8/18/2019 PaperCI56

1/5

 

Review on Comparative Study on Analysis and

Design of Multistoried Structure using DifferentCodes 

Surabhi A. B ambal *P.G. ScholarPRMIT&R, Badnera, Amravati, Maharashtra, India surabhibambal@yahoo.co.in 

M.A. Banarase   Asst.Professor,

PRMIT&R, Badnera, Amravati, Maharashtra, India  

mabanarase@mitra.ac.in

Abstract- The structure is designed with sufficient strength to behave elastically duringearthquake. Seismic design of multi storied RC building is to withstand the ground motion causedduring the earthquake. In order to design an earthquake resistant structure an Engineer must

have a good knowledge about various seismic design codes.

In this paper literatures of various researches were studied. Those papers give moreinformation about the static and dynamic analysis done on various types of structures usingvarious codes. The use of software in seismic analysis will reduce the time consumption anderrors in analysis and design of the structure. The researchers used various country codes toevaluate the seismic performance of the structure. The parameters such as displacement, baseshear, storey drift, time period, axial and shear force bending moment were studied. This workaims at the comparison of various provisions for earthquake analysis as given in building codesof Indian Code, American code, European code, New Zealand code is carried out by Responsespectrum analysis and modeled with the help of ETAB2015 software.

Keyw ord- Base Shear, Storey Dri ft , Time Period, Displacement, Seism ic An alysis, Sti f fness .

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

arthquakes, Tsunamis, Landslides, Floods andFires are natural calamities, causing severe

damage and sufferings of persons by collapsingthe structures, cutting off transport systems, killingor trapping persons, animals etc. Such naturaldisasters are challenges to the progress ofdevelopment. However, civil engineers asdesigners have a major role to play in minimizingthe damages by properly designing the structuresor taking other useful decisions. This includesunderstanding the effects of earthquakes, the

behavior of the materials of construction andstructures and the extent to which structuralengineers make use of the knowledge in takingproper decisions in designing the structures madeof reinforced concrete.

Earthquake resistant structures are capableof resisting lateral and vertical forces acting on thestructures. But no structures can entirely surviveduring earthquake without any damages.

 According to the codes, earthquake resistantstructures are designed to withstand expectedearthquake at least to occur once during thedesign life of the structure.

The structure is designed with sufficientstrength to behave elastically during earthquake.Seismic design of multi storied RC building is towithstand the ground motion caused during theearthquake. In order to design an earthquakeresistant structure an Engineer must have a goodknowledge about various seismic design codes.The use of software’s in seismic analysis will

reduce the time consumption and errors inanalysis and design of the structure.

Reinforced concrete buildings are analyzedand designed to meet the requirements of relevantcodes of practice. Such buildings designed as percode provision will survive during an earthquakewith minor damages of structural elements. Manyof the countries have their own codes of practice

E

* Corresponding Author

8/18/2019 PaperCI56

2/5

 

for Earthquake Resistant structures. The buildingsare designed and detailed as per codes.

Seismic codes are unique to a particularregion or country. They take into account the localseismology, accepted level of seismic risk,building typologies, and materials and methods

used in construction. Further, they are indicative ofthe level of progress a country has made in thefield of earthquake engineering. Different nationalcodes vary significantly on account of variousspecifications which govern the design force level.The response reduction factor, as considered inthe design codes, depends on the ductility andover strength of the structure. Building codesdefine different ductility classes and specifycorresponding response reduction factors basedon the structural material, configuration anddetailing. Another important issue, which governsthe design and expected seismic performance of a

building, is control of the drift. Drift is recognizedas an important control parameter by all thecodes; however, they differ regarding the effectivestiffness of RC members. Further, the proceduresto estimate drift and the allowable limits on driftalso vary considerably.

Different codes differ not only with respect tothe design base shear but also employ differentload and material factors (or strength reductionfactors) for the design of members, and hence, theactually provided strength in different codes doesnot follow the same pattern as the design baseshear. This has a direct effect on the expected

performance of buildings designed using differentcodes. Further, the other provisions of the codesalso indirectly govern the seismic performance. Inthe era of globalization, there is a need forconvergence of design methodologies to result inbuildings with uniform risk of suffering a certainlevel of damage or collapse. A first step in thisdirection is to compare the expected seismicperformance of buildings designed using theprovisions of different codes.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 

Dr. S.V. Itti*, Prof. Abh ish ek Pathade** andRamesh B. K aradi*** studied on  A ComparativeStudy on Seismic Provisions Made in India andInternational Building Codes for RC Buildings. Thisstudy focuses on the comparison of the IndianCode (IS) and International Building Codes (IBC)in relation to the seismic design and analysis ofOrdinary RC moment resisting frame (OMRF),Intermediate RC moment-resisting frame (IMRF)and Special RC moment-resting frame (SMRF).

This study explores variations in the resultsobtained using the two codes, particularly designbase shear, lateral loads, drifts and area of steelfor structural members for all RC buildings in boththe codes. Three dimensional model of thebuilding was prepared in ETABS. The size ofcolumns and beams were fixed by manualmethods. Further the size of beams and columnsthey adjusted to achieve target deflection, sinceOMRF Indian was having the maximum deflectionat the top story, the sizes of beams and columns,i.e. (0.35 x 0.75m) and (0.75 x 0.75m) respectivelywere fixed so that the deflection at the top moststory is within the permissible limit. The authorfound that the, Base Shear, lateral loads anddisplacements for OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of IS-1893-2002 Code buildings are higher than that ofIBC-2006 Code buildings respectively for samecolumn and beam sizes. Due to these higherforces generated in the structure, the structure

becomes stiffer and not flexible.

Yogendra Singh & Vi jay Namdev K hose

(2012)   studied A Comparative Study of CodeProvisions for Ductile RC Frame Buildings. In thispaper presents a comparative study of differentductility classes and corresponding responsereduction factors, reinforcement detailingprovisions, and a case study of seismicperformance of a ductile RC frame buildingdesigned using four major codes, viz. ASCE7(United States), EN1998-1 (Europe), NZS 1170.5(New Zealand) and IS 1893 (India). An eight-story

RC frame building is considered for study. Thebuilding is symmetric in both directions. The Storyheight is 3.2 m for all floors. The 3D model of thebuilding is developed in SAP2000 (2010). Beamsand columns have been modeled as frameelements. The columns are assumed to be fixed atthe base. The buildings are designed as per theconsidered seismic codes and the correspondingdesign codes. The design codes used are ACI318M-08 (2008), EN1992 (2004), NZS 3101:Part 1(1995) and IS 456 (2000), respectively. Thecapacity curves of the SMRF building designed forIndian code and IMRF building designed for American code are close, as these are the onlycodes which apply capping on the design period.The buildings designed for other codes (NewZealand and Euro code) have significantly lowerstrengths than the buildings of comparable ductilityclasses designed for Indian and American codes.Seismic performance of an eight-story RC framebuilding designed for different codes has beencompared and it has been observed that theyactually provided strength and expected

8/18/2019 PaperCI56

3/5

 

performance of the building is not following thesame hierarchy as the design base shear. Further,there is significant variation in the strengthcapacity of the buildings designed for differentcodes. All the code designed buildings show LifeSafety or better performance level for DBE, butshow partial/full collapse at MCE. In most of thecases considered in this study, the design wasmainly governed by the strength while drift was nota governing criteria.

Ass t. Prof. Mehul J. Bhav sar*, Ass t. Prof.

Kavita N. Choks i*, As st. Prof. Sejal K. Bhatt*,

Shren ik K . Shah**(2014) studied the Comparativestudy of typical R.C. building using INDIANSTANDARDS and EURO STANDARDS underseismic forces. The Response reduction factor forOMRF and SMRF is 3 and 5 respectively,according to IS 1893.According to EC 8 it is 1.5,3.9 and 5.85 for DCL, DCM and DCH respectively.

Hence, response reduction factor for EUROCODEis higher than that provided in IS CODE. Forcomparison, a residential building of G+7story istaken under reference. Importance factor is takenas 1 which is same specified in both codes. Thesoil condition is taken as medium soil, according toIS CODE provisions which are equivalent to soiltype B (PGA=0.35g) according to ASCE. (InEUROCODE soil classification is described basedon ASCE code). Ductility class is SMRF for IS1893 and DCM for EC 8 according to the study.The story height is 3 m for all floors. Modeling ofstructure, analysis and design is done on ETABS

software. This paper concludes that the designbase shear as per IS 1893 is lower as comparedto EC8 because of the high value of responsereduction factor. The allowable story drift as perEC 8 is 1.5%.while as per IS 1893 is 0.4%.Due tothis maximum story drift as per EC 8 is higher thanIS 1893.The area of reinforcement required incolumn is lower in EC 2 than IS 456. This isbecause the modulus of elasticity is higher in EC2. Also the maximum percentage of steel required,suggested by IS 456 in the column is 6%, whilethat suggested by EC 2 is 4%. Therefore, theductility of a column in EC 2 is controlled by themodulus of elasticity while that in IS 456 iscontrolled by an area of reinforcement.

Er. Pujan Neupane1, Er. Samyog

Shrestha2 (2015)   studied Comparative Analysisof Seismic Codes of Nepal and India for RCBuildings. Both codes have their own designresponse spectrum. The nature and essence ofthe spectrum are similar in the two codes, but theydiffer in normalization of the values of what has

been termed as Spectral Acceleration Coefficient(Sa/g) in IS1893:2002 and Basic SeismicCoefficient (C) in NBC105:1994. They hadobserved that the story height of the RC buildingdoes not play any major role in analyzing thedifferences in the design seismic forces of the twocodes, so the results for the most popularlyadopted story height of 3m. As the base sheargets distributed in the floor level differences in thetwo codes, the effect of such difference is also ofconcern because it is the seismic shear forces inthe floor level that governs the stresses in thestructural members rather than the base shear asa whole. If the two codes followed the same baseshear distribution pattern, for all floor levels of a 10story building, the seismic shears should havebeen lesser in IS. It is also true that the storyshears for each floor computed using IS will behigher when the building is lesser than 8 stories(about 25 meters tall) in a site having soft soil as

well as when the building is of any story but in asite with medium or stiff soil. According to theauthor it is concluded that for RC buildings restingon stiff or medium soil, the seismic demand ascomputed using IS 1893 is always higher thanNBC 105. But, this should, strictly, not beinterpreted as any one code being faulty ratherboth codes have their own design principles andassumptions which considerably differ the seismiccapacity of the building being designed. Moreimportantly, these findings outline the lack ofharmony between the two codes which buildsskepticism on believing the numbers that the

codes prescribe. In a seismically active nation likeNepal, it is a challenge to urgently stipulateunambiguous rules and coherent code provisionsregarding earthquake resistant design, so as toreduce earthquake related risk in the country.Deeper research to make revisions if needed, andimplement a single well-justified seismic code inNepal without giving any place to other codes,must be a top-priority in the policy level.

Silvio de Souza l ima1, Luca Zanaica2,

Carmen B ucu r3, Ana Aria4 (2013)   studied onComparative Study of Codes for Seismic Designof Structures. This paper presents a comparative

evaluation among some international, Europeanand American, seismic design standards. Thestudy considers the criteria for the analysis ofconventional (residential and commercial)buildings. A model for a standard reinforcedconcrete building (“Model Building”) has beendeveloped to permit the comparison among codes.This building has been modeled with two differentcomputer programs, SAP2000 and SOFiSTiK and

8/18/2019 PaperCI56

4/5

 

subjected to seismic input according to the severalseismic codes. In order to make possible thecomparison among the several standards, aparticular location has been carefully chosen. It issupposed that the building is located in Rivesville,South Carolina (ZIP code 29471), U.S.Considering a 475 year return period, the designground acceleration, for rocky conditions, in thislocation can be taken as ag = 0.15g. This relativelysmall level of seismicity has been chosen isordered to make possible the comparison amongall the analyzed standards, since this is thehighest level of seismicity considered in theBrazilian Standard. The comparison of the text ofthe several analyzed seismic standards indicatesa general agreement regarding the desired maincharacteristics of a seismic resistant structure:simplicity, symmetry, uniformity, redundancies,etc. An essential point generally focused as well isthe necessity that the structural design and

detailing should provide enough ductility for thedissipation of energy in the non-linear range.

Md. Rashedul Kabir et al [3] (2015) hasdetermined response of multi-story regular andirregular buildings of identical weight under staticand dynamic loading in context of Bangladesh. Inthis paper, a 15 storied regular shaped andirregular shaped buildings have been modeledusing program ETABS 9.6 for Dhaka (seismiczone 2), Bangladesh. The effect of static load,dynamic load and wind load is analyzed. Themass of the each building was considered to be

same. Displacement due to wind load ismaximised in all types of buildings. Static anddynamic analysis gives less variation indisplacement. The displacement obtained fromstatic analysis is more when compared to dynamicanalysis. The displacement increases with storeyheight. C shaped and L shaped structure hashigher displacement. Rectangular and irregularshaped structure show almost similardisplacement against wind load as the total massis constant.

C. Bhatt, R. Bento (2012) performed acomparison between American and European

codes on the Non Linear Static analysis of RCbuildings. In this paper they explained about nonlinear Static Procedure (NSP), which is aperformance based seismic design which behavessensible in seismic force than a strength designedin force based philosophy. They evaluatedeformation in Global and Component level. N2and Capacity spectrum method in FEMA 440, ATC40 and EURO 8 is used. Static pushover analysis

is done on 5 storey RC building which survivedwithout damage in earthquake (1997). Thebuilding is designed properly for shear andcollapse. The building is modeled using Fiberelement model in SeismoStruct software. Hystericdamping is predefined in the model while nonhysteric damping is 5% of tangent stiffnessproportional damping. The displacement iscalculated using N2 method. The torsional effect iscalculated using torsional correction factor byamplifying the displacement results. In pushoveranalysis, N2 method is performed by applyingMass proportional force and Modal proportionalforce. But the CSM method is done by applyingmodal-proportional load patterns. Topdisplacements, lateral displacement profiles andinter storey drifts were determined using bothmethods. The CSM-FEMA440 was usually closerto the time-history.CSM-FEMA440 gives accurateprocedure to calculate the target displacement. N2

method is the only method which gives the correcttorsional motion of the building.

Dr. K. Subram anian1 and M. Velayutham2

(2012) studied on influence of seismic zone factorand the international codal provisions for variouslateral load resisting systems in multi storeybuildings. The main factors which contribute forthe seismic load have been studied and dynamicanalysis results for various structural systems withvarious zone factors are compared using variousinternational standards. To illustrate the variousseismic parameters governing the seismic forceson the building, analytical study is carried outusing ETABS for the various structural systemsand the similarities and differences are presentedfor various international standards. Buildings withregular, or nominally irregular plan configurationmay be modeled as a system of masses lumpedat floor levels with each mass having one degreeof freedom, that of lateral displacement in thedirection under consideration. Seismic analysis isperformed using response spectrum analysis of IS1893(Part 1):2002, UBC 1997, NZS 1170.5 – 2004and BS EN 1998-1-2004 for the typical five storeybuilding to be located in different regions withvarious lateral load resisting systems. Initial

modes are found to be in translation for allstructural system and excite more than 90% of thetotal mass. Type II soil as per IS 1893(Part1):2002, Type SD category as per UBC 1997,Class C Shallow soil site as per NZS 1170.5 -2004 and Ground type C as per BS EN 1998 -1 :2004 are considered for the comparison study ofall the structural systems. Type II soil as per IS1893(Part 1):2002, Type SD category as per UBC

8/18/2019 PaperCI56

5/5

 

1997, Class C Shallow soil site as per NZS 1170.5- 2004 and Ground type C as per BS EN 1998 -1 :2004 are considered for the comparison study ofall the structural systems. All codes of practicesinclude the effect of seismic risk, spectral content,and importance of building, structural behavior andsoil/foundation for seismic load. To illustrate thevarious seismic parameters governing the seismicforces on the building, analytical study is carriedout using the modernized structural engineeringsoftware package ETABS for various structuralsystems and the similarities and differences arepresented for all four codes of practices.

3.0 CONCLUSION 

The above research papers give followingconclusions-

  The building designed using Euro code

performs better comparing to Indian standard(IS1893:2002) and American (ATC40 andFEMA440) codes. Hence Indian and Americancode needs improvement in performancebased design.

  Studies are performed using differentmethodology such as response spectrummethod, pushover analysis, time periodanalysis. Hence results are differentrespectively to the different codes.

References 

[1] Dr. S.V. Itti*, Prof. Abhishek Pathade** andRamesh B. Karadi***, “ A Comparative Studyon Seismic Provisions Made in Indian andInternational Building Codes for RC Buildings,” 

[2] Yogendra Singh & Vijay Namdev Khose(2012), “ A Comparative Study of CodeProvisions for Ductile RC FrameBuildings,”15WCEE LISBOA 2012. 

[3] Asst. Prof. Mehul J. Bhavsar*, Asst. Prof.Kavita N. Choksi*, Asst. Prof. Sejal K. Bhatt*,Shrenik K. Shah**(2014) , “  The Comparative

study of typical R.C. building using INDIANSTANDARDS and EURO STANDARDS underseismic forces,”  International Journal ofScientific and Research Publications, Volume4, Issue 12, December 2014

[4] Er. Pujan Neupane1, Er. Samyog Shrestha2(2015) , “  Comparative Analysis of Seismic

Codes of Nepal and India for RC Building,” International Journal of Engineering Trendsand Technology (IJETT) – Volume 28 Number2 - October 2015 

[5] Silvio de Souza lima1 , luca zanaica2, Carmenbucur3, Ana aria4(2013) , “  Comparative

Study of Codes for Seismic Design ofStructures,” Mathematical Modeling in CivilEngineering Vol. 9-No. 1-2013 Doi:10.2478/mmce-2013-0001 

[6] Md. Rashedul Kabir, Debasish Sen, Md.Mashfiqul Islam ,”Response of multi-storeyregular and irregular buildings of identicalweight under static and dynamic loading incontext of Bangladesh,” International journal ofCivil and Structural Engineering, Volume 5, No3, February 2015, pp 252-260

[7] C. Bhatt, R. Bento, “A Comparison between American and European codes on the Non

Linear Static Analysis of RC Buildings,”15

thWorld Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, Lisbon 2012.

[8] Dr. K. Subramanian1 and M. Velayutham2(2012) , “  Influence of seismic zone factor andthe international codal provisions for variouslateral load resisting systems in multi storeybuildings,” ISET GOLDEN JUBILEESYMPOSIUM Indian Society of EarthquakeTechnology Department of EarthquakeEngineering Building IIT Roorkee, RoorkeeOctober 20-21, 2012.

Author ’s Biography

Ms. Surabhi. A. Bambalobtained her B.E. degree fromSant Gadge Baba  AmravatiUniversity, Amravati. She ispursuing he r post-graduation inStructural Engineering.

Prof. Mayur A. Banaraseobtained his B.E. degree fromSant Gadge Baba  AmravatiUniversity, Amravati and post-graduation in StructuralEngineering. He is working as Assistant Professor in Prof. RamMeghe Institute of Technology

and Research, Badnera. He has published oneNational and one International paper. H e h a stwo years of industrial experience.