey drift is relative displacement between
the floors above and or below one storey under
considerations As per criteria given in clause 7.11.1 of IS
1893 : 2002 and IS 1893 : 2016 drifts are within given limit
All RC frame comes under risk category II which can satisfy as
per criteria given in section 12.12.1 in ASCE 7-10 all drift
values are limit following fig 4.11, fig 4.12 and fig 4.13
represent story versus drift plot using RSM method fig 4.14,
fig 4.15 and fig 4.16 represent story versus drift plot using
RSM

Fig 9:story versus drift plot for models 10 ISTT, and 10ASST for
Y –direction
5.2 Response Spectrum Analysis

Applicability of response spectrum analysis for

regular building as per IS 1893 : 2002 , IS 1893 :2016 and
ASCE 7-10 as shown in table I.A geometrically similar 4,7 and
10 storey RC special moment resisting frame are consider
and modelled also analysed using response spectrum method Fig 11: Comparison of seismic code for RSM using maximum
Following fig 4.9 represents column chart for base shear storey response
values . According to RSM method American code has higher
base shear value than Indian code RC frame designed
according IS 1893: 2002 has higher value of base shear than
IS 1893 : 2016

Fig 12 :story versus drift plot for models 4ISTT, 4ISTS and 4
ASST for X-direction

© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 2560
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 07 Issue: 06 | June 2020 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Fig16 :story versus drift plot for models 4ISTT, 4ISTS and 4 ASST
Fig 13:Story versus drift plot for models 7 ISTT, 7 ISTS and 7 for Y-direction
ASST for X-direction

Fig 14 :story versus drift plot for models 10 ISTT, 10ISTS and
10ASST X –direction Fig 17:story versus drift plot for models 10 ISTT, 10ISTS and
10ASST for Y –direction

5.3 Results of Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis

It is an analysis of the dynamic response of the
structure at each instant of the time, when it is subjected to a
specific ground motion time history Distribution of base
shear due to lateral load pattern is presented in table 4.16 for
considered building under Imperial valley, Kern pel pel and
San Fernando ground motion records in both X and Y
direction respectively The plotted column chart shows
significant differences between cases of considered RC
frames . Base shear results of RC frame model according to IS
Fig 15 :story versus drift plot for models 4ISTT, 4ISTS and 4 1893: 2016 than RC frame designed in accordance with IS
ASST forY direction 1893 : 2002 . Base shear results of RC frame model according
to IS 1893: 2002 lower than ASCE 7-10

© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 2561
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 07 Issue: 06 | June 2020 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Base shear
3000
2500
2000
1500
TH-X
1000
500
TH-Y
0

Fig 20 : story versus drift plot for models 4ISTT, 4ISTS and 4
Fig 18 :Comparison of seismic code for base shear values using
ASST in X-direction for time history method
time history method

Maximum storey response of the 4-storey , 7-storey

and 10-storey of RC frame under three different time history
earthquake record are presented in this section .The three
earthquake records are applied in two orthogonal direction
.Maximum response of the structure are represented in the
following Fig 4.18 shows Comparison of seismic code for
maximum storey response using time history analysis RC
frame model designed in according to American code having
higher displacement than Indian code As per criteria given in
clause 7.11.1 of IS 1893 : 2002 and IS 1893 : 2016 drifts are
within given limit All RC frame comes under risk category II
which can satisfy as per criteria given in section 12.12.1 in Fig 4.21: story versus drift plot for models 7 ISTT, 7 ISTS and 7
ASCE 7-10 all drift values are limit following fig 4.20, fig 4.21 ASST for X-direction
and fig 4.22 represent story versus drift plot using THA
method fig 4.23, fig 4.24 and fig 4.25 represent story versus
drift plot using RSM

40 Maximum storey response

Max storey response

30

20
Displace
10 ment in X
dir
0
Fig 4.22: storey versus drift plot for models 10 ISTT, 10ISTS and
RC frame 10ASST for X –direction

Fig 19: Comparison of seismic code for maximum storey

response using time history analysis

© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 2562
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 07 Issue: 06 | June 2020 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

results has been carried out on these RC frames in ETABS 17

.Indian and American codes are compared in terms of
parameter Base shear, maximum storey response and storey
drift results are presented in above results and graphs It
shows American code has maximum base shear value than
Indian code Data shown in table represents base shear values
for the structure designed according to IS 1893 : 2002 are
higher than IS 1893 : 2016 It shows American code has
maximum storey response value than Indian code and RC
frame designed according to IS 1893 : 2016 show nearly
similar values than ASCE 7-10 . RC frame designed in
according IS 1893 : 2002 show less drift than designed with
IS 1893 : 2016 and ASCE 7-10 . Drift are nearly same for RC
frame designed in according to IS 1893 : 2016 and ASCE 7-10
Fig 4.23 :story versus drift plot for models 4ISTT, 4ISTS and 4
ASST in Y-dir for THM
Acknowledgment
I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude and
indebtedness to Prof. Dr.S.K. Hirde, for his inspiring guidance,
constructive criticism and support to complete the paper
within stipulated time.

Thanks to Head of the department Prof. D. J. Choudhari and

all staff members for suggestions and timely support.

Thanks to Dr.R.P.Borkar, Principal, Government College of

Engineering, Amravati for providing all facilities at right
period of time. At last thanks to my classmates whose
encouragement and constant inspiration.

Fig 4.24:story versus drift plot for models 7 ISTT, 7 ISTS and 7
7. REFERENCES
ASST for Y-direction
[1] Muhammad Mostafijur Rahman, Sagar M. Jadhav,
Bahram M. Shahrooz (2018), “Seismic performance of
reinforce concrete buildings designed according to
Drift codes in Bangladesh, India and U.S.” Engineering
Structures 160 (2018) 111–120
12
[2] Rita Debnath and Lipika Halder (2019) , “ A Comparative
10 Study of the Seismic Provisions of Indian Seismic Code IS
8 1893-2002 and Draft Indian Code IS 1893:2016”
10ASST
,Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 A. Rama
Storey

6 Mohan Rao and K. Ramanjaneyulu (eds.), Recent

10ISTS
Advances in Structural Engineering, Volume 2, Lecture
4
Notes in Civil Engineering 12
10ISTT
2
Fig025:story versus drift plot for models 10 ISTT, 10ISTS and [3] Christopher Zajac and Todd Davis (2015 ) , “A
10ASST for Y0.001
–direction 0.0015 Comparative Analysis for Base Shear Calculations
0 0.0005 0.002
between Six Countries with Moderate Seismic Activity ”
Drift
6. CONCLUSIONS ASCE ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on
01/25/17
The seismic assessment of RC frames with different storey
heights and different seismic code is presented in this study [4] Mayur Pisode, Mitesh Surana, Putul Haldar, and
Three buildings with different heights, viz. 4 storey, 7 storey Yogendra Singh (2017) ,“ Comparative Assessment
and 10 storey and with three different seismic code which are Seismic Fragility Of RC Frame Buildings Designed For
IS 1893 : 2002, IS 1893 : 2016 and ASCE 7-10 are modelled in Older And Revised Indian Standards” Department of
ETABS 17 and equivalent static analysis, response spectrum Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
analysis and nonlinear dynamic analysis were performed Roorkee, Roorkee, India

© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 2563
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 07 Issue: 06 | June 2020 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

[5] S.K. Ahirwar, S.K. Jain and M. M. Pande, “Earthquake Assessment “International Journal Of Engineering
Loads On Multistorey Buildings As Per Is: 1893-1984 Sciences & Research Technology Volume : 02 Issue 04 |
And Is: 1893-2002: A Comparative Study ” The 14th July-2015
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October
12-17, 2008, Beijing, China [16] R.D. McIntosh and S. Pezeshk, “ Comparision of Recent
U.S. Seismic Codes “, Journal of Structural Engineering/
[6] Ajay Salimath , Rajeeva S. V. ,Comparative Analysis of L- August 1997/993
shaped RC frame Structures with and without Shear
Wall as per IS1893-2002 and IS1893-2016” [17] Kamaldeep kaur and Jaspal Singh ,”Comparative study of
International Journal of Research and Scientific seismic Behaviour of RC structures using various codes “
Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume V, Issue VII, July 2018 | ISSN International Journal of Environment and Biotechnology
2321–2705 ,volume : 10.5958 / 2230-732 x .2017

[7] BIS (2002) IS 1893 (part 1): 2002—Indian standard [18] S.H.C. Santos,”Comparative study of codes for seismic
criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, design of structures “ , VERSITA, vol 9 –No.1-2013.
part 1: general provisions and buildings (Fifth Revision).
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi 2. [19] Guangren Yu , M.ASCE and Gary Y.K.Chock , F.ASCE ,
“Comparison of the USA, China and Japan Seismic Design
[8] BIS (2016) IS 1893 (part 1): 2016 (Draft)—Indian Procedures ”
standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of
structures, part 1: general provisions and buildings
(Sixth Revision). Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

[9] ACI Committee 318. ACI 318-14/ACI 318R-14, building

code requirements for structural concrete and
commentary. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete
Institute; 2014.

[10] ASCE/SEI 7-10. Minimum design loads for buildings and

other structures. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil
Engineers; 2010.

[11] Mayur R. Rethaliya , Bhavik R. Patel , Dr. R. P. Rethaliya,

“A Comparative Study of Various Clauses of New IS 1893
(Part 1):2016 and Old IS 1893 (Part 1):2002”.
International Journal for Research in Applied Science &
Engineering Technology (IJRASET) Volume 6 Issue I,
January 2018

[12] Dr. S.V. Itti , Prof. Abhishek Pathade and Ramesh B.

Karadi , “A Comparative Study on Seismic Provisions
Made in Indian and International Building Codes for RC
Building” Irregular Structures” International Journal Of
Engineering Sciences & Research Technology

[13] Amit Kumar Yadav*, Prof. Anubhav Rai , “A Seismic

Comparison Of Rc Special Moment Resisting Frame
Considering Regular And Irregular Structures”
International Journal Of Engineering Sciences &
Research Technology

[14] Anupkumar S Karadi, B S Suresh Chandra Analysis And

Comparison Of Tall Building Using Indian And Euro
Code Of Standards ” International Journal Of
Engineering Sciences & Research Technology Volume :
04 Issue 08 |Aug -2017

[15] Vinit Dhanvijay1, Prof. Deepa Telang2, Vikrant Nair,

“Comparative Study of Different Codes in Seismic
© 2020, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 2564