Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

Comparative Study of Seismic Behaviour of

Multi - Storey Buildings with Flat Slab, Waffle
Slab, Ribbed Slab &Slab with Secondary Beam
Shivnarayan Malviya
M. E. Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering
Jabalpur Engineering College, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India

Mr.Vipin Kumar Tiwari

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
Jabalpur Engineering College, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India

Abstract— Recent earthquakes in which many concrete structures have been severely damaged or collapsed, have
indicated the need for evaluating the seismic adequacy of existing buildings. About 60% of the land area of our country is
susceptible to damaging levels of seismic hazard. We can’t avoid future earthquakes, but preparedness and safe building
construction practices can certainly reduce the extent of damage and loss. In order to strengthen and resist the buildings
for future earthquakes, some procedures have to be adopted. The use of different type of slabs is evolving as a new trend
and is becoming a big challenge for structural engineers. Therefore, it is necessary to study about its structural behaviour.
This paper deals with the behaviour of different type of slabs such as flat slab, waffle slab, ribbed slab and slab with
secondary beam. We have modelled a G+5 & G+9 storey building in ETAB software having a plinth area of 1600 m2. The
grid spacing is taken as the 8 m for the consideration of large span in both major directions. Total 10 Models have been
prepared with different type of slabs. The response spectrum analysis has been carried out for the seismic zone III. It has
been found that for large span slabs the structure having secondary beams should be avoided for better seismic
performance. Most preferable long span slab on the basis of this study is Building with Waffle Slab.

Keywords- Flat slab, Waffle slab, ribbed slab, multi-storey building, slab with secondary beam, response spectrum
analysis, seismic zone III.

I. INTRODUCTION
Earthquake is a phenomenon that occurs due to the geotechnical activities in the strata of the Earth and is highly
unpredictable and causes heavy losses to both life and property if it occurs in populated regions. Earthquake does
not kill humans, but the buildings do. Thus, it is the prime responsibility of a structural (design) engineer to draw out
the parameters from previous experiences and consider all the possible hazards that the structure may be subjected
to, in future, for the purpose of safe design of structure. There are many available techniques for the analysis of the
structure and to evaluate their performance under the given loading, the most accurate among them being the Non-
Linear Time History Analysis. For the structures with less importance or seismic hazard, some other conventional
methods have been developed named as Non-Linear Static methods (NSPs). The results obtained from these
techniques may or may not be accurate, but these methods do give an approximate idea about the behaviour of the
structure under seismic loading. Isn general slabs are classified as being one-way or two-way. Slabs that primarily
deflect in one direction are referred to as one-way slabs. When slabs are supported by columns arranged generally in
rows so that the slabs can deflect in two directions, they are usually referred to as two-way slabs. Two-way slabs
may be strengthened by the addition of beams between the columns, by thickening the slabs around the columns
(drop panels), and by flaring the columns under the slabs (column capitals). The horizontal floor system resists the
gravity load (dead load and live load) acting on it and transmits this to the vertical framing systems. In this process,
the floor system is subjected primarily to flexure and transverse shear, whereas the vertical frame elements are
generally subjected to axial compression, often coupled with flexure and shear. The floor also serves as a horizontal
diaphragm connecting together and stiffening the various vertical frame elements. Under the action of lateral loads,
the floor diaphragms behave rigidly (owing to its high in plane flexural stiffness) and effectively distribute the
lateral load to the various vertical frame elements and shear walls. The different types of slabs studied are as
follows:

Volume XIII, Issue 3, 2021 Page No: 77

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

Waffle slab: A waffle slab is made of reinforced concrete with concrete joists spanning in mutually perpendicular
directions on its bottom. Due to the grid arrangement generated by the R.C. ribs are termed as waffle. It is also
known as two-way joist slab. It is mainly used when span is greater. It is stronger than other type of slab. The slab
has two parts. The part one is in top side which is flat surface and second part at bottom consist of joists create a grid
like structure. The grid is appeared when moulds are removed. It is also used when heavy loads are acting on the
structure. Under the effect of rigidity this type of slab is used when buildings require minimal vibration, such as used
for laboratory, manufacturing facilities etc.
Ribbed Slab: These types of slabs are cast completely with a series of closely spaced joist which in turn are
supported by a set of beams. The main benefit of ribbed floors is the lowering in weight achieved by removing part
of concrete below the neutral axis. Which makes these type of floor economical for buildings with a long span with
light or moderate loads. Ribbed slabs are slabs cast integrally with a series of closely spaced joist which in turn are
supported by a set of beams. The main advantage of ribbed floors is the reduction in weight achieved by removing
part of concrete below the neutral axis. This makes this type of floor economical for buildings with a long span with
light or moderate loads.
Flat Slab: A reinforced concrete slab supported directly by concrete columns without the use of beams. This type of
slab consists of different system of elements such drops, column head, perimeter beam etc. along with flat slab.
These types of structures use column heads and column strips as a replacement of beams to provide large spans.
Whole slab rests on these column heads and column strips and acts as diaphragm. These structures are vulnerable to
dynamic earthquake forces so analysis regarding dynamic earthquake behaviour of the structure must be done before
designing these structures in earthquake prone areas.

Secondary Beams: The beams which are constructed to transfer the load of slab on main beams are called secondary
beams. Basically, secondary beams are not directly resting on column, but are supported on main beams which are
supported by columns directly. Beam which rest on column directly are termed as primary beams. Secondary beams
are generally used to provide architectural benefits and for space restrictions. Reinforcement details are calculated
on the basis of the quantity and type of load exerting on every beam.

II. OBJECTIVE OF WORK

Following are the objectives of work:-

1) To model G+5 & G+9 multistorey building with different types of slabs.
2) To analyse G+5 & G+9 multistorey building by RSA (Response Spectrum Analysis).
3) To compare the different parametric results such as storey displacement, base shear, overturning moments,
storey shears etc.

III. MODELING AND ANALYSIS

The modeling part includes theG+5 & G+9 storey building with large span consideration. The different types of
slabs have been introduced in the structure. The plan area of all four buildings is same i.e.1600 square meters (40.00
m x 40.00 m) each. These buildings have been designed in compliance with the Indian Code of Practices for
earthquake resistant design of buildings. Base of the building has been considered as fixed. The square sections are
used for structural elements just to focus on the analysis based on variation in slab and to provide secondary beam
on it. The buildings have been modeled using ETABSvr.2018.

Table 1: Material Properties of Member

S. No. Case No. Model Description No. of Stories

01 Case 1 Building having Flat Slab with Drop Panels G+5 and G+9
02 Case 2 Building having Flat Slab with Drop Panels and Perimeter Beams G+5 and G+9
03 Case 3 Building having Waffle Slab G+5 and G+9
04 Case 4 Building having Ribbed Slab G+5 and G+9
05 Case 5 Building having Slab with Secondary Beams G+5 and G+9

Volume XIII, Issue 3, 2021 Page No: 78

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

Table 2: Structural Properties

Structural Properties
S. No. Descriptions of Parameters Dimensions / Comments
A) Common Parameters
1 Structure type Rigid frame with flat slab
G+5/21.00 m.
2 No of storey /total height
G+9 /35.00 m
3 Plan area 40.00 m x 40.00 m
4 Column size 600 mm x 600 mm
5 Plinth beam size 200 mm x 500 mm
6 Spacing of grid in x –direction 8.00 m. c/c
7 Spacing of grid in y –direction 8.00 m. c/c
8 Individual storey height 3.50 m.
B) Case 1: Building Having Flat Slab with Drops
1 Beam Size No beams
2 Slab Thickness without Drop 275 mm
3 Slab thickness with Drops 350 mm
4 Drop Size 3.00 m x 3.00 m
5 Thickness of Drops 75 mm
C) Case 2: Building Having Flat Slab with Drops with Perimeter Beams
1 Perimeter Beam Size 300 mm x 600 mm
2 Slab Thickness without Drop 275 mm
3 Slab thickness with Drops 350 mm
4 Drop Size 3.00 m x 3.00 m
5 Thickness of Drops 75 mm
D) Case 3: Building Having Waffle Slab
1 Beam Size 300 mm x 600 mm
2 Slab Thickness 150 mm
3 Overall Slab thickness 450 mm
4 Stem Width 250 mm
5 Spacing of Stems in X-Direction 2000 mm c/c
6 Spacing of Stems in Y-Direction 2000 mm c/c
E) Case 4: Building Having Ribbed Slab
1 Beam Size 300 mm x 600 mm
2 Slab Thickness 150 mm
3 Overall Slab thickness 450 mm
4 Stem Width 250 mm
5 Spacing of Stems in X-Direction 2000 mm c/c
F) Case 5: Building Having Slab with Secondary Beams
1 Beam Size 300 mm x 600 mm

Volume XIII, Issue 3, 2021 Page No: 79

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

2 Slab Thickness 200 mm

3 Secondary Beam Size 250 mm x 400 mm
5 Spacing of Stems in X-Direction 2000 mm c/c

Table 3: Material Properties

S. No. Materials Grade of Materials
1 Concrete (beam & column) M25
2 Concrete (Slab) M25
3 HYSD(R/F)/Rebar Fe 500

Fig. 1: Plan & 3D model for Case 1: Building with Flat Slab and Drops

Fig. 2: Plan & 3D model for Case 2: Building with Flat Slab and Drops and Perimeter Beams

Volume XIII, Issue 3, 2021 Page No: 80

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

Fig. 3: Plan& 3D Model for Case 3: Building with Waffle Slab

Fig. 4: Plan & 3D model for Case 4: Building with Ribbed Slab

Volume XIII, Issue 3, 2021 Page No: 81

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

Fig. 5: Plan & 3D Model for Case 5: Building with Secondary Beams

Seismic Information of Structure:

Table 4: Seismic Information of Structures
S.No. Description Value
1. Earthquake Zone III
2. City Jabalpur
3. Importance Factor 1.20
4. Type of Soil Medium soil
5. Response Reduction Factor 4
0.273 Sec (G+5 Models)
6. Time Period
0.455 Sec (G+9 Models)
7. Damping Ratio 5% i.e. 0.05

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Storey Displacement:
Deflection of the stories from the initial position is termed as storey displacements and its maximum value is
obtained at the top storey. The values of maximum storey displacement in X and Z directions obtained from the
analysis has been shown in table 5 while graphical representation is described in fig. 6 and fig. 7 for G+5 and G+9
stories model respectively.
Table 5: Maximum Storey Displacement (mm)
G+5 Stories G+9 Stories
S.No. Model
X-Dir Z-Dir X-Dir Z-Dir
1 Case 1 188.47 20.89 492.51 40.20
2 Case 2 191.65 22.22 499.59 42.04
3 Case 3 168.81 15.30 439.68 35.12
4 Case 4 177.31 14.33 463.46 33.17
5 Case 5 237.51 29.84 624.77 49.33

Volume XIII, Issue 3, 2021 Page No: 82

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

Fig 6: Maximum Storey Displacement for G+5 Stories Model

Fig 7: Maximum Storey Displacement for G+9 Stories Model

From above representation it is clear that the Case 5 Model i.e. Building with secondary beams shows highest value
of maximum storey displacement whether in X or Z direction or in G+5 and G+9 Stories Models. While the lowest
obtained in the Case 3 Models (i.e. Building having waffle slab) in X-direction, and Case 4 Models (i.e. Building
having ribbed slab) in Z-direction.

Volume XIII, Issue 3, 2021 Page No: 83

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

Storey Drift:
The relative displacement between two consecutive stories is termed as Storey Drift. The results obtained from the
analysis have been shown in tabular form in Table 6 and Table 7 for G+5 and G+9 Stories Models respectively.
Their graphical representation has been drawn in fig. 8 and fig. 9 for G+5 and G+9 Storey Models respectively.

Table 6: Storey Drift (mm): G+5 Stories

S. No. Stories Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5

1 G+5 14.93 15.06 13.06 14.00 19.56
2 G+4 23.57 23.91 20.96 22.17 30.16
3 G+3 30.55 31.01 27.21 28.75 38.89
4 G+2 35.02 35.57 31.23 32.96 44.47
5 G+1 36.69 37.32 32.84 34.53 46.21
6 Ground 33.34 34.02 30.21 31.37 41.09

Table 7: Storey Drift (mm): G+9 Stories

S.N. Stories Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5

1 G+9 17.14 17.18 15.02 16.07 22.42
2 G+8 27.73 28.01 24.66 26.08 35.51
3 G+7 37.57 38.02 33.45 35.35 47.93
4 G+6 45.58 46.16 40.56 42.90 58.19
5 G+5 51.76 52.43 46.02 48.71 66.15
6 G+4 56.26 57.01 50.00 52.96 71.96
7 G+3 59.29 60.10 52.69 55.81 75.82
8 G+2 60.86 61.74 54.14 57.29 77.62
9 G+1 60.23 61.20 53.82 56.69 76.12
10 Ground 53.31 54.37 48.25 50.17 65.88

Volume XIII, Issue 3, 2021 Page No: 84

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

Fig 8: Storey Drift for G+5 Stories Model

Fig.9: Storey Drift for G+9 Stories Model

The maximum drift has been obtained on G+1 storey of G+5 stories model while for G+9 stories model maximum
storey has been obtained on the G+2 storey. In all the cases highest value of storey drift obtained in Case 5 building
i.e. Building with secondary beams and lowest value has been obtained in Case 3 i.e. Building having waffle slab.

Base Shear:
Maximum shear force at the base of the structure is termed as base shear. It depends on the magnitude of lateral
forces and dead weight of the structure. Based on the analysis results base shear are shown in table 8.

Volume XIII, Issue 3, 2021 Page No: 85

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

Table 8: Base Shear (kN)

S.N. Model G+5 Stories G+9 Stories

1 Case 1 13047.06 20535.84
2 Case 2 13677.05 21525.82
3 Case 3 13109.31 20633.66
4 Case 4 12282.68 19334.67
5 Case 5 13542.31 21314.08

Fig.10: Bar chart comparison of Base Shear

Case 2 building models depicts highest base shear in both G+5 and G+9 models, while the lowest value obtained in
the Case 4 Structure i.e. building with ribbed slab. While Case 3 structure shows third lowest value among all five
cases.

Storey Acceleration:
Storey Acceleration is a dynamic perimeter for the seismic analysis of structures, which shows the acceleration of
building under dynamic seismic loading. Table 9 shows the value of acceleration for different cases under
consideration in this study. Fig 11 and Fig 12 depicts the bar chart representation of the structures for X-direction
and Z-direction storey acceleration.

Volume XIII, Issue 3, 2021 Page No: 86

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

Table 9: Storey Acceleration (mm/sec2)

G+5 Stories G+9 Stories

S.N. Model
Ux Uz Ux Uz
1 Case 1 1270.56 143.40 1491.03 104.67
2 Case 2 1268.38 97.51 1487.43 102.77
3 Case 3 1248.76 26.00 1453.91 44.38
4 Case 4 1235.19 21.55 1480.29 39.43
5 Case 5 1318.19 245.42 1553.62 165.36

.
Fig.11: Storey Acceleration in X-Direction

Volume XIII, Issue 3, 2021 Page No: 87

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

Fig.12: Storey Acceleration in Z-Direction

Case 5 structures show the maximum value of storey acceleration in all cases. Lowest value in X and Z –direction
has been observed in Case 4 structure for G+5 Stories model, while for G+9 Structures Case 3 and Case 4 Structures
depicts the lowest value of storey acceleration in X and Z direction respectively.

Most preferable long span slab on the basis of this study is building with waffle slab. Minimum displacement due to
the waffle slab containing grid in both X & Z therefore the lateral force is resisting by the grid.

Waffle slab resist gravity as well as lateral load on structure due to ribs provided in the slab. These ribs act as
secondary beams by distributing the large magnitude load into smaller parts. Hence resulting in the higher load
carrying capacity than other type of slabs. A waffle slab is flat on top, while joists create a grid like surface on the
bottom. These grid patterns are along with major directions which are withstand against the lateral forces. The
buildings with waffle slab are designed to be more solid due to increment in dead weight & base shear and useful for
longer spans and with heavier loads acted on the building. There for the current project having a model with waffle
slab gives least lateral deflection under the earthquake forces.

V. CONCLUSIONS
On The basis of above study in which G+5 and G+9 multistorey buildings have been taken into consideration,
following conclusions have been made.

a) Case 5 (i.e. Building having secondary beams) structure shows highest value of maximum storey displacement
among all the models, which is almost 1.5 to 2.0 times of the lowest storey displacement shown by Case 3
structure i.e. Building having waffle slab.
b) The lowest value of storey drift again observed in Case 3 structure i.e. Building having waffle slab with respect
to others cases of models.
c) Case 5 (i.e. Building having secondary beams) structure shows similar results of storey drift to that of maximum
storey displacement. Since less effective case of secondary beam in models of building.

Volume XIII, Issue 3, 2021 Page No: 88

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

d) Highest base shear has been obtained in Case 2 structure (i.e. Building having flat slab with drops and
perimeter beams), while the lowest value obtained in Case 4 structure i.e. Building having ribbed slabs.
e) Storey acceleration is maximum in Case 5 structure (i.e. Building having secondary beams), while lowest value
obtained in Case 3 (i.e. Building having waffle slab) and Case 4 structure i.e. Building having ribbed slabs).
f) From here it can be concluded that for large span slabs the structure having secondary beams should be avoided
for better seismic performance.
g) Most preferable long span slab on the basis of this study is Building with Waffle Slab.

VI. FUTURE SCOPE

The following work should be taken in future for research purpose.

a) Use of different types of structural form such as outrigger, core, tube in tube etc with slabs.
b) Assessment of dynamic wind analysis as per CFD & Wind Tunnel data.
c) Study based on Slabs with dampers.
d) Study with Slabs with composite structures.
e) Use of flat slab, waffle slab & ribbed slab in twin towers.
f) Use of recycled materials in concrete to form different slabs and analysis on the software.

REFERENCES
1. Imran S. M., Raghunandan Kumar R., Arun Kumar (2020) “Optimum Design of a Reinforced Concrete Ribbed
Slab” Journal of Civil Engineering Research, 10(1): Pp- 10-19, DOI: 10.5923/j.jce.20201001.02
2. Raj Joshi, Gagan Patidar, Mayank Yadav, Piyush Natani, PradumanDhakad (2020)Comparative Analysis on
Behaviour Of Single Column Structure With Waffle Slab and Flat Slab International Journal of Creative
Research Thoughts (IJCRT) Volume 8, Issue 3, ISSN: 2320-2882, IJCRT2003399, Pp-2878-2889.
3. ZekirijaIdrizi and IsakIdrizi (2017) Comparative Study between Waffle and Solid Slab Systems in Terms of
Economy and Seismic Performance of a Typical 14-Story RC Building Journal of Civil Engineering and
Architecture 11 PP- 1068-1076 doi: 10.17265/1934-7359/2017.12.002
4. MidhunM S (2017) Analysis of Steel Concrete Composite Waffle Slab With Opening International Research
Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), e-ISSN: 2395 -0056 Volume: 04 Issue: 05, p-ISSN: 2395-
0072 IRJET, Impact Factor value: 5.181, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal , Page 3133-3136.
5. Archana Shaga, Satyanarayana Polisetty (2016) Seismic Performance Of Flat Slab With Drop And
Conventional Slab Structure International Journal of Latest Engineering Research and Applications (IJLERA)
ISSN: 2455-7137 Volume – 01, Issue – 09, , PP – 79-94.
6. Anuj Bansal, Aditi Patidar (2016) Pushover Analysis Of Multistorey Buildings Having Flat Slab And Grid Slab
International Journal of Engineering Science Invention Research & Development; Vol. II Issue VII January
2016 e-ISSN: 2349-6185.
7. S. N. Utane, H. B. Dahake (2016) Effect of shape irregularity on flat slab and waffle slab industrial building
under lateral loading ISSN: 2319-5967 ISO 9001:2008 Certified International Journal of Engineering Science
and Innovative Technology (IJESIT), Volume 5, Issue 2, PP 43-50.
8. Ubani Obinna Uzodimma (2016) Analysis And Design Of A Network Of Interacting Primary And Secondary
Beams As Alternatives In Large Span Construction Analysis of Primary and Secondary Beams in Large Span
Construction.. Ubani Obinna U. (2016) Page 1-13.
9. Gagankrishna R.R, Nethravathi S.M (2015) Pushover Analysis Of Framed Structure With Flat Plate And Flat
Slab For Different Structural Systems International Journal of Innovative Research and Creative Technology
IJIRCT , Volume 2, Issue 2, ISSN: 2454-5988, pp 54-59. IJIRCT1601010
10. Anurag Sharma, Claudia Jeya Pushpa. D (2015) Analysis of Flat Slab and Waffle Slab in Multistorey Buildings
using ETABS IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research & Development| Vol. 3, Issue 02, ISSN
(online): 2321-0613, pp 2483-2488.
11. Mohana H.S, Kavan M.R. (2015) Comparative Study of Flat Slab and Conventional Slab Structure Using
ETABS for Different Earthquake Zones of India International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology
(IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056, Volume: 02 Issue: 03,p-ISSN: 2395-0072, IRJET.NET- All Rights Reserved Page
1931 -1936.

Volume XIII, Issue 3, 2021 Page No: 89

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

12. IlincaMoldovana, AlizMathe (2015) A Study on a Two-Way Post-Tensioned Concrete Waffle Slab 9th
International Conference Inter disciplinarily in Engineering, INTER-ENG 2015, 8-9, Tirgu-Mures, Romania
Procedia Technology PP227 – 234
13. Ibrahim Mohammad Arman (2014) Analysis of two- way ribbed and waffle slabs with hidden beams
International Journal of Civil And Structural Engineering Volume 4, No 3, 2014 ISSN 0976 – 4399 pp 342-
352.
14. R.S.More , V. S. Sawant, Y. R. Suryawanshi (2013) Analytical Study of Different Types of Flat Slab Subjected
to Dynamic Loading International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) ISSN (Online): 2319-7064 Index
Copernicus Value : 6.14,Impact Factor : 4.438
15. A. E. Hassaballa, M. A. Ismaeil b, A. N. Alzeadc, Fathelrahman M. Adam (2014) Pushover Analysis of
Existing 4 Storey RC Flat Slab Building International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research
(IJSBAR) ISSN 2307-4531 (Print & Online)Volume 16, No 2, pp 242-257
16. K. SoniPriy, T.Durgabhavani, & et.al.(2012) Modal Analysis Of Flat slab Building By Using Sap2000
International Journal of Advanced Scientific Research and Technology Issue 2, Volume 2 , ISSN: 2249-9954,
pp 173-180
17. Ahmed B. Shuraim (2002) “Applicability of Code Design Methods to RC Slabs on Secondary Beams. Part I:
Mathematical Modeling”J King Saud Univ., VoJ. 15, Eng. Sei. (2), pp. 181-197~ Riyadh1423/2003)
18. Bryan Safford Smith, Alex Coull (1991) “Tall building Structures Analysis and Design” A wiley- inter science
publication , John-weley& son. Inc. New York. ISBN 0-471-51237-0.
19. Shashikant K. Duggal (2013) “Earthquake-resistant Design of Structures” Second Edition, Oxford University
Press, ISBN: 978-0-19-808352-8
20. Indian Standard (1984) “Design Loads (Other than earthquake) for buildings and structures –code of practice”,
part 3 -wind loads (Second Revision), Sixth Reprint November 1998,UDC 624-042-41, BIS(Bureau of Indian
standard), New Delhi, www.bis.org.in
21. Indian Standard (2015) “Design Loads (Other than earthquake) for buildings and structures –code of practice”,
part 3 -wind loads (Third Revision), ICS 91.100.10, BIS(Bureau of Indian standard), New Delhi,
www.bis.org.in

Volume XIII, Issue 3, 2021 Page No: 90