Comparative Study on Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Building under Seismic Forces for Different Codal Guidelines

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD)
Volume: 3 | Issue: 4 | May-Jun 2019 Available Online: www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN: 2456 - 6470
@ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID - IJTSRD23819 | Volume – 3 | Issue – 4 | May-Jun 2019 Page: 536
Comparative Study on Analysis and Design of
Reinforced Concrete Building under Seismic
Forces for Different Codal Guidelines
Tabish Izhar1, Samreen Bano2*, Neha Mumtaz3
1,3Assistant Professor, 2M. tech Scholar
1,2,3Department of Civil Engineering, Integral University, Lucknow, U.P, India
How to cite this paper: Tabish Izhar |
Samreen Bano | Neha Mumtaz
"Comparative Study on Analysis and
Design of Reinforced Concrete Building
under Seismic ForcesforDifferentCodal
Guidelines" Published in International
Journal of Trend in Scientific Research
and Development
(ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-
6470, Volume-3 |
Issue-4, June 2019,
pp.536-551, URL:
https://www.ijtsrd.
com/papers/ijtsrd2
3819.pdf
Copyright © 2019 by author(s) and
International Journal of Trend in
Scientific Research and Development
Journal. This is an Open Access article
distributed under
the terms of the
CreativeCommons
Attribution License (CC BY 4.0)
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0)
ABSTRACT
Construction is a vital part of every developing countryinthisera.Everycountry
has specific building design codes which provide the standards to engineers for
the design of various structural components like the beam, column, and slab.
Analysis and design Reinforcement concrete building of every country is based
on their geographical location. Seismic forces are one of the majornaturalforces
causing huge damage to lives and economy. So that one can understand the
difference and can appropriate for best guidelines for safety to lives and
economy. In today’s world of globalization, an engineer mustbeefficientenough
to understand and handle different codes. In this paper, a comparative study is
presented for analysis and design of reinforced concrete building under seismic
forces for four codal Guidelines (IS 1893:2002, Euro code 8, Japan-2007 and
ASCE: 7-10) using Staad Pro. The comparative study includes the comparison
building base shear, bending moment, shear force, percentage of steel, required
area, displacement, and story-drift. For seismic Analysis anddesign,thebuilding
elements like beam and column is also compared using these countries RC
building code.
Keywords: Seismic analysis, Multi-storeyed RC building, IS, Euro code, ASCE,Japan
INTRODUCTION
There is major earthquake have been recorded in India, Japan, Europe, and the
U.S. The Bhuj earthquake in 2001 in India with the magnitude of 7.7 resulted in
20000 lives and around 339000 severe damage of building [2]. In India, 26
December 2004 Ocean earthquake of a magnitude of 9.1 to 9.3, resulted in more
than 283,106 deaths [1]. Many earthquakes have accrued in Japan, the scientific
research on seismology or earthquake engineering began
only after the Meiji restoration in 1868.In 1923 Kanto
(Tokyo) earthquake caused loss of life more than 14000,
heavy damage in building and houses around 250000[1]. In
1908, the Messina earthquake occurred in Sicily, Italy, and
Calabria with the magnitude of 7.1. The cities were
destroyed and 200,000 lives were lost [4]. In 1989 Loma
Prieta and 1994 Northridge earthquake led to a loss of 120
lives. To minimize these losses during earthquake seismic
provision have been developed [2].
The Indian seismic code (IS-1893) published in 1962 for the
purpose of Recommendation forearthquakeresistantdesign
of structures and this revised in 1966 first time. The
sectional committee felt to revise these standards including
the seismic zones and epicentre in 1970. The third revision
in 1984, prepared with a new concept of the performance
factor, base shear, and modal analysis was introduced. In
2002, the fifth revision of is 1893 deals with the seismic
loads of various structure and earthquake resistant of the
building [5].
The building standards law of Japan 1963 revision was
removed the height limitation. The law required that the
design and construction of high rise building should be
approved by Minister of construction because of the severe
damage of high rise building in the 1923 Kanto (Tokyo)
earthquake disaster. The urban building law of enforcement
order issued in 1920, limited to a buildingheightof65feetof
residential building and 100 feet of a non-residential
building. The method of construction is required in the
building of law of enforcement order,revisedtimetotime by
the technical development.Variousstandardsand guidelines
provided by the Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ). The
building law of Japan (BSLJ) was proclaimed in May 1950 to
safeguard the life, health, and property of people. The(BSLJ)
order was revised in July 1980 and was adopted from June
1981[6, 7].
The European standards EN 1998-1 Design of structure for
earthquake resistance. Euro code consistsof 10sectionsthat
were developed by the European Committee for
Standardization (CEN). EC-1998-8 concern the design of the
structure for earthquake resistant, itistheeightstandards of
EC-1998 and it is an addition of six parts (EN1998-i:i=1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6). EC8 was approved and published in 2013, it
considers different factor like behavior factor, capacity
design method, dissipative zones,importancefactoretc[8,9].
IJTSRD23819

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470
The first modern code containing seismic provision is
generally admitted to be the first edition of the uniform
building code. National earthquake hazard reduction
program recommended provisions developed by building
science safety council in the USA (BSSC 1997). In 1937, the
zonal map introduced with the concept of the different
seismic resistant building. In 1988 UBCrevisedbystructural
engineering association of California (SEAOC). The (SEAOC)
formed by Applied technology council, consider the
introduction of site factor and occupancy importance factor.
ASCE-7-10 utilize seismic design category (SDC) concept
which differentiates the structure according to the seismic
risk level [10, 11].
Ahmed M. EI Kholy at al. [3] compare the Egyptian code
2012 with EC 8-2013, IBC 2015 and UBC 1997; consider
residential shear wall RC buildings in Egypt. Muhammad
Mostafijur at al. [2] present seismic performance of
reinforcement concrete buildings designed according to
codes in Bangladesh, India, and theUSA.Thestructureswere
modeled and design software ETABS NL (version 9.6).
Masayoshi Nakashima [12] compares EC8 and the Japanese
seismic design code (BCJ) for steel moment frames and
braced frames. In this paper EC8 is 2.5 times larger force for
his limit state. Marjan Faizan and Yuji Ishiyama [13]
compare the seismic codes of Japan (BSLJ) 1981; USA (IBC)
2000 & Iran (ICS) 1999 are used forcomparingthesimilarity
and differences. C. Bhatt, R. Bento [14] compares the code of
America and European, on the nonlinearstaticanalysisofRC
building. In this paper, five stories RC concrete building
consider and result compare with nonlinear dynamic
analysis. By Weizi Zhang and Bahram m. Shahrooz[15]
present the comparison between ACI and AISC for concrete-
filled tabular columns(CFTs), defined their potential
capacity. Angelica Walsh at al. [16] compares three climatic
zoning methodologies for structure and find out the
difference in results for a small country climatic variation.
Sameh A. EI-Betar [17] presents the seismic performance of
existing RC framed building by nonlinear static pushover
analysis. Ali Ergun at al. [18] presents the Premodern code
(1998 Turkish earthquake code) to consider the seismic
performance of RC building. Ali Ruzi Ozuygur [19] evaluates
the structural design of a 50-story tall reinforcement
concrete residential building, which was planned to be
constructed in Istanbul. Its seismic performance has been
checked by nonlinear time history analysis. Leonardo Avila
at al. [20] presents the seismic performance of asymmetric
masonry building. Mohsen Kohrangi [21] comparison
consists of sequential steps for identifying and
understanding the similarities of the Key elementsinformed
the seismic hazards models. Kristijan Kolozvari [22]
evaluates the seismic performance and behavior of highrise
RC coupled wall building with the help of dynamic analysis
by modeling approach. M. Mosleh et al.[23] in this research
two existing RC irregular building analyzed with EC 8 and
purposed for co-linear analysis at different levels Globaland
Local. Jose Barros [24] this paper evaluates a different
procedure for the structural design that gives the behaviour
of frequent and rare earthquakes. A two-story school
building is considered for study case. S. Malekpouratall.[25]
this paper introduces the steel moment resisting frames by
using three country code, Iranian, European and Japanese
codes. The seismic performances of these codes are almost
identical but differ for high rise building.GangShi atall.[26]-
present the paper which compares and design of steel
moment resisting frame by the different country code and
find that Chinese code designed steel moment resisting
frame exhibit 20% to 150% larger resistance and stiffness
than U.S. & Euro code.
This paper present comparison of four seismic codes
(IS1893-2002, ASCE7-10, EC8-2013, BSLJ) and find out the
difference and similarities of their codes. The analysis and
design should be done by the software STAAD PRO V8i. The
structure designed in India should be confirmed from the
Indian standards code. The seismic design requirements of
Indian standards and U.S. of the structure depends upon the
seismic zoning system, site classification, fundamental
period, response reduction factor, important factor, story
drift and base shear are given in table 1. There are different
parameter of Japan and Europe which are given table 2.
Every code provides approximate formulas for estimating
the time period and calculatingbaseshear,lateralforces,and
other required parameters.
Objective of Study:-
The main purpose of this study is to bring out a detailed
seismic analysis and structural design on simulation tool
STAAD PRO of a rectangular plan of multi-storey building.
This study is focused to carry out the advantage of seismic
design of multi-storey building using different country code
with STTAD PRO at global level with ease of use. This
numerical study comprises of-
1. To understand the accuracy of software’s for analysis
and design of multi-storey building.
2. To compare the results and behaviour of structures
using different country code.
Simulation Tool STAAD PRO:-
STAAD stands for Structural Analysis and Design. STAAD
PRO is a general purpose structural analysis and design
programme with applications primarily in the building
industry-commercial buildings, bridges and highways
structures etc. It was the first structural software which
adopted for the analysisof matrixproblems.Theprogramme
hence consists of the following facilities to enable this work.
Graphical model generation utilities as well as text editor
based commandsfor creatingthemathematicalmodel.Beam
and column are represented using lines. Walls, slabs and
panel type member are represents using triangular and
quadrilateral finite elements. Theseutilitiesenabletheusers
to create the geometry, assign properties, orient cross
sections as desired, assign materials like steel, concrete,
timber, aluminium, safety supports, and apply loads for
desired loading case.
Results viewing, result verification and report generation
tools for examining displacement diagrams, bending
moment and shear force diagram, beam etc.
Comparison of seismic provision
The different seismic provisions and standards of different
countries are shown in table in table 1 & 2 respectively. The
factor of safety for different loading case for country code is
represented in table 3.

Table 1: Comparison of seismic provisions of IS 1893-2002[5] and ASCE 7-10[2]
Parameters IS 1893-2002[5] ASCE 7-10[2]
Zoning system The country divided into four zones (II, III, IV, and V)
zone II Z = 0.10
zone III Z = 0.16
zone IV Z = 0.24
zone V Z = 0.36
i. Each region is assigned a location-specific
mapped Spectral acceleration
parameter (SS, short period and S1, 1sec).
ii. SS & S1 are modified for Site Class effects
to get Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE) spectral Response acceleration
parameters (SMS and SM1).
iii. The design spectral acceleration SDS and
SD1 parameters can be obtained by
dividing SMS and SM1 parameters by 1.5.
Site
classification
Classification of site depends upon standard
penetration test (N).
Average shear wave velocity (ʋs), average
field standard penetration resistance (n), and
average undrained shear strength(Su) for the
top 30.5m are used to classify different sites.
Approximate
fundamental
period
The approximate fundamental period for “Reinforced
Concrete Moment Resisting Frame”
Ta= 0.075hn
0.75 , hn in meter.
The approximate fundamental period for
“Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting
Frame” Ta= 0.0466hn
0.9 , hn in meter.
Response
reduction
factor
i. Ordinary moment resisting Frame (OMRF), R =3
ii. Special moment resistant Frame (SMRF), R = 5
i. Ordinary moment resisting Frame (OMRF),
R = 3
ii. Intermediate Moment Resisting Frames
(IMRF) R = 5
Important
factor
i. Important service and community building I =1.5
ii. All other Buildings I = 1.0
Depends upon risk categories (I, ii, iii, iv)–
ASCE 7 has four seismic important factor I =
1.0, 1.0, 1.25, 1.5 respectively.
Drift criteria Allowable “elastic story drifts are 0.004Hstory for all
the structures irrespective of any structure under
risk category.
Allowable “inelastic” story drifts are limited
to 0.020Hstory for a commercial building
having risk category I or II.
Minimum
design lateral
force
Design lateral force calculated from the static analysis
is
V = x xW
Where (S/g) = spectral response acceleration
parameter for MCE response spectrum
corresponding to Ta,
And W = the seismic weight of the building.
Story shear-
Q = VB
Where
Qi = design lateral force at floor i,
Wi = seismic weight of floor i,
Hi = height of floor I measured from base N = number
of story.
Design lateral force calculated from static
analysis is V = Cs× W
where Cs = the seismic response coefficient CS
=
W = the seismic weight of the building
Response
spectrum
i. For rocky or hard soil sites,
Sa/g =
ii. For medium soil sites,
Sa/g =
iii. For soft soil sites,
Sa/g=
i. Spectral Acceleration, For T < T0,
Sa = SDS (0.4 + 0.6T/T0 )
T0=0.2.SD1/SDS
ii. T0> T > TS, Sa=SDS,
TS = SD1/SDS
iii. TS > T > TL,
Sa = SD1/T
where TL=long period OR transition period
iv. T > TL,
Sa = SD1 TL/T2

Table 2: Comparison of seismic provisions of EC 8 2004[26], BSLJ [6, 25]
Parameters BSLJ [6,25] EC-8 [26]
Zoning
system
Z= seismic zone factor 0.7 to 1.0. The BSLJ seismic
zoning dividing Japan into three zones. The seismic
zoning coefficient Z is 1.0, 0.9,0.8 and 0.7
National territories shall be subdivided by the
National Authorities into seismic zones,
Depending on the local hazard. The hazard is
described by R, The parameter R,is
modified by the Importance Factor to become
the design
Ground acceleration (on type A ground) =
R.
R= Reduction factor
Site
classification
The Japanese procedure evaluates a kind of
simplified period (T G ) of the upper part of the
ground - above the engineering Base.
Classification of the site depends upon standard
penetration (N) test and shear wave velocity
(ʋs).
Approximate
fundamental
period
Ta = 0.1 N
for moment resisting frame buildings not exceeding
12 stories and having a minimum story height of 3m
is also permitted. (N is the number of stories) The
natural period- T = (0.002+0.01 )H
= ratio of stories by steel and timber construction
The mean return period TR is given by
TR = 1/V
TR = TL/ln(1-P)
Response
reduction
factor
Rt is the design spectral coefficient-
Rt=1.0 T<Tc
Rt=1.0-0.2 Tc ≤ T<2Tc
Rt=1.6Tc/T 2Tc≤T
-----
Important
factor
Not available
Important factor divided into four class (I, ii, iii, iv)
Class Important
factor
Buildings
i 0.8 Agriculture building
Ii 1.0 Ordinary building
iii 1.2 Schools, assembly halls,
culture hall.
iv 1.4
Hospital, power plant, fire
station
Drift criteria
Story drift limitations- In BSLJ, the drift of each
story of the building caused by the moderate
earthquake motions shall not exceed 1/200 of the
story height. This value can be increased to 1/120 if
the nonstructural members shall have no severe
damage at increased story drift limitation.
i. for buildings having non-structural elements
of brittle materials attached to the structure:
d rv≤0.005h
ii. for buildings having ductile non-structural
elements: d rv≤0.0075h
iii. for buildings having non-structural elements
fixed in a way so as not to interfere with
structural deformations, or without
non-structural elements: drv≤0.010h
Minimum
design
lateral force
Story shear coefficient- Ci = Z Rt Ai C0
story shear- Qun = DSFesCi
Where,
Z is the seismic zoning coefficient, Rt is the design
spectral coefficient, Ai is the lateral shear
distribution factor and C0 is the standard shear
coefficient = 0.2 and for severe earthquake motions,
Ds is the structural coefficient, Fes is the shape factor
and C0 = 1.0.
= total dead load and live load above story i.
Base Shear -
VB = Sd(T1)W
Sd(T1) is the ordinate of the design spectrum
corresponding to fundamental Period T1 of the
structure and Wis the gravity load contributing
W.
Response
spectrum
Design response spectra at engineering bedrock
S0(T)
=
Design response spectra at ground motion
Sa(T) = Gs(T) Z S0(T)
Where, S0 = basic design acceleration response
spectra in m/s2 and T = natural period.
Sa = design acceleration response spectra at ground
surface m/s2, GS = surface soil layer amplification
factor.
The elastic response spectrumis divided in 4
different branches defined by the following
expressions:
0≤T≤TB Se(T) = agS(1+T/TBƞ2.5-1)
TB≤T≤TC Se(T) = agSƞ2.5
TC≤T≤TD Se(T) = agS(1+T/TBƞ2.5(TC/T)
TD≤T≤4S Se(T) = agS ƞ2.5(T CT D/T)

Table 3: Load combination of IS1893-2002, ASCE7-10, BSLJ and EC-2
IS875-2002 [5] ASCE7-10 [2] BSLJ [6,25] EC-2 [29]
1.5(D+L) 1.4D D+L+E 1.35D+1.5L
1.2(D+L±W) 1.2D+1.6L+0.5Lr D+L+S+E 1.0D+1.5W
1.5(D±W) 1.2D+1.6Lr+(L OR 0.8W) 1.35D+1.5L+0.9W
0.9D±1.5W 1.2D+1.6W+1.0L+0.5Lr
0.9D + 1.6W
0.9D + 1.0W
0.9D + 1.0E
Study Model:-
A geometrically similar 10 story included 4 -bay by 4- bay reinforcement concrete ordinary moment resting frame was
considered for all the codes. The height of each story was 3 m and a total height of 30 m. The width and length of the structure
were 24 and 24 m respectively. The selected building was to represent an office building. The D.L. per unit area of the floor,
consisting of the floor slab finishes etc. is 4 KN /m2. The weight of the partitiononthefloorcanbeassumedtobe2 KN/m2.The
intensity of live load on each floor is 3KN/m2 and on the roof are 1.5 KN /m2. The soil below the foundation is hard and the
building is located in Delhi. The plan area is given in figure 1 & 2. The 3-D structural model is shown in figure 3. The site soil
classification and the response acceleration parameters and zone factor for this building are shown in Table 4.
The load combination of dead load , live load, roof load and earthquake load, wind load for their four buildingcodearegivenin
Table 3.
1. Building parameter-
Size of beam= 300x600 mm
Size of column= 650x450 mm
Size of building= 24x24 mm
D.L. of slab including finishes 4 KN/m2
The weight of partition on floor 2 KN/m2
L.L. of each floor =3 KN/m2
L.L. on the roof =1.5 KN/m2
Soil below foundation is hard soil
Table 4 Site location and classification of seismic Design parameters
Code Zone coefficient /response acceleration parameters Site class
IS1893 Seismic zone: iv, (z) = 0.24 Importance factor (I) = 1 T = 0.96s Type 2 (hard soil)
ASCE7-10 Spectrum response acceleration Ss= 1.893, S1= 0.85, Site class D (stiff soil)
BSLJ Seismic zone: iv, (z) = 0.75 Ta = 0.1N sec , ɑ = 1
EC-8 Seismic zone: iii ag = 0.15g Importance factor (γ) = 1 Soil type C
2. Seismic weight-
Floor area= 24x24 =576
Dead load =4 KN /m2
Weight of partitions = 2kN/m2
For live load up to and including =3KN/m2
Percentage of live load to be considered =2.5%
Effective weight at each floor except the roof = 4.0+2.0+0.25+3
= 6.75 KN/m2
And at the roof = 4.0 KN/m2
Fig.1. 4 @ 6.00 m = 24 m plan view of the structure

Fig.2. Front view of the structure
Fig.3. 3-D Structural Model of the structure
Modelling and design of the structure for analysis:-
The building should be consisting of three-dimensionally in the office purpose.Analysis,anddesignon softwareSTAAD.proV8
i. The column was considered as fixed support. Dead load, live load, and seismic load considered as per their code.
Code used for concrete design- IS45 -2002, ACI 318-2008, AIJ & EC-2
Code used for Seismic design- IS1893-2002, BS-8110, IBC-2006 & Japanese code.
*The code BS-8110 is used for seismic design of European code on Staad- pro V8i.
*The code IBC-2006 is used for seismic design of American code on Staad- pro V8i.
The specification used for concrete design-
A grade of concrete -30 MPa
Grade reinforcement - 415 MPa
Concrete cover of the beam - 25mm
Concrete cover of the column- 40mm
Results and discussion-
1. The analysis and design of beam, column and storey drift at different level according to IS loading condition is evaluated in
the terms of maximum axial force, maximum bending moment, maximum shear force, storydriftanddisplacementasshown
in Table 5,6 & 7. The graphical representation of the results is shown in figure from 4 to 11.
Table 5: Analysis of beam as per IS loading with different code
Code Maximum axial force (kN) Maximum Bending moment (kNm) Maximum shear force (kN)
IS1893 111.384 (1.5DL+LL) 252.542 (1.5DL+LL) 252.083 (1.5DL+EQX)
EC-8 111.384 (1.5DL+LL) 252.542 (1.5DL+LL) 511.187 (1.5DL+EQX)
ASCE 110.9 (1.5DL+EQX) 233.25 (1.5DL+EQX) 505.186 (1.5DL+LL)
BSLJ 92.398 (1.5DL+LL) 233.25 (1.5DL+LL) 162.564 (1.5DL+LL)

Fig.4. Axial force as per different code
Fig.5. Bending moment as per different code
Fig.6. Shear force with different code
Analysis of beam in table 5 as per IS loading and its graphical results shows that the value of maximum axial force in beam is
max for IS and EC but the min for BSLJ. The value of bending moment in beam is max for also IS and EC as compared to ASCE &
BSLJ. The value of shear force in beam is max for EC but min for BSLJ.
Table 6: Analysis of column as per IS loading with different code
Code
Maximum axial force
(kN)
Maximum Bending moment
(KNm)
Maximum shear force
(kN)
Base shear
(kN)
IS1893 5358.35 (1.5DL+LL) 487.852 (1.5DL+EQZ) 285.706 (1.5DL+EQZ) 4294.75
EC-8 4781.278 (1.5DL+LL) 1065.58 (1.5DL+EQX) 684.447 (1.5DL+EQX) 4294.75
ASCE 5446.855 (1.5DL+LL) 1387.759 (1.5DL+EQX) 784.251 (1.5DL-EQX) 4124.012
BSLJ 5446.856 (1.5DL+LL) 202.681 (1.5DL+EQZ) 94.047 (1.5DL+EQZ) 4294.75

Fig.9. Shear force as per different code
Fig.10. Base shear as per different code

Analysis of column in table 6 as per IS loading and its graphical results shows that the value of maximum axial force in column
is max for ASCE & BSLJ but the min for EC. The value of bending moment in column is max for ASCE but min for BSLJ.The value
of shear force in column is max for ASCE but min for BSLJ. The value of base shear is max for IS, BSLJ and EC but min for ASCE.
Table 7: Story drift and Displacement of building as per IS loading with different code
Height in m
IS1893 EC-8 ASCI BSLJ
Drift Displacement Drift Displacement Drift Displacement Drift Displacement
3 0.9688 9.688 0.7586 0.7586 2.6013 2.6013 0.6915 0.6915
6 1.5244 2.4932 1.1780 1.9366 4.0372 6.6385 1.0564 1.7479
9 1.6076 4.1008 1.2096 3.1462 4.1405 10.7791 1.0662 2.8141
12 1.6140 5.7147 1.1643 4.3106 3.9770 14.7561 1.0119 3.8261
15 1.5976 7.3123 1.0850 5.3955 3.6936 18.4497 0.9347 4.7608
18 1.5634 8.8757 0.9767 6.3722 3.3078 21.7575 0.8400 5.6007
21 1.5094 10.3851 0.8394 7.2117 2.8190 24.5764 0.7274 6.3281
24 1.4305 11.8157 0.6727 7.8843 2.2258 26.8023 0.5950 6.9232
27 1.3096 13.1253 0.4780 8.3623 1.5365 28.3388 0.4393 7.3625
30 1.0541 14.1794 0.2730 8.6354 0.8296 29.168 0.2644 7.6269
Fig.11. Value of drift at different level as per IS loading for different code
The above table and figure shows that the variation of storey driftsand displacementvariesaccordingtoheightof building. Itis
clearly shown in table that the value of drift is increasing slightly and then decreases.
2. The analysis and design of beam, column and storey drift at different level according to their loadingcondition isevaluated
in the terms of maximum axial force, maximum bending moment, maximum shear force, story drift and displacement as
shown in Table 8, 9 & 10. The graphical representation of the results is shown in figure from 12 to 19.
Table 8: Analysis of Beam as per their code loading
Code Maximum Axial Force (kN) Maximum Bending moment (KNm) Maximum shear force (kN)
IS1893 111.384 (1.5DL+LL) 252.542 (1.5DL+LL) 252.083 (1.5DL+EQX)
EC-8 141.976 (1.4DL+1.6LL+1.6RFL) 331.976(1.4DL+1.6LL+1.6RFL) 240.174 (1.4DL+1.6LL+1.6RFL)
ASCE 122.556 (1.2DL+LL+1.6RFL) 282.111 (1.2DL+LL+1.6RFL) 493.048 (1.2DL+LL+RFL)
BSLJ 76.007 (DL+LL+EQX) 168.362 (DL+LL+EQX) 132.855 (DL+LL+RFL+EQX)

Analysis of beam in table 8 as per their loading and its graphical results shows that the valueof maximum axialforce inbeamis
max for EC but the min for BSLJ. The value of bending moment in beam is max for EC but min for BSLJ. The value of shear force
in beam is max for ASCE but min for BSLJ.
Table 9: Analysis of Column as per their loading condition
Code
Maximum axial force
(KN)
Maximum Bending moment (KN-
m)
Maximum shear force
(KN)
Base shear
(KN)
IS1893 5358.35 (1.5DL+LL) 487.852 (1.5DL+EQZ) 285.706 (1.5DL+EQZ) 4294.75
EC-8 4781.278 (1.5DL+LL) 1065.58 (1.5DL+EQX) 684.447 (1.5DL+EQX) 4294.75
ASCE 5446.855 (1.5DL+LL) 1387.759(1.5DL+EQX) 784.251 (1.5DL-EQX) 4124.012
BSLJ 5446.856 (1.5DL+LL) 202.681 (1.5DL+EQZ) 94.047 (1.5DL+EQZ) 4294.75
Fig.15. Axial force with different code

Fig.18. Base shear as per different code
Analysis of column in table 9 as per their loading and its graphical results shows that the value of maximum axial force in
column is max for ASCE and BSLJ but the min for EC-8. The value of bending moment in column is max for ASCE but min for
BSLJ. The value of shear force in column is max for ASCE but min for BSLJ. The value of base shear is maxforIS, BSLJand ECbut
min for ASCE.
Table 10: Story drift and Displacement of building as per their code loading
Height
in m
IS1893 EC-8 ASCE BSLJ
Drift Displacement Drift Displacement Drift Displacement Drift Displacement
3 0.9688 9.688 0.9688 9.688 2.6931 2.6931 0.3112 .........
6 1.5244 2.4932 1.5244 2.4932 4.1963 6.8894 0.7865 .........
9 1.6076 4.1008 1.6076 4.1008 4.3324 11.2218 1.2664 ..........
12 1.6140 5.7147 1.6140 5.7147 4.1968 15.4186 1.7217 ...........
15 1.5976 7.3123 1.5976 7.3123 3.9353 19.3539 2.1423 ..........
18 1.5634 8.8757 1.5634 8.8757 3.5601 22.9140 2.5203 ...........
21 1.5094 10.3851 1.5094 10.3851 3.0651 25.9791 2.2781 ............
24 1.4305 11.8157 1.4305 11.8157 2.4444 28.4235 3.1154 .............
27 1.3096 13.1253 1.3096 13.1253 1.7025 30.1260 3.3131 ...........
30 1.0541 14.1794 1.0541 14.1794 0.964 31.055 3.4321 ............
Fig.19. Value of drift as different code
The above table and figure shows that the variation of storey driftsand displacementvariesaccordingtoheightof building. Itis
clearly shown in table that the value of drift is increasing slightly and then decreases.

3. Now the concrete design of beam and column according to IS loading condition is evaluated in the terms of required area
and percentage of steel as shown in Table 11 & 12. The graphical representation of the results is shown in figurefrom20 to
23.
Table 11: Concrete design of beam as per IS code loading
Code Required area Percentage of steel
IS456 4061.970 1.76
EC-2 4321.083 1.10
ACI 4452.23 1.29
AIJ 4224.11 1.02
Fig.20. Required area as per different code
Fig.21. Percentage of steel as per different code
The concrete design of beam in table 11 as per IS loading condition and its graphical results shows that the value of required
area in beam is max for ACI but the min for IS. The value of % steel in beam is max for IS but min for AIJ.
Table 12: Concrete design of column as per IS code loading
0.1 Main reinforcement Tie reinforcement Required area (mm2) Percentage of steel (%)
IS456 24#20Ø 8mm@300mm c/c 7539.82 2.58
EC-2 36#25Ø 8mm@180mm c/c 9754 3.219
ACI 12#32Ø 12mm@110mm c/c 8862.8 0.528
AIJ 12#13Ø 10mm@320mm c/c 1470.265 3.299

Fig.23. % of steel as per different code
The concrete design of column in table 12 as per IS loading condition and its graphical results shows that the valueofrequired
area in column is max for EC but the min for AIJ. The value of % steel in column is max for AIJ but min for ACI.
4. Now the concrete design of beam and column according to their loadingcondition is evaluated in thetermsofrequired area
and percentage of steel as shown in Table 13 & 14. The graphical representation of the results is shown in figurefrom24 to
27.
Table 13: Concrete design of beam according as per their code loading
Code Required area Percentage of steel
IS456 4061.970 1.76
EC-2 2033 1.10
ACI 493.048 1.19
AIJ 223.19 1.02
Fig.25. % of steel with different code
The concrete design of beam in table 13 as per their loading condition and its graphicalresultsshowsthatthevalueofrequired
area in beam is max for IS but the min for AIJ. The value of % steel in beam is max for IS but min for AIJ.

Table 14: Concrete design of column according as per their code loading
Code Main reinforcement Shear reinforcement Required area (mm2) Percentage of steel
IS456 24#20Ø 2 legged 8 Ø@280mmc/c 7539.82 1.23
EC-2 4#20Ø(TOP) 4#12Ø(BOTTOM) 1 legged 8 Ø@157mmc/c 223.19 1.25
ACI 5#20Ø(TOP) 6#16Ø(BOTTOM) 2 legged 8 Ø@245mmc/c 1474 1.00
AIJ 3#20Ø(TOP) 5#16Ø(BOTTOM) 2 legged 12 Ø@245mmc/c 1470.265 1.31
Fig.27. % of steel as per different code
The concrete design of column in table 12 as per their
loading condition and its graphical results shows that the
value of required area in column is max for IS but themin for
EC. The value of % steel in column is max for AIJ but min for
ACI.
Conclusion:-
The following conclusions are drawn from the computer
simulation program carried out in this investigation:
A. For Beam:-
(i) Analysis as per IS loading-
1. Axial force is maximum as per IS & EC and minimum as
per BSLJ.
2. Bending moment is maximum as per IS & EC and
minimum as per ASCE & BSLJ.
3. Shear force is maximum as per EC and minimum as per
BSLJ.
(ii) Analysis as per their loading-
1. Axial force is maximum as per EC and minimum as per
BSLJ.
2. Bending moment is maximum as per EC and minimum
as per BSLJ.
3. Shear force is maximum as per ASCE and minimum as
per BSLJ.
(iii) Concrete design as per IS loading
1. Required area is maximum as per ACI and minimum as
per IS.
2. Percentage of steel is maximum as per IS and minimum
as per AIJ.
(iv) Concrete design as per their loading
1. Required area is maximum as per IS and minimum as
per BSLJ.
2. Percentage of steel is maximum as per IS and minimum
as per AIJ.
B. For Column:-
(i) Analysis as per IS loading-
1. Axial force is maximum as per ASCE & BSLJ and
minimum as per EC.
2. Bending moment is maximum as per ASCE and
minimum as per BSLJ.
per BSLJ.
4. Base shear is maximum as per IS, EC & BSLJ and
minimum as per ASCE.

(ii) Analysis as per their loading-
1. Axial force is maximum as per ASCE & BSLJ and
minimum as per EC.
2. Bending moment is maximum as per ASCE and
minimum as per BSLJ.
per BSLJ.
4. Base shear is maximum as per IS, BSLJ & EC and
minimum as per ASCE.
(iii) Concrete design as per IS loading
1. Required area is maximum as per EC and minimum as
per AIJ.
2. Percentage of steel is maximum as perAIJ and minimum
as per ACI.
(iv) Concrete design as per their loading
1. Required area is maximum as per IS and minimum as
per EC.
2. Percentage of steel is maximum as perAIJ and minimum
as per ACI.
Reference:-
[1] Yuji Ishiyama: Introduction to EarthquakeEngineering
and Seismic Codes in the World, July
2012,http://iisee.kenken.go.jp/
[2] Muhammad Mostafijur Rahman, Sagar m. Jadhav,
Bahram M. Shahrooz, seismic performance of
reinforces concrete building designed according to
codes in Bangladesh, India and U. S. University of
Cincinnati, USA.
[3] Ahmad M. EI-Kholy, Hoda Syed, Ayman A. Shaheen,
Comparison of Egyptian code 2012 with Euro code 8-
2013, IBC 2015 and UBC 1997 for seismic analysis of
residential shear-wall RC buildings in Egypt Volume 9,
Issue 4, Pages 3425-3436, Nahda University NUB, Beni
Suef. Egypt, 2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1908_Messina_earthqua
ke
[4] IS-1893 Part 1. Criteria of earthquake resistant design
of the structure, rev. 5, Bureau of Indian standards,
Manak Bhawan, New Delhi, India 2002.
[5] S. Otani, Recent developments in seismic Design
criteria in Japan. In proceedings of an 11th world
conference of earthquake engineering (11th WCEE),
paper no. 2124.
[6] S. Otani, Japanese seismic design of Highrisereinforces
concrete building-an example of performance-based
design code and state of practice. In proceedings of a
13th world conference of earthquake engineering (13th
WCEE), paper no. 5010.
[7] CEN/TC 250 Committee. Euro code 8. Design of
structure for earthquake resistant, part 1: General
rules for buildings (European standard EN 1998-1)
European Committee for Standardization (CEN);
Belgium-2004
[8] CEN/TC 250 Committee. Euro code 8. Design of
structure for earthquake resistant, part 1: General
rules for buildings (European standard EN 1998-1)
European Committee for Standardization (CEN);
Belgium-2013ACI Committee 318.
[9] ACI 318-14/ACI 318R-14, building code requirements
for structural concrete and commentary. Farmington
Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute; 2014.
[10] ASCE/SEI 7-10. Minimum design loads for buildings
and other structures. Reston, VA: American Society of
Civil Engineers; 2010
[11] Edoardo M. Marino, Masayoshi Nakashima, and Khalid
M. Mosalam Comparison of European and Japanese
seismic design of steel building structures Kyoto
University, Gokasho, Uji, Kyoto 611-0011, Japan
Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 827–840
[12] Marjan Faizian and Yuji Ishiyama comparison of
seismic codes of 1981 Japan (BSLJ), 2000 USA (IBC)
and 1999 Iran (ICS) 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, B.C., Canada
August 1-6, 2004 Paper No. 3168.
[13] C. Bhatt, R. Bento A ComparisonBetweenAmericanand
European Codes on the Nonlinear Static Analysis of RC
Buildings 15th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering.
[14] By Weizi Zhang and Bahram M. Shahrooz Comparison
between ACI and AISC for concrete-filled tubular
columns, Heriot-Watt University on 03/07/15.
Copyright ASCE.
[15] Ang´ Elica Walsh, Daniel C´ Ostola, Lucila C. Labaki
Comparison of three climatic zoningmethodologiesfor
building energy efficiency applications,
http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.04.044
[16] Sameh A. EI-Betar Seismic performance of the existing
framed building, http://ees.elsevier.com/hbrcj
[17] Ali Ergun, Nevzat kirac, Veli Bas,AranTheevaluation of
structural properties of a reinforced concrete building
designed according to pre-modern code considering
seismic performance
Doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.09.003, Reference:EFA
2693.
[18] Ali Ruzi Ozuygur Performance-based seismic design of
an irregular tall building – a case study,
Doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2015.10.00Reference:INSTRUCT
62.
[19] Leonardo Avila, Graça Vasconcelos, Paulo B. Lourenço.
Experimental seismic performance assessment of
asymmetric masonry buildings,
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
[20] Mohsen Kahurangi, Laurentiu Danciu, Paolo Bazzurro.
Comparisonbetweenoutcomes of the2014 Earthquake
Hazard Model of the Middle East (EMME14) and
national seismic design codes: The case of Iran,
www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn
[21] Kristijan Kolozvari, Vesna Terzic, Ross Miller, Daniel
Saldana. Assessment of dynamic behavior and seismic
performance of a high-rise RC coupled wall building,
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruc
[22] A. Mosleh, H. Rodrigues, H. Varum, A. Costa, A. Arêde.
Seismic behavior of RC building structures designed
according to current codes,
www.elsevier.com/locate/structures
[23] José Barros, Hern án San ta-María. Seismic design of
low -rise buildings based on frequent earthquake
response spectrum https: / /Doi .org/10.1016/ j .job
e.2018.11.005.
[24] S. Malekpour, P. Seyyedi, F. Dashti, andJ.FallahAsghari.
Seismic Performance Evolution of Steel Moment
Frames Using Iranian, Euro code and Japanese code,
The Twelfth East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural

Engineeringand Construction,ProcediaEngineering14
(2011) 3331–3337.
[25] Gang Shi, Fangxin Hu, Yongjiu Shi. Comparison of
seismic design for steel moment frames in Europe, the
United States, Japan and China, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 127 (2016) 41–53.
[26] Masaomi Teshigawara Outline of Earthquake
Provisions in theJapaneseBuildingCodesArchitectural
Institute of Japan (ed.), Preliminary Reconnaissance
Report of the 2011 Tohoku-Chiho Taiheiyo-Oki
Earthquake, Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake
Engineering 23, DOI 10.1007/978-4-431-54097-7, ©
Springer Japan 2012.
[27] CEN. Euro Code 8: Final draft of Euro Code 8: Design of
structures for earthquake resistance — 1998-1:2004:
General rules, seismic actions, and rules for buildings.
Bruxelles: European Committee for Standardization;
2003
[28] F. Biasioli, G. Mancini, M. Just, M. Curbach, J. Walraven,
S. Gmainer, J. Arrieta, R. Frank, C.Morin, F. Robert
EUROCODE 2: Background & Applications design of
concrete buildings by European commission 2014.

Comparative Study on Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Building under Seismic Forces for Different Codal Guidelines

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Comparative Study on Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Building under Seismic Forces for Different Codal Guidelines (20)

More from ijtsrd (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Comparative Study on Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Building under Seismic Forces for Different Codal Guidelines