Multidisciplinary International Research Journal of Gujarat Technological University ISSN: 2581-8880

A COMPARATIVE REVIEW ON DESIGN WIND LOAD AS PER IS 875

PART III 1987 AND IS 875 PART III 2015
Sujith Velloor Sudarsanakumar Nair
Sankalchand Patel College of Engineering, Visnagar

ABSTRACT

The various stakeholders like professional, researcher, engineers, etc… use IS 875 (Part III)
Design load (other than earthquake load) for Wind analysis on various structures. The various codal
provisions are given for analytical and design purpose for different structures. Based on experience and
research the codes are been revised. According to IS 875 P.3 2015 the various parameters are added and
revised. This paper present a comparative evaluation of various parameters recommended in IS 875 P.3
1987 edition and 2015 edition.

KEYWORDS: Wind Speed, Wind Pressure, Gust factor, Wind Force, Interference Factor

1. INTRODUCTION

Wind is a large scale lateral movement of air from a high pressure range to low pressure range. The
studies of wind at various meteorological observations by anemometer are useful for engineering purpose.
Nature of wind speed increases with the height of building or structures. Also, the wind speed at different
height does not remains constant. As per new code IS 875 P.3 2015 parameter considering high rise
building or tall structures are also considered.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
S. Kumar et. al. (2017) 32 storied RCC building of 96m high in cyclonic region has been taken for wind
load analysis. They concluded that static pressure on coastal area is more as per revised code. Design
wind pressure decrease with increase in tributary area of the structure. As per revised code the dynamic
analysis gives design for along wind as well as cross-wind forces.

Dr. S.V. Joshi & S. Kawale (2017) calculated the wind load with gust factor and compared using IS code
IS: 875 – (P.3) – 1987 and IS: 875 – (P.3) – 2015 for zone III with terrain category III in STAAD Pro.
They had concluded that gust factor and pressure increases using revised code, Increase in the value of
bending moment for the model using revised code and maximum deflection of 192mm are see in model
using revised code.

Prakash Channappagoudar et. al. (2018) studied the performance of high rise building and concluded that
lateral forces for dynamic analysis along x and z direction has reduced in code IS: 875 - (P.3) - 2015
when compared to earlier code, Displacement is reduced in model of IS: 875 - (P.3) - 2015 as
lateral force reduces, Time period increases as there is increase in height for 27 floors and 39 floors
acceleration is also reduced by modeling with new code and base reaction in two directions as per new
code reduction is seen in the results.

VOLUME 4 ISSUE 1 JANUARY 2022 35

Multidisciplinary International Research Journal of Gujarat Technological University ISSN: 2581-8880

H M Sreenidhi et. al. (2019) studied G+17 building for wind analysis and concluded that Gust factor,
Lateral forces, Intensity, Displacement and Storey Drift at the top most storey has increased for IS: 875
(P.3) edition 2015 as compared to edition 1987.

3. OBJECTIVE
1. To review the codal provision clause in IS 875 P.3 1987 edition and 2015 edition.
2. To understand the difference in edition 1987 and edition 2015 code in a quick and simpler way.
3. To study the parameters with modeling a G+10 building using staad pro.

4. METHODOLOGY
The present study focus on the revised clauses for wind load calculation according to IS 875 P.3 2015
edition
1. Check for static method and dynamic method using clause 9.1 of IS: 875 P.3 2015
(a) Closed structure buildings with a height to minimum lateral dimension ratio are as
follows:
Table: 1 Height to minimum lateral dimension ratio

static <5
dynamic >5

(b) Natural frequency for a Structural Building in the 1st mode are as follows:
Table: 2 Natural Frequency in the 1st mode

static > 1.0 Hz

dynamic < 1.0 Hz
2. Design Wind Speed (V z).
3. Design Wind Pressure (P z).
4. Design Wind Load (F)

5. DETAIL OF PRESENT STUDY

5.1 Comparison of important parameter IS 875 (Part III) in edition 1987 and edition 2015

Table: 3 Comparisons of Different Parameters

Sr. Parameter IS 875 (Part III) 1987 IS 875 (Part III) 2015
No
1 The design Vz = Vb k1 k2 k3 Vz = Vb k1 k2 k3 k4
wind speed
(Vz) k1 risk factor k1 risk factor [based on clause 6.3.1]
k2 size factor k2 size factor [based on clause 6.3.2]
k3 topography factor k3 topography factor [based on clause
Vb basic wind speed at any height 6.3.3]
(m/s) k4 importance factor for the cyclonic
region [based on clause 6.3.4]
Vb basic wind speed at any height (m/s)

Values of importance factor for the

cyclonic region are given below:

VOLUME 4 ISSUE 1 JANUARY 2022 36

Multidisciplinary International Research Journal of Gujarat Technological University ISSN: 2581-8880

[Emergency services structures k4 = 1.30]

[Industrial structures k4 = 1.15]
[Other structures k4 = 1.00]
𝟏 𝟏
2 Probability 𝐗𝐍 , 𝐏 𝐀−𝐁 [𝐥𝐧{ −
𝐍
𝐥𝐧 (𝟏−𝐏𝐍 )}] 𝐗𝐍 , 𝐏 𝐀−𝐁 [𝐥𝐧{ −
𝐍
𝐥𝐧 (𝟏−𝐏𝐍 )}]
factor k1 k1 = 𝐗 = k1 = 𝐗 =
𝟓𝟎 , 𝟎.𝟔𝟑 𝐀+𝟒𝐁 𝟓𝟎 , 𝟎.𝟔𝟑 𝐀+𝟒𝐁
(risk
coefficient) N Expected Average design life of the N Expected Average design life of the
structure (in Year) structure (in Year)
PN risk level (in N year consecutive) PN risk level (in N year consecutive)
X N , P wind speed at extreme for X N , P wind speed at extreme for
N and PN N and PN
X 50 , 0.63 wind speed at extreme for X 50 , 0.63 wind speed at extreme for
N 50 year and PN 0.63 N 50 year and PN 0.63
Basic wind speed for A & B at Basic wind speed for A & B at
different zone are as follows different zone are as follows

Zone A B Zone A (m/s) B (m/s)

(kmph) (kmph)
33 m/s 33.2 9.2 33 m/s 23.1 2.6
39 m/s 23.3 3.9
39 m/s 84.0 14.0
44 m/s 24.4 5.0
44 m/s 88.0 18.0
47 m/s 24.4 5.7
47 m/s 88.0 20.5
50 m/s 24.7 6.3
50 m/s 88.8 22.8
55 m/s 25.2 7.6
55 m/s 90.8 27.3

3 Terrain, Factor changes with height of Factor changes with height of structure and
height and structure and terrain category (1, 2, 3 terrain category (1, 2, 3 and 4)
structure and 4) and also Class of structure
size factor (Class A, Class B or Class C)
k2

4 Hourly --- Not considered --- Ṽ𝐙,𝐇 = ҟ𝟐,𝐢 𝐕𝐛

Mean Wind
speed ҟ𝐳,𝐢 hourly mean wind speed
factor for terrain category 1
𝐳
ҟ𝐳,𝐢 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟒𝟐𝟑 [𝐥𝐧 ( )](𝐳𝐨 𝐢 )𝟎.𝟎𝟕𝟎𝟔
𝐳𝐨 𝐢
Design hourly mean wind speed at height
z
Ṽ𝐙,𝐝 = ҟ𝟐,𝐢 𝑽𝒃 𝐤𝟏 𝐤𝟑 𝐤𝟒

VOLUME 4 ISSUE 1 JANUARY 2022 37

Multidisciplinary International Research Journal of Gujarat Technological University ISSN: 2581-8880

5 Turbulence --- Not considered --- The turbulence intensity variation with
intensity height for different terrain category.

Terrain Category 1
𝐳
𝐈𝐳,𝟏 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟓𝟎𝟕 − 𝟎. 𝟎𝟓𝟑𝟓 𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝟏𝟎 ( )
𝐳𝐨 𝟏
Terrain Category 2
𝟏
𝐈𝐳,𝟐 = 𝐈𝐳,𝟏 + (𝐈𝐳,𝟒 − 𝐈𝐳,𝟏 )
𝟕
Terrain Category 3
𝟑
𝐈𝐳,𝟑 = 𝐈𝐳,𝟏 + (𝐈𝐳,𝟒 − 𝐈𝐳,𝟏 )
𝟕
Terrain Category 4
𝐳
𝐈𝐳,𝟒 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟔𝟔 − 𝟎. 𝟏𝟑𝟓𝟖 𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝟏𝟎 ( )
𝐳𝐨 𝟒

6 The design Pz = 0.6 (Vz)2 The basic wind pressure

wind Vz design wind velocity at height m/s Pz = 0.6 (Vz)2
pressure Vz design wind velocity at height m/s
(Pz)
The design wind pressure
P z = Kd Ka Kc P z

Kd wind directionally factor [based on

clause 7.2.1]
Ka area averaging factor [based on clause
7.2.2]
Kc combination factor [based on clause
7.2.3]
Pz basic wind pressure

7 The total F = Cf Ae Pz F = Cf Ae Pz
wind force
(F) Cf force coefficient depends upon Cf force coefficient depends upon shape of
shape of element plan size and wind element plan size and wind direction
direction Ae effective frontal area
Ae effective frontal area Pz design wind pressure
Pz design wind pressure
Wind load
Wind load F = Cf Ae Pz G
F = Cf Ae Pz G G gust factor
G gust factor
M = ∑F Z
M Bending Moment along wind base

VOLUME 4 ISSUE 1 JANUARY 2022 38

Multidisciplinary International Research Journal of Gujarat Technological University ISSN: 2581-8880

8 Wind load F = (𝐂𝐩𝐞 ± 𝐂𝐩𝐢 )𝐀 𝐏𝐝 F = (𝐂𝐩𝐞 ± 𝐂𝐩𝐢 )𝐀 𝐏𝐝

on
individual Cpe coefficient of external pressure Cpe coefficient of external pressure[base
member (F) Cpi coefficient of internal pressure d on Table: 5(values are modified)]
A Structural element surface area Cpi coefficient of internal pressure[base
Pd wind pressure design d on clause 7.3.2]
A Structural element surface area
Pd wind pressure design

9 Wind --- Not considered --- Interference effect studied on tall structure
Interferenc is considered by multiplying (IF) with
e Factor wind load
(IF)
Zone Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4
IF 1.35 1.25 1.15 1.07

10 Dynamic G=1+gf 𝟏+𝐫 𝟐 𝐁𝐬 ( 𝟏+𝐠𝟐 )+𝐇𝐬 𝐠𝐑𝟐 𝐒 𝐄

wind G= √𝐠𝐯
r√[𝑩 (𝟏 + ɸ )𝟐 + 𝑺𝑬/ ᵝ ᵝ
response
Gust factor g f peak factor r roughness factor [2 times turbulence
(G) r roughness factor [size of structure & intensity]
roughness ground] gv peak factor = 3 terrain 1 & 2
B background factor = 4 terrain 3 & 4
S reduction size factor Bs background factor [based on clause
E Wind stream energy at a natural 10.2]
frequency of the structure Hs Height factor (resonance response)
ɸ building height less than 75m (in [based on clause 10.2]
terrain IV) and 25m (in terrain III) gR Peak factor (resonance response)
ɸ = 0 (Other than above feature [based on clause 10.2]
structure) S size reduction factor [based on clause
ᵝ damping coefficient of structure 10.2]
E spectrum of turbulence [based on clause
10.2]
ᵝ damping coefficient of structure
[based on Table: 36 clause 10.2]

11 Frequency 𝑺 𝑽𝒅 𝑺𝒕 Ṽ𝒛𝑯
η= 𝒃
fa =
of vortex 𝒃
(slender
S Strouhal No. S Strouhal No. [based on clause 9.2.1]
structure)
Vd wind velocity design ṼzH Mean hourly wind speed
b breadth of the structure b breadth of the structure

VOLUME 4 ISSUE 1 JANUARY 2022 39

Multidisciplinary International Research Journal of Gujarat Technological University ISSN: 2581-8880

5.2 DETAIL OF STRUCTURE

Multi-storey Building: G+10

Location: Mumbai

Plan Area: 16m x 18m

Height of Building: 30m

Beam Size: 350 mm x 350 mm

Column Size: 450 mm x 450 mm

Slab Thickness: 150mm

Figure: 1 Plan of building Figure: 2 Elevation of building Figure: 3 3D Structure

5.3 LOADING CONDITIONS

Table: 4 Dead load calculation as per IS 875 (P.3)

Self-weight of Beams and as per Staad Pro
Columns
Self-weight of Slab 3.75 kN/m2
Floor Finish 1.00 kN/m2

VOLUME 4 ISSUE 1 JANUARY 2022 40

Multidisciplinary International Research Journal of Gujarat Technological University ISSN: 2581-8880

Table: 5 Live load calculation as per IS 875 (P.3)

Live load on floors 3.00 kN/m2

Table: 6 Wind load calculation as per IS 875 (P.3)

6. RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Maximum Displacement
Displacement is reduced as per revised code 2015 edition compared with old code 1987 edition.
Table: 7 Comparisons of maximum displacements
X Direction Z Direction
Code
(mm) (mm)
IS 875 (Part III) 1987 45.661 33.615

IS 875 (Part III) 2015 28.089 20.662

VOLUME 4 ISSUE 1 JANUARY 2022 41

Multidisciplinary International Research Journal of Gujarat Technological University ISSN: 2581-8880

Base Reactions
Reactions are reduced as per revised code 2015 edition compared with old code 1987 edition.
Table: 8 Comparisons of Base Reaction

Code Fx (kN) Fy (kN) Fz (kN)

IS 875 (Part III) 1987 67.261 968.517 44.422

IS 875 (Part III) 2015 42.306 1068.037 28.438

Maximum Moment
Moment is reduced as per revised code 2015 edition compared with old code 1987 edition.
Table: 9 Comparisons of Maximum moment

Code Mx (kNm) My (kNm) Mz (kNm)

IS 875 (Part III) 1987 93.106 0.029 134.526

IS 875 (Part III) 2015 58.557 0.017 83.941

Wind Force
Wind force on individual member is reduced as per revised code 2015 edition compared with old code
1987 edition.
Table: 10 Comparisons of Wind force on individual members
X Direction Z Direction
Code (kN) (kN)
IS 875 (Part III) 1987 4.9945 1.3114

IS 875 (Part III) 2015 3.2364 0.8076

Wind Intensity
Wind intensity is reduced as per revised code 2015 edition compared with old code 1987 edition.
Table: 11 Comparisons of Wind intensity.
Intensity (kN/m2)
Code
IS 875 (Part III) 1987 1.5362

IS 875 (Part III) 2015 0.9434

VOLUME 4 ISSUE 1 JANUARY 2022 42

Multidisciplinary International Research Journal of Gujarat Technological University ISSN: 2581-8880

7. CONCLUSION
1. As per revised code, modification factor for cyclonic region (K4) is added to design wind speed
which improves behaviour of sea shore structures.
2. As per new code, Wind directionality factor for different structures, area averaging factor for load
calculation and Combination factor combining external and internal pressure on roof and wall are
added to design wind pressure.
3. The newly recommended code has interference factor for considering nearby existing building of
similar size.
4. The new code has good analytical results for dynamic structures providing different parameters,
roughness, height, peak factors etc.
5. Expressions for variation in height of mean hourly wind speed and turbulence intensity in any
terrains have been suggested in new code.
6. The revised code will provide higher safety to the structures for static and dynamic analysis.

REFERENCES
1. IS: 875 (P.3) :1987 Practice Code for wind load design
2. IS: 875 (P.3) :2015 Practice Code for wind load design
3. Surendra Kumar, Mr. Shree Prakash, Mr. Mirza Aamir Baig (2017) “A Comparative Analysis of Multi-
Storeyed RCC Structures Considering Cyclonic Factor” International Journal of Engineering Science and
Computing, Volume : 7, Issue : 08, ISSN : 2321 - 061
4. Saurabh Kawale, Dr. S.V. Joshi (2017) “Analysis of High Rise Building for Wind Load” International
Journal for Scientific Research & Development Volume : 5, Issue : 03, ISSN : 2321 - 0613
5. Prakash Channappagoudar, Vineetha Palankar, R. Shanthi Vengadeshwari, Rakesh Hiremath (2018) “
Parametric comparison study on performance of the building under lateral loads as per IS: 875 P.3 1987
and revised code of IS: 875 P.3 2015” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology
Volume : 05 Issue : 05 ISSN : 2395-0056
6. Sreenidhi H M, Shivaraju G D, Dr. T V Mallesh, S R Ramesh (2019) “Comparison of IS-875 (P.3) 1987 &
2015 for Wind Analysis for the high rise building using ETabs” International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology Volume : 06 Issue : 08 ISSN : 2395-0056

VOLUME 4 ISSUE 1 JANUARY 2022 43