Seismic Zone VI, in IS 1893 (Part 1): 2025 — A Critical Review and Design Implications

The publication of IS 1893 (Part 1): 2025 represents a significant update to Indian seismic design practices, formally recognizing Seismic Zone VI as the highest hazard category. With a zone factor of Z = 0.75, this new zone substantially increases the reference design seismic demand beyond the previous maximum of Zone V. This change requires designers to consider not just higher force levels, but also more fundamental aspects of safety, such as system integrity, redundancy, ductile response, and reliable load transfer mechanisms.

This paper critically reviews the code evolution leading to Zone VI and examines its design rationale and implications. It demonstrates the practical impact through a numerical comparison of a typical mid-rise reinforced-concrete building designed for both Zone V and Zone VI conditions. The study synthesizes the main structural consequences for configuration control, torsional behaviour, soft-storey vulnerability, diaphragm and collector design, and foundation-soil interaction. It consolidates these findings into a practical checklist for senior designers. The paper concludes by highlighting a shift from implicit life-safety goals to explicit collapse-prevention objectives and outlines directions for future research and practice.

IS 1893:2025, Zone VI, seismic zonation, earthquake-resistant design, zone factor, response spectrum, dynamic analysis, ductility, redundancy

1. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) (2025). IS 1893 (Part 1): 2025 – Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures: General Provisions and Buildings. New Delhi, India. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) (2016). IS 13920: 2016 – Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces. New Delhi, India. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) (2000; reaffirmed). IS 456: 2000 – Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice. New Delhi, India. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. NICEE, IIT Kanpur. Earthquake Resistant Design Concepts and Indian Seismic Codes. Kanpur, India. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Chopra, A.K. (2017). Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. 5th Edition, Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Jain, S.K., Murty, C.V.R., and Arlekar, J.N. (2001). Lessons Learnt from the Bhuj Earthquake of January 26, 2001. IIT Kanpur. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. FEMA 356 (2000). Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, USA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. ASCE/SEI 7-22 (2022). Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, USA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Boore, D.M. and Atkinson, G.M. (2008). Ground-motion prediction equations for PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA. Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), 99–138. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Post-earthquake reconnaissance reports and technical summaries associated with the Sikkim (2011) and Nepal (2015) earthquakes, as used in comparative interpretation of damage patterns and design implications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Students' Perception Towards Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education in India
• Strategic Leadership and Cybersecurity Readiness in Digitally Transforming Organisations
• Spatial Distribution of Tourism Infrastructure in Awka, Onitsha and Nnewi Urban Areas of Anambra State.
• Emerging Technologies, Education and Skill Development for A Sustainable Blue Economy in Nigeria.
• Quantum Dot–Based Solar Cells: Advancements, Challenges, and Future Prospects