Working on Human Nature Case Study: The Backlash of IS 1893:2025
With all the buzz moving around — PSHA, seismic demand, high-rise buildings, seismologists, earthquake academicians, practising engineers — what do you think actually happened with IS 1893:2025? The code went through wide circulation for approval. The practising community read it, sat with it, and filed it away. And then, when it was formally implemented — when the numbers were actually worked into real project budgets — something shifted. The allocated funds did not fit. The cost implications hit hard. And the community backlashed — not against the logic of the code, but against the code itself. This is a very human thing to do. And it is worth pausing to understand why. The code was presented in a fragmented format. The seismological science arrived in one corner. The structural implication sat in another. The practising engineer — who is fundamentally an executor, not a codifier — was handed a document and expected to absorb, trust, and imple...