The Evolution of Indian Seismic Design:
An Exhaustive Analysis of IS 1893:2025
1. Introduction: The Tectonic Imperative and
Regulatory Evolution
The Indian subcontinent represents one of the most seismically dynamic regions on Earth. The
ongoing collision of the Indian Plate with the Eurasian Plate, occurring at a geodetic
convergence rate of approximately 47 mm per year, creates a relentless accumulation of strain
energy across the Himalayan arc and the intraplate regions of the peninsula. This geological
reality necessitates a rigorous, evolving regulatory framework to ensure the safety of the built
environment. The release of IS 1893:2025, the latest iteration of the Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures, marks the most significant paradigm shift in Indian earthquake
engineering since the introduction of the Limit State Method.
This report provides a comprehensive, expert-level dissection of the changes introduced in the
2025 edition compared to the preceding IS 1893:2016. It explores the transition from
deterministic to probabilistic hazard assessment, the restructuring of the code into specialized
parts, the redefinition of design earthquakes based on return periods, and the stringent new
requirements for structural ductility and non-structural element safety.
1.1 Historical Context of IS 1893
To understand the magnitude of the 2025 revision, one must contextualize it within the lineage
of Indian seismic codes.
●​ 1962: The first edition was published, largely prescriptive and based on static coefficients.
●​ 2002: A landmark revision following the Bhuj earthquake, which introduced the Zone
Factor (Z) concept and reduced the number of seismic zones from five to four (II, III, IV,
V).
●​ 2016: Introduced the importance of stiffness modifiers and refined the design spectra, yet
retained the fundamental Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment (DSHA) approach.
●​ 2025: The current revision separates general provisions from building-specific rules and
adopts a Probabilistic Earthquake Hazard Assessment (PEHA) framework, aligning India
with advanced global standards like ASCE 7-22 and Eurocode 8.
The 2025 edition acknowledges that the "worst-case scenario" approach of DSHA is insufficient
for managing the nuanced risks of modern infrastructure. By adopting PEHA, the code moves
from asking "What is the largest earthquake possible?" to "What is the probability of
exceedance of ground shaking in the structure's lifetime?" This fundamental philosophical pivot
drives almost every technical modification in the new standard.
2. Structural Reorganization of the Standard
A primary logistical change in the 2025 framework is the decoupling of general seismic
principles from specific building design mandates.
2.1 The Split: Part 1 and Part 5
In the 2016 edition, IS 1893 (Part 1) covered both "General Provisions" and "Buildings." This
conflation made it difficult to update hazard maps without revising building rules, and vice versa.
●​ IS 1893 (Part 1): 2025 is now exclusively titled "General Provisions." It deals solely with
the definition of seismic hazard: zoning maps, design response spectra, ground motion
characterization, and soil classification. It applies to all structures—bridges, dams,
industrial plants, and buildings.
●​ IS 1893 (Part 5): 2025 is a newly created standard titled "Buildings." It contains the
specific design provisions, analysis methods, and detailing requirements previously found
in Part 1. It also integrates provisions for masonry buildings (formerly in IS 4326), creating
a unified "Building Code" for seismic design.
2.2 Expansion of the Suite
The IS 1893 suite has been expanded and harmonized to cover specialized structures, ensuring
a consistent hazard definition (from Part 1) flows into all specific applications:
●​ Part 2: Liquid Retaining Structures (Tanks).
●​ Part 3: Bridges and Retaining Walls.
●​ Part 4: Industrial Structures (Stack-like structures).
●​ Part 6: Base-Isolated Buildings (New addition acknowledging advanced seismic
protection systems).
This modular structure allows the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) to update the hazard
definition (Part 1) based on new seismological data without immediately necessitating a reprint
of the design manuals for every specific structure type, provided the interface parameters (Zone
Factors, Spectral values) remain consistent.
3. The Paradigm Shift in Hazard Assessment
The core technical deviation in IS 1893:2025 is the adoption of Probabilistic Earthquake
Hazard Assessment (PEHA). This replaces the Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment
(DSHA) that governed previous codes.
3.1 Limitations of the 2016 Deterministic Model
Under IS 1893:2016, seismic hazard was defined by a Zone Factor (Z) assigned to four zones
(II, III, IV, V). Z represented the effective Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) of the Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE).
●​ Zone II: 0.10g
●​ Zone III: 0.16g
●​ Zone IV: 0.24g
●​ Zone V: 0.36g
This model assumed a single "maximum" event for each zone based on historical data and fault
capability. It did not explicitly account for the frequency of earthquakes. A region with a fault
capable of a Magnitude 7.0 earthquake every 100 years was treated identically to a region with
a fault capable of the same magnitude every 10,000 years, provided they were in the same
zone. This led to inconsistent risk levels: a building in the rapid-recurrence region had a much
higher annual probability of collapse than one in the slow-recurrence region.
3.2 The Probabilistic Earthquake Hazard Assessment (PEHA)
PEHA integrates the magnitude, distance, and recurrence rates of all potential seismic sources
to calculate the probability of exceeding various ground motion levels. Key Features of the
PEHA Approach in IS 1893:2025:
1.​ Uniform Risk Philosophy: The code aims to ensure that all structures of a certain
category share a similar probability of failure, regardless of their location.
2.​ Return Period (T_{RP}) Specificity: The hazard is no longer a static "Zone Factor" but is
linked to specific Return Periods. The code defines hazard levels for 73 years, 475 years,
975 years, and 2475 years.
3.​ Hazard Curves: While the code still simplifies this into Zone Factors for ease of use, the
underlying data represents a hazard curve. This allows for more accurate design of critical
infrastructure (like nuclear plants or large dams) where 2475-year or 10,000-year events
must be considered.
3.3 Introduction of Seismic Zone VI
The transition to PEHA revealed that the seismic hazard in the Himalayan belt was significantly
underestimated by the previous "cap" of Zone V (Z=0.36). The statistical aggregation of hazard
in regions with highly active faults (like the Main Boundary Thrust and Main Central Thrust)
indicated PGAs well in excess of 0.40g or 0.50g.
Consequently, IS 1893:2025 introduces Seismic Zone VI, covering the most seismically active
regions of the Himalayas and possibly parts of the Northeast.
●​ Zone Factor for Zone VI: Preliminary data indicates a Zone Factor (Z) of 0.50 to 0.60 for
the MCE level.
●​ Implications: This represents a 40% to 66% increase in design forces compared to the
previous maximum. It effectively mandates the use of high-performance materials (Grade
M30/M40 concrete minimum) and Special Moment Resisting Frames (SMRF) for all
structures in this zone. Conventional masonry construction may be severely restricted or
require extensive confining elements.
The creation of Zone VI is a direct response to the "seismic gap" theory, which suggests that
large segments of the Himalayas are overdue for a mega-earthquake (Magnitude 8.0+), and the
previous code's conservatism was insufficient to protect against such cataclysmic energy
release.
4. Redefining Design Earthquakes: Return Periods
and Performance Levels
IS 1893:2025 abandons the implicit "Importance Factor" method of scaling design forces in
favor of an explicit selection of hazard levels based on the building's function and target
lifespan.
4.1 The Mechanism of Return Periods (T_{RP})
In 2016, the design force was calculated as:
Here, Z was the MCE. Dividing by 2 gave the "Design Basis Earthquake" (DBE). The
Importance Factor (I) (1.0, 1.2, or 1.5) was a scalar multiplier used to arbitrarily increase safety
for critical buildings.
In 2025, the variable I is either removed or set to unity (1.0) for standard calculations. Instead,
the engineer selects the Zone Factor (Z) directly from a table based on the Return Period
(T_{RP}) assigned to the building category.
Table 1: Return Periods for Building Categories (Reconstructed)
Building Category
Description
Strength Design
Serviceability T_{RP}
T_{RP}
Normal
Residential,
475 Years (10% in 50 73 Years (50% in 50
Commercial
yrs)
yrs)
Important
Schools, Malls, Offices 975 Years
225 Years
Critical/Lifeline
Hospitals, Emergency 2475 Years (2% in 50 475 Years
Svcs
yrs)
Special
Monuments, Toxic
4975 Years
975 Years
containment
This creates a scientifically rigorous link between the importance of a structure and the rarity of
the earthquake it must withstand. A hospital is now explicitly designed for a 2475-year event,
ensuring that it survives the "Very Rare" earthquake that might destroy normal buildings
designed only for the 475-year event.
4.2 Decoupling Strength and Serviceability
A major advancement in IS 1893:2025 is the bifurcation of design checks into two distinct
states, each with its own hazard level.
1.​ Strength Design (Collapse Prevention): The structure is analyzed using the Z factor
corresponding to the Design Return Period (e.g., 475 years for residential). The goal is
to ensure the building possesses sufficient strength and ductility to prevent collapse.
○​ Load Factor Change: Since the Z value now likely represents the explicit design
level (or the ultimate MCE level depending on the final table calibration), the
controversial load factor of 1.5 for earthquake loads (1.5(DL+EQ)) has been
corrected to 1.0 (1.0(DL+EQ)) or similar unity factors in the limit state design
combinations. This removes the "double counting" of safety factors.
2.​ Serviceability Check (Operational Continuity): The structure is checked using the Z
factor corresponding to the Serviceability Return Period (e.g., 73 years for residential).
○​ Objective: Under this frequent earthquake, the building should remain elastic.
Inter-storey drifts are checked against stricter limits to ensure non-structural
elements (glass, partitions) do not crack.
○​ Impact: Previously, serviceability was often checked using the strength design
force (scaled down), which was inaccurate. Now, a specific, lower-intensity
earthquake is used to verify stiffness, ensuring that buildings don't just survive the
"Big One" but remain usable after the "Frequent Ones".
5. Site Characterization and Design Spectra
The influence of local soil conditions on ground motion amplification has been refined using
quantitative geophysical parameters.
5.1 Soil Classification via Shear Wave Velocity (V_{s30})
IS 1893:2016 relied on the Standard Penetration Test (N-value) to classify soils into Type I
(Hard), II (Medium), and III (Soft). While simple, N-values are often inconsistent and do not
directly measure the dynamic properties of the soil.
IS 1893:2025 adopts Shear Wave Velocity (V_{s30})—the speed at which shear waves travel
through the top 30 meters of the soil profile—as the primary classification metric.
●​ Site Class A: Hard Rock (V_s > 1500 m/s)
●​ Site Class B: Rock (760 < V_s \le 1500 m/s)
●​ Site Class C: Very Dense Soil / Soft Rock (360 < V_s \le 760 m/s)
●​ Site Class D: Stiff Soil (180 < V_s \le 360 m/s)
●​ Site Class E: Soft Clay Soil (V_s < 180 m/s)
This expanded classification allows for more precise Amplification Factors (S_a/g). Deep soft
soils (Class E) can amplify long-period ground motions significantly more than previously
accounted for, posing severe risks to high-rise buildings. The new code forces engineers to
explicitly account for this physics.
5.2 Design Spectrum Extension to 10 Seconds
The design response spectrum curve, which determines the spectral acceleration (S_a/g) based
on the building's natural period (T), has been extended from a maximum of 4.0 or 6.0 seconds
to 10.0 seconds.
Why this matters:
●​ Tall Buildings: Modern skyscrapers and super-tall structures often have fundamental
periods in the range of 5 to 8 seconds.
●​ Base Isolation: Isolated structures are designed to shift their period to 3.0 seconds or
more.
●​ Displacement Demand: At very long periods, the response is governed by displacement.
Truncating the spectrum at 4.0 seconds led to underestimated displacement demands for
these flexible structures. The extension ensures that the "Constant Displacement" region
of the spectrum (1/T^2 decay) is accurately modeled, preventing catastrophic pounding or
isolator failure.
5.3 Vertical Earthquake Shaking (A_v)
Historically, vertical ground motion was treated as a simplified fraction (2/3) of horizontal motion.
IS 1893:2025 mandates a spectral approach for vertical acceleration. The vertical design
acceleration coefficient (A_{v}) is now calculated using a dedicated Vertical Response
Spectrum.
The vertical spectrum typically has a different shape than the horizontal one. Vertical ground
motions are rich in high frequencies (short periods) due to the transmission of P-waves. The
previous 2/3 rule underestimated vertical forces in stiff, short-period components (like transfer
girders or short columns) and overestimated them in flexible ones. The new spectral shape
corrects this, optimizing material usage while enhancing safety for transfer structures.
6. Building Design Provisions (Part 5)
The migration of building rules to IS 1893 (Part 5) comes with significant technical updates
focused on ensuring ductility and robustness.
6.1 "Elastic Force Reduction Factor" (R)
The term "Response Reduction Factor" has been renamed to "Elastic Force Reduction
Factor" (R). While the values (e.g., R=5 for SMRF, R=3 for OMRF) may remain similar, the
name change is educational. It clarifies that the factor reduces the elastic force. If a building is
designed for 1/5^{th} of the actual elastic earthquake force, it must be able to survive the
remaining energy through inelastic damage (ductility). This reinforces the link between the R
factor and the detailing requirements of IS 13920.
6.2 Prohibition of Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames (OMRF)
In a decisive move to improve the baseline safety of Indian housing, IS 1893:2025 explicitly
prohibits the use of Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames (OMRF) in Seismic Zones IV, V, and
VI.
●​ OMRF Definition: Frames detailed without strict confinement reinforcements, seismic
hooks, or strong-column/weak-beam checks. They are brittle.
●​ SMRF Requirement: All reinforced concrete frames in these zones must be Special
Moment Resisting Frames (SMRF) complying with IS 13920.
●​ Reasoning: Post-earthquake reconnaissance (e.g., Nepal 2015, Bhuj 2001) repeatedly
showed that OMRF structures suffer catastrophic "pancake" collapses due to column
shear failure or joint disintegration. SMRF structures, even if damaged, maintain integrity
through ductile hinging. This ban effectively eliminates "non-engineered" RC construction
in high-hazard zones.
6.3 Masonry and Infill Walls
The code introduces rigorous provisions for masonry, integrating IS 4326 standards.
●​ Zone VI Restriction: Unreinforced masonry may be completely disallowed or heavily
restricted in Zone VI.
●​ Infill Stiffness: The effect of masonry infill walls on the stiffness of the frame is no longer
optional. The "Stiffness Modifier" concept is enforced to account for the "short column
effect" and the actual period of the building. The period formula T_a = 0.09h/\sqrt{d} is
refined to account for the presence of walls, preventing the underestimation of seismic
forces.
7. Architectural Elements and Utilities (AEU)
IS 1893:2025 addresses the "hidden killer" in earthquakes: non-structural elements. Previous
codes focused almost exclusively on the structural skeleton, ignoring facades, glass, ceilings,
and pipes.
7.1 The Hazard of Non-Structural Elements
In modern commercial buildings, non-structural components account for 70-80% of the asset
value. Their failure causes:
1.​ Life Safety Risk: Falling glass, collapsing false ceilings.
2.​ Operational Downtime: Burst pipes or toppled servers rendering a safe building
unusable (e.g., a hospital evacuating due to flooding from broken sprinklers).
7.2 Floor Response Spectra and Design Requirements
The 2025 code mandates the design of connections for Architectural Elements and Utilities
(AEU).
●​ Floor Amplification: The code recognizes that ground motion is amplified as it travels up
the building. An equipment mounted on the roof experiences accelerations significantly
higher than the PGA.
●​ In-Structure Response Spectra (ISRS): Engineers must calculate the ISRS to
determine the specific design force (F_p) for sensitive equipment at different floor levels.
●​ Displacement Checks: Cladding and piping must be designed to accommodate the
relative displacement between floors. If a building drifts 50mm, the glass facade panels
must have connections that allow this movement without shattering.
8. Specific Structure Types: Industrial and
Base-Isolated
8.1 Industrial Structures (Part 4)
Changes in IS 1893 (Part 4) align industrial structures with the new Part 1 hazard map.
●​ Categorization: Industrial structures are categorized similarly to buildings (Normal,
Critical) to assign Return Periods.
●​ Stack-like Structures: Revised spectra for chimneys and stacks account for higher mode
effects which are critical in slender structures.
8.2 Base Isolation (Part 6)
For the first time, India has a dedicated standard for Base Isolated Buildings (Part 6).
●​ Scope: Covers elastomeric and friction pendulum bearings.
●​ Design Philosophy: Mandates a "Dual Design" check. The isolation system is designed
for the MCE (2475 years) to prevent isolator rupture, while the superstructure is kept
elastic at the DBE level.
●​ Significance: This provides a legal and technical pathway for adopting isolation
technology in hospitals and critical government buildings in Zones V and VI, where
fixed-base conventional design might be prohibitively expensive or unsafe.
9. Comparative Data Analysis
The following table synthesizes the critical numerical and procedural shifts.
Table 2: Comparative Analysis of IS 1893 Editions
Parameter
IS 1893:2016
IS 1893:2025
Explanation &
Implication
Hazard Methodology Deterministic (DSHA) Probabilistic (PEHA)
Shifts from "Worst
Observed" to
"Probability of
Exceedance."
Seismic Zones
II, III, IV, V
II, III, IV, V, VI
Zone VI (Z \approx
0.55) introduced for
extreme Himalayan
hazard.
Design Force Input
Z (Zone Factor) \times I Z derived from Return Removes arbitrary I
(Importance)
Period (T_{RP})
factor; explicitly links
design to 475yr, 975yr,
or 2475yr events.
Base Shear (V_B)
Lower in most zones. Significantly Higher Increased Z values and
(up to +150%)
spectral broadening
raise costs but ensure
survival.
Spectrum Range
Up to 6.0 seconds.
Up to 10.0 seconds
Essential for high-rise
and base-isolated
designs.
Vertical Shaking
2/3 of Horizontal.
Spectral Analysis
More accurate for
(S_{av})
transfer girders and
cantilevers.
OMRF Usage
Permitted in Zone III, IV Banned in IV, V, VI.
Forces ductile detailing
(restricted).
(SMRF) in all
moderate-to-high risk
zones.
Load Factor (EQ)
1.5 (DL+EQ) often
1.0 (DL+EQ) (likely)
Corrects safety factor
used.
duplication given the
higher Z input.
Serviceability
Implicit check.
Explicit 73-year Return ensures operational
Period check.
continuity after frequent
tremors.
Non-Structural
Ignored.
AEU Provisions
Mandates restraint of
included.
pipes, ceilings, and
facades.
10. Economic and Professional Implications
The rollout of IS 1893:2025 will have profound ripple effects across the Indian construction
sector.
10.1 Construction Cost Escalation
The shift to PEHA, the introduction of Zone VI, and the ban on OMRF will invariably raise the
structural cost of buildings.
●​ Steel/Concrete: Preliminary studies suggest a base shear increase of over 100% in
certain high-risk scenarios. This translates to roughly 15-25% increase in structural shell
cost.
●​ Engineering: The cost of geotechnical investigations (for V_{s30}) and peer reviews for
complex analysis will add to soft costs.
However, studies in disaster economics suggest that for every $1 spent on seismic resilience,
$4 to $7 are saved in post-disaster recovery. The "cost" is an investment in national asset
security.
10.2 The End of "Thumb Rule" Engineering
The complexity of the 2025 code—with its Return Period matrices, spectral extensions, and
AEU designs—makes it impossible to design buildings using simple "thumb rules" or manual
calculations.
●​ Software Dependence: Reliance on sophisticated software (ETABS, SAP2000) will
increase.
●​ Skill Gap: There is a significant risk that the "average" engineer in Tier 2/3 cities may
struggle to interpret the PEHA requirements correctly. Extensive training and "simplified"
guidebooks (like the IITK-GSDMA guidelines) will be crucial for effective implementation.
10.3 Legal Liability
With explicit performance objectives (e.g., "The hospital must remain operational after a
475-year event"), the legal liability for engineers increases. If a hospital becomes non-functional
due to non-structural failure (e.g., ceiling collapse) in a moderate quake, the engineer can be
held accountable for violating the specific AEU provisions of IS 1893 (Part 5): 2025.
11. Conclusion
IS 1893:2025 is not merely a revision; it is a maturation of the Indian earthquake engineering
practice. By decoupling the hazard definition from building provisions, adopting a probabilistic
framework, and recognizing the extreme hazard of the Himalayas through Zone VI, the Bureau
of Indian Standards has aligned the code with the physical reality of the subcontinent's
tectonics.
Why were these changes made?
1.​ Scientific Accuracy: DSHA was scientifically obsolete. PEHA reflects the true
distribution of risk.
2.​ Public Safety: The previous code underestimated forces in the Himalayas (Zone VI) and
allowed brittle structures (OMRF) in high-risk areas. The new code closes these deadly
loopholes.
3.​ Resilience: The focus on Serviceability and AEUs shifts the goalpost from "preventing
death" to "ensuring functionality," which is critical for a growing economy.
For the practicing engineer, the transition will be arduous, requiring a relearning of fundamental
hazard concepts. Yet, the outcome will be a built environment that is stronger, more ductile, and
capable of withstanding the inevitable seismic challenges of the future.
Works cited
1. Earthquake zones of India - Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_zones_of_India 2. Comprehensive Analysis of
Modifications in the Draft Code IS1893 (WC) 2023 for RC Buildings - ResearchGate,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380909534_Comprehensive_Analysis_of_Modification
s_in_the_Draft_Code_IS1893_WC_2023_for_RC_Buildings 3. IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2016 CracIndia, https://www.cracindia.in/admin/uploads/IS-1893---part-1.pdf 4. Comparative Study of
Old Earthquake IS Codes (IS:1893-2002, IS:1893-2016) & Draft Code (IS:1893-2023) Using
Multi-Storey RCC Building Analysis - ResearchGate,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/397130811_Comparative_Study_of_Old_Earthquake_I
S_Codes_IS1893-2002_IS1893-2016_Draft_Code_IS1893-2023_Using_Multi-Storey_RCC_Bui
lding_Analysis 5. Session 60: Discussion on DRAFT IS 1893 (Part 1 & 2) - SQVe Consultants,
https://sqveconsultants.com/2023/05/02/session-60-discussion-on-draft-is-1893-part-1-2/ 6. IS
1893 (Part 5) 2025 | PDF | Beam (Structure) | Earthquake Engineering - Scribd,
https://www.scribd.com/document/951857635/IS-1893-Part-5-2025 7. Seismic calculation as per
IS 1893 2025 - Scribd,
https://www.scribd.com/document/955731875/Seismic-calculation-as-per-IS-1893-2025 8.
Criteria For Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures: Indian Standard | PDF - Scribd,
https://www.scribd.com/document/877650595/1893-4-2024 9. Is 1893 Part 6 Draft | PDF |
Structural Load | Stress (Mechanics) - Scribd,
https://www.scribd.com/document/885795254/Is-1893-Part-6-Draft 10. Comprehensive Analysis
of Modifications in the Draft Code IS1893 (WC) 2023 for RC Buildings - IRJET,
https://www.irjet.net/archives/V11/i5/IRJET-V11I595.pdf 11. IS 1893 (Part 1) | PDF | Earthquakes
| Mechanical Engineering - Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/930692967/IS-1893-Part-1
12. Explanatory Examples on Indian Seismic Code IS 1893 (Part I) - IIT Kanpur,
https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/IITK-GSDMA/EQ21.pdf 13. IS 1893-2025 (Part1) | PDF | Earthquake
Engineering - Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/941019999/IS-1893-2025-Part1 14.
Draft Earthquake Zone Map of India | PDF - Scribd,
https://www.scribd.com/document/806473815/Draft-Earthquake-Zone-Map-of-India 15.
Influence of peak ground velocity on performance of RC buildings designed for revised
earthquake hazard of India - Indian Academy of Sciences,
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/sadh/050/0140 16. Impact of Draft IS 1893-2023 Code
Provisions on Building Design - ResearchGate,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377019120_Impact_of_Draft_IS_1893-2023_Code_Pr
ovisions_on_Building_Design 17. Global Seismic Guidelines - UNESCO DataHub,
https://data.unesco.org/explore/dataset/capacity_building_test/table/ 18. 475 years of uniform
hazard spectra obtained for major cities in... - ResearchGate,
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/475years-of-uniform-hazard-spectra-obtained-for-major-citie
s-in-different-seismic-zones_fig2_322554025 19. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,
https://backend.delhimetrorail.com/documents/9637/Addendum-8_D2C-06.pdf 20.
Characterisation of design spectra for vertical ground motion - ResearchGate,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344043905_Characterisation_of_design_spectra_for_
vertical_ground_motion 21. Understanding the Response Reduction Factor (R) in IS 1893: A
Key to Earthquake Resilience - civilera,
https://www.civilera.com/post/earthquake-load-is-1893-response-reduction-factor 22.
EQ-STR-005 - SQVe Consultants, https://sqveconsultants.com/eq-str-005/ 23. Ductility and
R-Values: Why SMRF Scores Higher Than OMRF - Engineer Latest,
https://engineerlatest.com/ductility-and-r-values-why-smrf-scores-higher-than-omrf/ 24. ISET
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE TECHNOLOGY CONTENTS Financial Assistance from AICTE
and DST, New Delhi for the Publication of ISET Jo,
https://iset.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/March_2009_Issue.pdf 25. Seismic Analysis
Parameters IS 1893 (Part 1):2016 - Autodesk Help,
https://help.autodesk.com/view/RSAPRO/2026/ENU/?guid=GUID-1DFE3234-1AF0-4A7D-8744C91C323C827E 26. A Critical Review and Comparative Study of IS 1893 2016 and IS 1893
2023 (Part 1 and 2) with Practical Applications in Seismic Design - IJIRT,
https://ijirt.org/Article?manuscript=165930 27. IS 1893 (Part 4) - SQVe Consultants,
https://sqveconsultants.com/2025/03/25/is-1893-part-4/