An Analysis of the Relationship between Multi-Story RCC, Steel, and Composite Building Seismic Response Performance

Abstract

Engineers are familiar with the troubles that arise even as developing metallic or concrete structures, considering every fabric has its own set of traits. Because metallic components are often made up of thin plate factors, they are prone to buckling both locally and laterally. As a end result, they\'re examined for buckling and instability screw ups, at the same time as concrete contributors are usually thick and tough to buckle, but they\'re susceptible to creep and shrinkage over time. As a result, a steel-concrete composite construction has been industrialised to take advantage of each substance. Steel-concrete composite systems are the maximum value-effective solution to the numerous technical layout requirements for stiffness and electricity, combining the incredible traits of each metal and urban with lower costs, faster creation, and fire safety, amongst other blessings. In a number of locations. This kind of production has become a well-known issue in multi-tale metallic frame structures. A bare metallic frame with commonplace H-type section columns supports I-kind section beams, which in turn guide the overlying composite ground slab in the simplest form of composite structures. The composite floor slab, alternatively, is made of bloodless-shaped profiled steel sheets that serve as both the everlasting formwork and the vital tensile reinforcement for an in situ solid concrete slab. This powerful structural technique is suitable for systems that should face up to seismic forces. In this study, ETABS 2015 version 15.2.2 incorporated building layout software program was used to simulate all three sorts of systems defined above, namely steel, concrete, and composite multi-tale buildings. The Static seismic coefficient method and Dynamic Response spectrum evaluation technique are used to examine all three types of systems.

Introduction

Earth’s structures face static (unchanging) and dynamic (time-varying) loads. Civil structures are usually designed assuming static loads, but ignoring dynamic forces—especially during earthquakes—can be catastrophic. Earthquakes give little warning and can cause major structural damage and loss of life.

To address this, buildings must be designed to withstand seismic forces, using codes, modelling techniques, and earthquake-resistant construction practices.

2. Seismic Design Philosophy (IS 1893)

IS 1893 (2002) outlines seismic design goals:

• Minor quakes: No damage

• Moderate quakes (DBE): No major structural damage

• Major quakes (MCE): No collapse

Key considerations include:

• Ductility via the response reduction factor (R)

• Importance factor (I) based on building use

• Seismic zone factor (Z) and spectral acceleration (Sa/g)

• Analysis Methods:

  • Equivalent Static Load Method

  • Dynamic Analysis (required for tall/irregular structures in Zones IV & V)

3. Composite Construction Overview

Due to poor earthquake performance of traditional RCC and masonry, composite steel-concrete structures are gaining attention. Benefits include:

• Improved seismic behavior

• Faster, cost-effective construction

• Better thermal compatibility

• High strength-to-weight ratio

In composite systems, steel beams are bonded to concrete slabs using shear connectors, enabling them to behave as a unified structure.

4. Objective of the Study

To compare seismic performance of multi-story (G+12) buildings made of:

• RCC

• Steel

• Composite materials

Using ETABS 2015, both equivalent static and response spectrum dynamic analyses were performed. Key comparisons included:

• Time period

• Storey displacement and drift

• Shear force, bending moments, axial force

• Modal participation

• Peak ground acceleration (PGA)

• Material cost

5. Methodology

• A G+12 building (24m × 42m) was modeled in ETABS.

• Three types of frames analyzed:

  1. RCC

  2. Steel

  3. Composite (steel beam, composite columns, profiled deck)

Analyses Used:

• Equivalent Static Analysis (simplified, code-based)

• Response Spectrum Analysis (dynamic, mode-based)

6. Key Results

Seismic Weight:

• RCC: 120,888.58 kN

• Steel: 105,529.92 kN

• Composite: 107,339.48 kN

  • Steel building is ~12.7% lighter than RCC

  • Composite is ~11.2% lighter than RCC

General Observations:

• Dynamic analysis provides more accurate lateral force distribution compared to static methods.

• Structural stiffness and mass distribution affect the natural frequency and mode shapes of vibration.

• Composite structures offer a balance between strength, ductility, and weight.

• Steel buildings, being lighter, reduce seismic forces but may be less stiff.

• Composite systems performed best in terms of cost-efficiency and seismic performance.

Conclusion

Following the static and dynamic analysis of steel, RCC, and composite buildings, it was discovered that dynamic analysis not only provides a better knowledge of structural behaviour but also allows for the formulation of the following conclusions: 1) The maximum seismic weight of an RCC structure is ten thousand pounds. Steel and composite buildings have a seismic weight that is 12.70% and 11.21% less than reinforced concrete buildings, respectively. 2) Storey shear in composite buildings is 14 percent lower than in RCC buildings, while steel buildings are 18 percent lower. 3) RCC construction has the highest storey stiffness because it has a less flexible structure than other structures. When compared to reinforced concrete structures (RCC), steel buildings have a 26% lower storey stiffness and composite buildings have a 23% lower storey stiffness. 4) The stiffer the material, the less displacement will occur. The highest storey displacement is seen in steel buildings. The steel structure has a 26 percent greater storey displacement than the RCC building, whereas the composite building has a 22 percent greater storey displacement than the RCC building. 5) The amount of storey drift that occurs is directly proportional to the rigidity of the structure. The greater the stiffness, the less drift there is. With this in mind, a steel structure has the greatest amount of story drift. When compared to an RCC building, a steel building has a 43.54 percent greater storey drift and a 30.35 percent greater floor drift. 6) When it comes to RCC construction, it is quite rigid and requires a shorter construction time period. Consequently, when compared to the other two types of structures, RCC construction requires the least amount of time. Steel buildings have a time period of 15.77 percent, whereas composite buildings have a time period of 2 percent. 7) The modal participation factor demonstrates that mass contributes significantly in the first four modes, whereas the contribution of the higher mode is minimal in the structure. 8) The peak ground acceleration (PGA) of steel buildings is greater than that of composite buildings. 9) Based on the element sections, we may deduce that composite structures not only result in decreased dead weight, but they also result in reduced dimensions. This provides an additional working area as well as extra headroom. 10) The average storey shear for RCC, steel, and composite buildings is reduced by 33%, 27%, and 23%, respectively, when dynamic analysis is performed. 11) When dynamic analysis is performed on an average storey of RCC, steel, and composite buildings, displacement is reduced by 26.91 percent, 27.94 percent, and 24.08 percent, respectively. 12) When dynamic analysis is performed on the average storey level, drift is reduced by 38%. 13) When compared to RCC and steel construction, the cost of composite construction is 17.05 percent and 3.05 percent lower, respectively. 14) The effects of dynamic analysis on storey shear, displacement, and drift are reduced, among other things; this illustrates that dynamic analysis improves force estimations, resulting in more accurate and cost-effective building analysis results. 15) The lateral stiffness of a structure should be adequate to provide superior seismic performance. Deformation and strains caused by low lateral stiffness are severe, and non-structural component deterioration and occupant discomfort are common consequences. 16) Despite the fact that a stiff structure attracts more seismic force, it has survived better in prior earthquakes, such as the one that occurred in 1893. (Part-I). 17) Composite construction reduces both the cross-sectional area of the element and the amount of steel that is utilised in its construction. As a consequence, the foundation\'s operating costs will be significantly decreased. Therefore, composite structures are one of the best options for multistorey building construction as well as earthquake protection.

References

[1] Abhishek Sanjay Mahajan & Laxman G. Kalurkar, “performance analysis of RCC and steel concrete composite structure under seismic effect”, International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, Volume 5 Issue 4 Apr-2016. [2] Anamika Tedia & Dr. Savita Maru, “Cost, Analysis and Design of Steel-Concrete Composite Structure RCC Structure”, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, Volume 11, Issue 1, Jan. 2014. [3] Aniket Sijaria, Prof Anubhav Rai & Prof Y.K. Bajpai, “Cost comparison between [4] r.c.c. beam& steel composite beam structure of g+5 storeyed building the overall plan dimension of the building is 56.3 m x 31.94m”, International Journal of Computational Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 6, June 2014. [5] A. Sattainathan Sharma, R. Anjughap Priya, R. Thirugnanam and P. Rathna Priya, “Comparative Study on Multi-Storey Structure of R.C.C and Composite Material”, Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Volume 9, Issue 2, January 2016. [6] Bhavin H. Zaveri , Bhargav K.Panchotiya & Smit U. Patel, “parametric study of rcc, steel and composite structures under seismic loading”, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology ,Volume 7, Issue 4, July-August 2016. [7] Bhavin H. Zaveri, Jasmin A. Gadhiya & Hitesh K. Dhameliya, “A Review on the Comparative Study of Steel, RCC and Composite Building”, International Journal of Innovative Research in Science Engineering and Tech., Vol. 5, Issue 1, January 2016. [8] Deepak M Jirage, Prof. V.G. Sayagavi & Prof. N.G. Gore, “Comparative Study of RCC and Composite Multi-storeyed Building”, International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Applied Science, Volume 1, Issue 6, September 2015. [9] D. R. Panchal & P. M. Marathe, “comparative study of RCC, steel and composite ( G +30 Storey) building”, institute of technology, Nirma University, 08-10 December 2011. [10] Mahesh Suresh Kumawat & L G Kalurkar, “analysis and design of multistory building using composite structure”, Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Volume 3, issue No. 2, May 2014. [11] Murtuza S. Aainawala, “ behavior of g+15 RCC and composite structure”, International Journal of Innovative and Emerging Research in Eng., Volume 3, Sp. Issue 1, 2016. [12] Nitish A. Mohite, P. K. Joshi & Dr. W. N. Deulkar, “Comparative Analysis of RCC and Steel-Concrete-Composite (B+G+ 11 Storey) Building”, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 5, Issue 10, October 2015. [13] Nitin m. Warade & P. J. Salunke, “comparative study on analysis and design of composite structure”, International Journal of Advance Research in Science and Engineering, Volume No.2, Issue No.12, December, 2013. [14] Jeeva K, & Prof. G. Augustine Maniraj Pandian, “Study of Behavior of Steel and Steel-Concrete Composite Multi-Storey Moment Resistant Frames Using Pushover Analysis”, International Conference on Engineering Trends and Science & Humanities page no. 17 to 21, 2015

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Boragalla Deepak Sai , R. Vijay . This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.