The evolution of steel construction in India has brought to light several challenges associated with the current code provisions, particularly IS 800. While the code serves as a foundational guideline, certain areas remain open to interpretation, leading to inconsistencies in design practices. For instance, ambiguities in advanced connection design or composite construction often leave engineers navigating gaps without specific guidance. These uncertainties not only delay project timelines but can also escalate costs and compromise structural integrity.
Moreover, the code has yet to fully integrate emerging trends like the use of high-strength steel, modular construction, and performance-based design approaches, which are rapidly reshaping the industry. As the sector moves towards sustainability and resilience, incorporating practices like green steel and climate-adaptive designs, it is imperative that code provisions are revised to keep pace with technological advancements.
Experts discuss the need for frequent updates, industry collaboration, and streamlined processes to modernise India’s steel construction codes and support innovation.
The grey areas
The steel construction industry in India is facing multiple challenges due to inconsistencies and ambiguities in the current codes and standards. These issues are particularly evident when different codes provide conflicting guidelines. Amit Shah, Director, DCS Consultants, highlights the complexity of this situation, noting that while some codes may offer one solution, others may contradict it entirely. “There are quite a few such areas where ambiguity exists, and we need more clarity, better understanding, or perhaps revisions. Corrections are needed in many, many areas. It’s not possible to pinpoint just two or three specific points. There are numerous areas that require attention.”
One area that stands out in this context is the design and construction of Pre-Engineered Buildings (PEBs), which are becoming increasingly prevalent due to the rapid growth of India’s industrial sector. Since IS 800 serves as a general code for all steel structures, it lacks specific guidelines tailored for PEB structures. Abhijit Antarkar, Director, Antarkar Consultants Pvt Ltd points out, “As a result, most PEB designs rely on the guidelines provided by the Metal Building Manufacturers Association (MBMA). With the country’s industrial sector expanding rapidly, the number of industrial and warehouse buildings is set to grow each year. Therefore, it is imperative to develop Indian standard guidelines similar to MBMA to address this emerging need effectively.”
He believes the seismic guidelines for such structures require further refinement. Adhering to Indian code seismic recommendations for lightweight industrial and warehouse structures often results in significantly higher costs due to heavier designs, even in cases where seismic forces do not govern the structural requirements. He adds, “To address this, we could draw references from the AISC seismic codes to enhance our standards, particularly for PEB structures. This approach would ensure cost-effective designs while maintaining compliance with seismic safety requirements.”
Additionally, Utsav Shah, Director, Ducon Consultants identifies a major gap in the current IS 800 provisions, particularly in the area of fireproofing. Questions remain unanswered, such as:
– What exactly constitutes a 2-hour or 4-hour fire rating?
– How are these ratings validated at specific temperatures?
– Does the same fireproofing standard apply equally to Composite Filled Steel Tubes (CFSTs) and non-CFST columns?
CFSTs, for example, inherently exhibit different behaviours during fires due to the heat sink effect of the infilled concrete. Yet, identical thicknesses of intumescent paint are often recommended for both CFSTs and open-web sections. He stresses the need for more research-backed validation of fireproofing standards, as international codes like the Eurocodes have addressed these aspects with more detail. Indian standards, however, still lag behind in this respect and need to catch up.
Composite systems, such as deck slabs and beams, also face similar challenges. Limited guidance in IS 800 forces most Indian consultants to depend on international standards like AISC 360. Developing more robust Indian standards would reduce reliance on global codes, ensuring consistency and compliance with local regulations.
Future Ready
Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive overhaul of the existing codes to enhance clarity, provide detailed provisions, and incorporate global best practices. Amit Shah underscores the challenge posed by the multiplicity of codes such as IS 800, IS 1893, IS 1893 Part 1, IS 1893 Part 2, and the newer IS 18168. “There are several codes, each providing different provisions and posing various challenges. Ideally, we should be following the latest one, and everyone should know what the latest code is or what needs to be followed. However, people often rely on incorrect or outdated information, which creates trouble during the design stages. This is a recurring issue we are facing today.”
Seismic safety is another critical area where Indian codes need to evolve. Emerging technologies like seismic brakes and dampers are gaining traction, especially for steel structures in high seismic zones. These technologies, widely adopted in regions like California, New Zealand, Japan, and Turkey, play a critical role in mitigating seismic risks. Although the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) has published a draft code for base isolation, it is essential to incorporate provisions for seismic brakes and dampers into both steel and seismic design codes.
As more steel structures are constructed in India, particularly in seismic zones, these technologies will become indispensable. Utsav Shah adds, “However, engineers currently rely on international codes due to the absence of relevant provisions in Indian standards. A thorough review and integration of these advancements are crucial for aligning Indian codes with global best practices.”
Composite structures are becoming a mainstay in India’s construction landscape, particularly for multi-story data centres, commercial complexes, and institutional buildings. Antarkar states, “I believe there is significant scope for further enhancement of code provisions related to the design of composite members to better align with evolving construction practices and industry needs.”
He adds, “Fireproofing of steel structures requires further research and development to enhance its effectiveness and optimise costs. Advancements in this area are crucial to ensure the fire safety of all steel buildings while making fireproofing solutions more practical and economical for widespread adoption.”
A Call for Change
One of the key challenges is the infrequent updates to Indian codes. Antarkar, highlights this issue, pointing out that codes like IS 800, last revised in 2007, have not been updated despite the significant growth in steel usage over the years. “Unlike American codes, which are revised every five to six years, Indian codes lag far behind. Designers often rely on international standards for guidance,” he explains. Antarkar stresses that more frequent revisions, coupled with the involvement of industry professionals during the drafting process, can make the codes more practical and aligned with real-world challenges.
Amit Shah offers solutions to make the revision process more efficient. He suggests creating an industry portal where practitioners can submit feedback, seek clarifications, and propose revisions. This centralised platform would provide a direct channel for industry input, enabling codes to be more responsive to the needs of professionals.
He also advocates for consolidating specific information within a single code to streamline the revision process. “Currently, updating one standard often necessitates revising multiple others, which delays the incorporation of necessary changes. Consolidating related provisions into one code could make revisions more efficient,” he explains.
India’s growing reliance on steel in critical infrastructure projects, such as data centres, airports, and railway stations, highlights the need for codes to evolve rapidly. Utsav Shah says, “While steel offers significant advantages, including quality control and labour efficiency, innovation in the sector often faces resistance, particularly in government projects, due to the lack of support for new technologies like seismic dampers.”
To improve the revision process, he suggests three key strategies.
Transparency and Engagement: The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) should increase visibility into how recommendations are assessed and implemented. Proactive engagement with local chapters of engineering associations could ensure better participation from practitioners across the country.
Socio-Economic Considerations: Updates must balance technological advancement with affordability, considering India’s status as an emerging economy. Public consultations, akin to international practices, can provide valuable insights into these socio-economic aspects.
Continuous Collaboration: Partnerships with industry experts, consultants, and research institutions can foster an iterative approach, ensuring codes remain relevant and responsive to industry needs.
While academics play a significant role in the development of Indian standards, the representation of industry professionals remains limited. Amit Shah believes this imbalance needs to be addressed to accelerate progress. “It’s not just about involvement—it’s about increasing the level of engagement to match the demand for updates,” he notes. A more inclusive approach, incorporating both academic and practical perspectives, can ensure that codes are not only technically robust but also grounded in real-world applicability.
An efficient and collaborative revision process, involving academia, industry, and regulatory bodies, is essential to bridge these gaps and foster innovation while ensuring safety and best practices in steel construction.
Quote
“Currently, updating one standard often necessitates revising multiple others, which delays the incorporation of necessary changes.”
– Amit Shah, Director, DCS Consultants
“Fireproofing of steel structures requires further research and development to enhance its effectiveness and optimise costs.”
– Abhijit Antarkar, Director, Antarkar Consultants Pvt Ltd
“Engineers currently rely on international codes due to the absence of relevant provisions in Indian standards.”
– Utsav Shah, Director, Ducon Consultants
