COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGE OF STEEL

QUANTITIES AND COST OF

ANASYMETRYCOMMERCIAL BUILDING (G+4)
UNDER GRAVITY LOADS AND SEISMIC LOADS
K. Bindumathi1, K.Rajasekhar2
1 2
Student, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Siddartha Educational Academy Group of
Institution/Integrated Campus,Tirupati, Rural, (India)

ABSTRACT
Commercial buildings are top priority buildings with a lot of demand to business activities. They will be located
probably at city centers there by putting intense pressure on available land space. In present scenario,
commercial buildings are often constructed with structural asymmetry. Earthquakes strike suddenly, violently
and without warning at any time of the day or night. If an earthquake occurs in a business area including
commercial buildings, it may cause many deaths and injuries and extensive property damage. Hence it is
mandatory to do the seismic analysis and design to any structure against collapse. Dynamic analysis is done on
seismic loaded structures using E-Tabs software package and manual design is performed. This study addresses
the variation of percentage steel of R.C framed structure for gravity loads as per IS 456:2000 and seismic loads
added to gravity loads as per IS 1893 - 2002. The overall percentage cost variation of a gravity loaded and
seismic loaded buildings was found to be 23.99%.

Keywords: Commercial buildings, Seismic Forces, Ductility, Reinforcement, E-Tabs.

I. INTRODUCTION

A Commercial building is one of the most important public buildings; these remain busy all along the day. So
design of these type of buildings against natural hazards like earthquakes plays major role. The most
determinant effect on a structure is generally caused by lateral component of earth quake load. As
compared to gravity load effect, earthquake load effects on buildings are quite variable and increase rapidly as
the height of building increases. For gravity loads, structure is designed by considering area supported by
a column and spans of beam; whereas for earthquake loads, design is a function of total mass, height. From
the past 25 years seismic design of building is confined to only major seismic prone zones. Natural calamities
like earthquakes shall never be expected on beforehand. Hence there is urgent need for including seismic design
to the design office. Thereis a blind belief that seismic design is a distant dream for common buildings. Present
paper aim is to enlighten that there is no much difference in overall cost and reinforcement with addition of
seismic loads to gravity loads.

145 | P a g e
II. GEOMETRY OF BUILDING

The present commercial building is asymmetric in plan and in elevation having story height of 3.0m where all
storey’s are of the same height. The building has a length Lb= 82 m and width Bb= 42 m.Plinth area of structure
is 1797.47 m2.This study mainly focus on the comparison of percentage steel quantities and cost of the main
structural elements when the building is designed for gravity loads as per IS: 456-2000 and when the building is
designed for earthquake forces in as per IS 1893:2002.This gives the approximate percentage in the economy
compared with normal design.

III. METHODOLOGY

Conventional design of the structure is carried out based on the gravity loads and live loads estimated on the
structure based on IS456: 2000. Initially preliminary design is carried out to know approximate dimensions
required for beams, columns and slabs. Analysis is done using E-Tabs software and maximum moments were
used to design those structural members manually.
Seismic analysis of the structures is carried out on the basis of lateral force assumed to act along with the gravity
loads. The base shear which is the total horizontal force on the structure is calculated on the basis of structure
mass and fundamental period of vibration and corresponding mode of shape. The base shear is distributed along
the height of the structure in terms of lateral forces according to codal provisions. In this study, a five (G+4)
storied RC building has been analyzed using the Response spectrum method using E-Tabs. The plan of the
building taken for analysis is shown in Fig.1. The nomenclature of columns is shown in Fig.2. Three
Dimensional view of the whole structure is shown in Fig.3. Fig.4 is showing the structure subjecting to the
vertical loading and Fig.5 & Fig6.are showing the structure subjected to loading of earthquake in “+X” and
“+Y” directions. Dynamic analysis is done using E-Tabs software and maximum moments of the structural
member are found. Using those moments structural members are designed manually.
Table 1: Preliminary Data of the structure considered for seismic analysis
Type of the structure RCC Framed structure

Number of stories G+4

Floor to floor height 3.6 m

Plinth height 0.6 m

Walls thickness 230 mm

Grade of concrete M 30

Grade of steel Fe 415

Earthquake load As per IS1893 (Part 1): 2002

Size of the columns 0.3mx0.6m

0.3mx0.45m
Size of the beams

Slab thickness 0.15m

146 | P a g e
 SBC of soil taken 200kN/m²

Type of soil Medium soil

Live load 3kN/m²

Floor finishes 1kN/m²

Seismic zone considered II

Type of wall Brick masonry

Fig 1: Plan of Commercial Building (G+4) Fig 2: Beam- Column Layout of the Structure

Fig 3: 3-D View of Commercial Building Fig 4: Vertical Loading on the Structure

147 | P a g e
 Fig 5: Earthquake Loads in X-Direction Fig 6: Earthquake Loads in Y-Direction

3.1 Loading Data

3.1.1 Dead Load (DL)
Self-weight of slab = 0.15x25 = 3.75kN/m2
Floor finishes = 1.00kN/m2
Total DL = 4.75kN/m2
(Assume 130mm total depth of slab)
Weight of walls = 0.23x20x 3.0 = 13.80kN/m
3.1.2 Live Load (LL)
Live Load on each slab = 3.00kN/m2
3.1.3 Earth quake Load (EQL)
As per IS-1893 (Part 1): 2002
3.1.4 Load Combinations:
The following load combinations are used in the seismic analysis, as mentioned in the code IS 1893(Part-1):
2002, Clause no. 6.3.1.2.
1. 1.5(DL+LL)
2. 1.2(DL+LL+EQX)
3. 1.2(DL+LL- EQX)
4. 1.2(DL+LL+ EQZ)
5. 1.2(DL+LL- EQZ)
6. 1.5(DL+ EQX)
7. 1.5(DL- EQX)
8. 1.5(DL+ EQZ)
9. 1.5(DL-EQZ)
10. 0.9DL+ 1.5EQX
11. 0.9DL- 1.5EQX
12. 0.9DL+ 1.5EQZ

148 | P a g e
13. 0.9DL-1.5EQZ
Earthquake load was considered in +X,-X, +Y and –Y directions. Thus a total of 13 load combinations are taken
for analysis. Since large amount of data is difficult to handle manually, all the load combinations are analyzed
using software E-Tabs. All the load combinations are mentioned above.

IV. ANALYTICAL ANALYSIS

The main objective of the analysis is to study the different forces like moments, shear forces and axial forces
acting on a building. The analysis is carried out in E-Tabs 2013 software package. Results of conventional
R.C.C structure i.e slab, beam and column were found and maximum moments were taken for manual design.
Similarly dynamic analysis was done on seismic loaded structures and maximum forces were taken to design
structural elements like slab, beam column and footings adopting ductile detailing codeIS 13920:1993. Fig.7 is
showing BMD of the structure,Storey shears and maximum storey displacements were shown in Fig.8 and Fig.9.
Fig.10 shows maximum storey drifts.

Fig 7: Bending Moment diagram of the proposed commercial building

149 | P a g e
 Fig 8: Maximum Storey Shears Fig 9: Maximum Storey Displacements

Fig 10: Maximum Storey Drifts Under Gravity and Seismic Loading

V. DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS

Design of all the structural members were performed manually using the the moments achieved from E-Tabs
software.

150 | P a g e
5.1 Variation of Reinforcement in Beams:
Table 2: Variation of reinforcement for gravity and seismic loading in beams
SPAN SIZE OF SHAPE OF REINFORCEMENT OF REINFORCEMENT OF
in BEAM (m x BEAM GRAVITY LOADED SEISMIC LOADED
(m) m) STRUCTURE STRUCTURE
MAIN SHEAR MAIN SHEAR
7 0.3 x 0.45 T - BEAM 4-25dia 8 mm @ 150 mm c/c 5-25dia 8 mm @ 100
mm c/c
6 0.3 x 0.45 T – BEAM 3-25dia 10 mm @ 150 mm 4-22dia 10 mm @ 120
c/c mm c/c
4.5 0.23 x 0.3 T – BEAM 3-22dia 8 mm @ 100mm c/c 4-20dia 8 mm @ 80mm
c/c
3 0.23 x 0.3 T – BEAM 3-16dia 8 mm @ 100 mm 4-16dia 8 mm @ 120
c/c mm c/c
8 0.3 x 0.45 L - 5-25dia 8 mm @ 150 mm 4-25dia 8 mm @ 130
BEAM c/c mm c/c
7 0.3 x 0.45 L - BEAM 4-25dia 8 mm @ 150 mm c/c 4-25dia 8 mm @ 100
mm c/c
6 0.3 x 0.45 L - BEAM 4-22dia 12 mm @ 150 mm 4-20dia 8 mm @ 150
c/c mm c/c
4.5 0.23 x 0.3 L - BEAM 4-16dia 8 mm @ 100mm c/c 4-16dia 8 mm @
100mm c/c
3 0.23 x 0.3 L – BEAM 4-12dia 8 mm @ 100 mm 3-16dia 8 mm @ 100
c/c mm c/c

5.2 Variation of Reinforcement in Columns:

Table 3: Variation of reinforcement for gravity and seismic loading in Columns
S.NO. COLUMN REINFORCEMENT OF GRAVITY REINFORCEMENT OF
DIMENSIONS LOADED STRUCTURE SEISMIC LOADED
(mm) STRUCTURE
MAIN LATERAL MAIN LATERAL
TIES TIES
1 300 x 600 6- 22 mmФ 6 mm Ф 8- 22 mm Ф 6 mm Ф
200 mm c/c 150 mm c/c
2 350 x 550 6- 22 mmФ 6 mm Ф 6- 22 mm Ф 6 mm Ф
200 mm c/c 180 mm c/c
3 350 x 450 6- 16 mmФ 8 mm Ф 6- 20 mm Ф 8 mm Ф
255 mm c/c 220 mm c/c

151 | P a g e
VI. COMPARISON OF AREA OF STEEL

The total area of steel required for a gravity loaded structure (structural elements) like Beam, Column and
Footings was found as 23698mm2 and for combination of seismic and gravity loads is 28897mm2. The variation
in reinforcement is calculated only for structural elements with variation in span and cross-section. The highest
loading elements for analysis and design. The percentage variation is found as 21.93%. Fig 11.0 shows the area
of steel required for a gravity and seismic loaded structure.

35000

30000
Area of steel in mm2

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
Beam Column Footings Total
Structural Elements

Gravity load Seismic Load

Fig 11 Comparison of area of steel required for gravity and seismic loaded structures

6.1 Cost Estimation and Comparison

The total cost required for a gravity loaded structure (structural elements) like Beam, Column and Footings was
found as 47300 Rs and for combination of seismic and gravity loads is 58650 Rs.The percentage variation is
found as 23.99%. Fig 12.0 shows the cost required for a gravity and seismic loaded structure. If the total
structure is considered the cost may increase
Difference in cost for gravity and seismic loading = 23.99%

152 | P a g e
 70000
60000
Estimated cost (Rs)

50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Beam Column Footings Total
Structural elements

Gravity load Seiemic load

Fig 12.0 Comparison of Cost required for gravity and seismic loaded structures

VII. CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions can be made based on the analysis and design of commercial building designed for
gravity loads and earthquake forces in zone II.
1. The variation of percentage of steel of seismic loading when compared to gravity loading is 21.93%
2. The variation of estimated cost for those structural members analysed and designed under seismic
loading is 23.99% greater than gravity loaded building.
3. Hence it is concluded that with a variation of around 25 % seismic design can be included in the design
office.

REFERENCES

[1]. KarunakarPerla “Earthquake Resistant Design – Impact on Cost of Reinforced Concrete Buildings” IJESIT
Vol.3, Issue 6, November2014
[2]. V.Varalakshmi, G.Shiva Kumar, R. Sunil Sarma “Analysis and Design of G+5 Residential Building
[3]. ASHOK K. JAIN (2007), “Reinforced Concrete Limit State Design” Nemchand& Bro’s, ROORKEE.
[4]. Kiran Kumar, G. Papa Rao “ Comparison Of Percentage Steel and Concrete Quantities of A R.C Building
in Different Seismic Zones, IJRET Vol2, Issue 7, July 2013
[5]. IS 456:2000 (sixth edition) “Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete”, BIS, New Delhi.
[6]. Design aids for IS 456 – 1978 (SP - 16), Bureau of Indian Standards.
[7]. Loading Standard for Structural safety of a building IS 875 – 1998, Bureau of Indian Standards.
[8]. Dr.S.NTande,S.JPatil “Seismic Response Of Asymmetric Buildings” IJLTET Vol. 2 Issue 4 july 2013.
[9]. IS: 13920, Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete- Indian Standard Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian
standards, New Delhi, 2000.

153 | P a g e