This study offers a detailed comparison between two structural systems: Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) and Steel-Concrete Composite (SCC) buildings, with a specific focus on their seismic behavior. Using STAAD.Pro software, seismic analysis was conducted on G+5 structures situated in Seismic Zone III. Parameters such as base shear, displacement, and stiffness were evaluated. The results indicate that SCC structures demonstrate superior seismic performance, exhibiting reduced lateral displacement and base shear along with better energy dissipation. These findings highlight the structural efficiency and potential advantages of composite systems in earthquake-prone regions.
Introduction
Objective:
The study compares Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) and Steel-Concrete Composite (SCC) structures in terms of seismic performance for G+5 buildings in Seismic Zone III (India) using STAAD Pro. The goal is to determine the more practical, efficient, and cost-effective structural system under earthquake loading.
Key Points:
Why SCC?
RCC is widely used but has low ductility and limited energy absorption under seismic loads.
SCC combines concrete's compressive strength with steel's tensile strength, offering better flexibility, ductility, and energy dissipation.
Methodology:
Two identical G+5 buildings were modeled—one with RCC and the other with SCC.
Loads applied: Dead, live (3 kN/m²), and seismic (using both Equivalent Static and Response Spectrum Methods).
Parameters analyzed: Base shear, lateral displacement, storey drift, stiffness, and natural frequency.
Statistical analysis: Paired t-test to assess significance.
Results:
Parameter
SCC vs RCC Performance
Base Shear
15–20% lower → indicates better energy dissipation
Lateral Displacement
15–18% lower → stiffer seismic response
Storey Drift
18–22% lower → reduced inter-storey movement
Stiffness
20–25% higher → more rigid structure
Natural Frequency
15–20% higher → less prone to resonance
Seismic Energy Dissipation
Improved, though damping ratio slightly reduced (2–3%)
Conclusion
Based on detailed analysis, steel-concrete composite structures outperform RCC structures across all key seismic parameters. With significantly reduced base shear, lateral displacement, and storey drift, along with higher stiffness and energy dissipation, composite designs offer safer and more resilient solutions in seismic zones. Therefore, SCC structures should be seriously considered for use in residential and commercial construction in earthquake-prone regions.
References
[1] Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016 – Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures – Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings, New Delhi, India: BIS, 2016.
[2] Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 456: 2000 – Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete, New Delhi, India: BIS, 2000.
[3] Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 11384: 1985 – Code of Practice for Composite Construction in Structural Steel and Concrete, New Delhi, India: BIS, 1985.
[4] V. Gorakh et al., “Analysis and design of high-rise buildings in STAAD.Pro,” J. Constr. Steel Res., vol. 147, pp. 312–320, 2018.
[5] D. N. Jyothi, “Comparative analysis of steel and RCC frames for high-rise buildings,” Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 960–969, 2018.
[6] K. Bhatia and R. Sharma, “Economic feasibility of steel versus RCC structures in high-rise buildings,” Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 180–186, 2022.
[7] S. Verma, M. Yadav, and R. Sinha, “Fire safety in high-rise buildings: Steel frames versus RCC structures,” Fire Saf. J., vol. 128, Art. no. 103517, 2022.
[8] R. Dalal, M. Patel, and S. Kansara, “RCC vs composite structure under earthquake loads,” Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 845–853, 2022.
[9] M. Swain and P. Parhi, “Seismic behaviour of G+10 RCC and composite column structures,” Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol., vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1440–1445, 2022.
[10] A. Patil and S. Deshmukh, “Analysis of RCC and composite multistorey buildings under earthquake load,” Int. J. Adv. Res. Sci. Commun. Technol., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 530–538, 2022.
[11] M. Khan, R. Ali, and Z. Shah, “Performance evaluation of composite structures in high-rise buildings,” J. Civ. Eng. Manag., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 87–97, 2023.
[12] R. Chaudhary, N. Mehra, and D. Joshi, “Modular construction of high-rise steel buildings: Opportunities and challenges,” Adv. Struct. Eng., vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1001–1015, 2023.
[13] R. Hullikashi and S. G., “Seismic performance of RCC and composite structures in different zones,” Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 345–350, 2023.
[14] A. Sharma and M. Reddy, “Dynamic response of RCC and composite buildings in Seismic Zone III,” Int. J. Struct. Civ. Eng. Res., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 89–95, 2023.
[15] U. Mert and C. Celik, “Composite columns in RC tall buildings in seismic areas,” Eng. Struct., vol. 282, Art. no. 115122, 2023.
[16] P. Singh and A. Kumar, “Smart technologies in high-rise steel buildings: A review,” Smart Struct. Syst., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 387–399, 2024.