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

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 Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0) ABSTRACT Construction is a vital part of every developing country in this era. Every country 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 major natural forces 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 must be efficient enough 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 and design, the building elements like beam and column is also compared using these countries RC building code.


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 for earthquake resistant design 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 building height of 65 feet of residential building and 100 feet of a non-residential building. The method of construction is required in the building of law of enforcement order, revised time to time by the technical development. Various standards and 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 consists of 10 sections that were developed by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN). EC-1998-8 concern the design of the structure for earthquake resistant, it is the eight standards 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, importance factor etc [8,9].
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 UBC revised by structural 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 the USA. The structures were 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 for comparing the similarity and differences. C. Bhatt, R. Bento [14] compares the code of America and European, on the nonlinear static analysis of RC 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 concretefilled 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 elements informed the seismic hazards models. Kristijan Kolozvari [22] evaluates the seismic performance and behavior of high rise 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 Global and 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. Malekpour at all. [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. Gang Shi at all. [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 calculating base shear, lateral forces, 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 analysis of matrix problems. The programme hence consists of the following facilities to enable this work. Graphical model generation utilities as well as text editor based commands for creating the mathematical model. Beam and column are represented using lines. Walls, slabs and panel type member are represents using triangular and quadrilateral finite elements. These utilities enable the users 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   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).  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.    Table 4.
The load combination of dead load , live load, roof load and earthquake load, wind load for their four building code are given in Table 3.   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, story drift and displacement as shown in Table 5,6 & 7. The graphical representation of the results is shown in figure from 4 to 11.  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.  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. The above table and figure shows that the variation of storey drifts and displacement varies according to height of building. It is clearly shown in table that the value of drift is increasing slightly and then decreases.

Building parameter-
2. The analysis and design of beam, column and storey drift at different level according to their loading condition is evaluated in the terms of maximum axial force, maximum bending moment, maximum shear force, story drift and displacement as shown in Table 8    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 max for IS, BSLJ and EC but min for ASCE. 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 figure from 20 to 23. 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.  The concrete design of column in table 12 as per IS loading condition and its graphical results shows that the value of required 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 loading condition is evaluated in the terms of required area and percentage of steel as shown in Table 13 & 14. The graphical representation of the results is shown in figure from 24 to 27.  The concrete design of beam in table 13 as per their loading condition and its graphical results shows that the value of required 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.  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 the min for EC. The value of % steel in column is max for AIJ but min for ACI.