International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 10, Issue 04, April 2019, pp. 1001-1012. Article ID: IJCIET_10_04_105
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=04
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
© IAEME Publication
Scopus Indexed
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STATIC
ANALYSIS (AS PER IS: 1893-2002) & DYNAMIC
ANALYSIS (AS PER IS:1893-2016) OF A
BUILDING FOR ZONE V
Ajay Kumar
M. Tech. Structural Engineering, Chandigarh University, Mohali-140413, Punjab, India.
Jagdish Chand
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
Chandigarh University, Mohali 140413, Punjab, India
ABSTRACT
In present study, different storied building has been modeled using staad.pro
software and analyzed with gravity and seismic loads to compare the results of seismic
analysis as per IS:1893-2002 and IS:1893-2016.The design has been done for 4 storey,
8 storey & 11 storey buildings. The maximum height of the aforementioned buildings
is 39.6m, therefore, according to previous seismic code (IS:1893-2002) static seismic
analysis was performed and as per new seismic code (IS:1893-2016) dynamic seismic
analysis was performed. The loading and all other relevant considerations are same
for various building. The performance of the structures has been evaluated in terms of
different structural parameters such as axial force, bending moment, displacement,
material quantity etc. Cost analysis has also been carried out on material (concrete
and steel). Comparison of these results has been done to draw the conclusion of the
present study. From the final outcomes of the study, it has been found that the total cost
of the buildings designed with dynamic seismic analysis comes out to be 1.06 to 1.1
times higher than the building designed with static seismic analysis.
Keywords: Static and Dynamic Seismic Analysis, Staad Pro.
Cite this Article: Ajay Kumar and Jagdish Chand, A Comparative Study of Static
Analysis (As Per Is: 1893-2002) & Dynamic Analysis (As Per Is:1893-2016) of a
Building for Zone V, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology,
10(4), 2019, pp. 1001-1012.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=04
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1001
editor@iaeme.com
A Comparative Study of Static Analysis (As Per Is: 1893-2002) & Dynamic Analysis (As Per
Is:1893-2016) of a Building for Zone V
1. INTRODUCTION
In overhauling world, infrastructures have become omnipresent and it is inevitable to imagine
today’s world without it. Buildings made from concrete is one of the basic form of
infrastructures which can be seen everywhere. Process of construction of a building entails
different department such as architects, structure designer, contractors etc. with all the help of
these departments, building is being erected such that it can withstand vigorous vertical loads
and ground motion which is the result of earthquakes. Designer has to be very careful while
considering these forces as little miscalculations will lead to failure of the structure because
ground motions, being the complex concept, needs to be analyzed in a very scrutinized manner.
Therefore, the resistance of a building and its design as per the guidelines of seismic codes has
become an important research area. Sometimes, addition of members other than beams and
columns are required to resist these produced lateral forces.
IS: 1893-2016, being the latest Seismic Indian Code, provides amendments regarding the
design of the earthquake resistant building. Various amendments and new guidelines were
introduced in this code but the major one was related to the dynamic seismic analysis. It stated
that dynamic seismic analysis shall be adopted for all the buildings other than regular buildings
lower than 15 m in height in seismic zone II
Figure 1 Ground Motion during Earthquake
Previously, dynamic seismic analysis shall on be adopted if the height of regular building
exceeds 40m, otherwise static seismic analysis shall be used. Therefore, while keeping both
the codes (new and old version of earthquake code), a comparative study of static analysis (as
per is: 1893-2002) & dynamic analysis (as per is:1893-2016) in seismic zone V has been carried
out. Various seismic parameters are to be considered while designing earthquake resistant
building such as type of structure, material which is being used for construction, type of
foundation soil etc.
Two different methods, which are being used for making the structures earthquake
resistant, are:
• Equivalent Static Seismic Analysis
• Dynamic Seismic Analysis.
o Response Spectrum Method.
o Modal Time History Method
o Time History Method.
Application of above-mentioned methods may vary as per the site conditions, type of
structure, height and seismic zone etc.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1002
editor@iaeme.com
Ajay Kumar and Jagdish Chand
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Present study has been taken in order to compare the results of seismic analysis as per IS:18932002 and IS: 1893-2016. Research methodology which was being used during the study is
represented below in different phases.
2.1. Phase I: Modeling
4 storey, 8 storey & 11 storey regular buildings were chosen as the maximum height of the
structure comes out to be 39.6m. Description of various models are being represented in the
table 1.
Table 1 Description of Various Models
Type
Storey
Earthquake Design
Code
Type A
4 storey Building
IS: 1893-2002
Type B
8 storey Building
IS: 1893-2002
Type C
11 storey Building
IS: 1893-2002
Type D
Type E
Type F
4 storey Building
8 storey Building
11 storey Building
IS: 1893-2016
IS: 1893-2016
IS: 1893-2016
Seismic Analysis
Method
Equivalent Static
Method
Equivalent Static
Method
Equivalent Static
Method
Dynamic Method
Dynamic Method
Dynamic Method
Total Height
(m)
14.4
28.8
39.6
14.4
28.8
39.6
Other parameters of modeling are being represented in the table given below:
• Height of each storey
= 3.6 m
• No. of bays in X-direction = 6
• No. of bays in Z-direction
=6
• Panel of each bay
=6mx5m
Figure 3 Four Storey Building
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1003
editor@iaeme.com
A Comparative Study of Static Analysis (As Per Is: 1893-2002) & Dynamic Analysis (As Per
Is:1893-2016) of a Building for Zone V
Figure 5 Eleven Storey Building
Figure 4 Eight Storey Building
Material properties which were assigned to different storey buildings are mentioned in table
2.
Table 2 Material Properties of Columns and Beams
Type of building
Type A & Type D
Type B & Type E
Type C & Type F
Floors
1 to 4th floor
1st to 4th floor
5th to 8th floor
1st to 4th floor
5th to 8th floor
9th to 11th floor
st
Column size (mm)
575 x 575
750 x 750
575 x 575
900 x 900
750 x 750
450 x 450
Beam size (mm)
450 x 375
575 x 450
375 x 375
600 x 575
575 x 450
450 x 375
Loading on the structures are applied as per the codal provisions of Indian
Standards i.e. IS: 875 part I (Dead Load) and IS: 875 part II (Live Load) and is being
specified in the given table below.
Table 3 Details of Loading Applied.
DEAD LOADS
Wall load on outers beams
Wall load on inner beams
Parapet wall load
Floor slab & finishing load
15.2 kN/m
7.6 kN/m
2.9 kN/m
6 kN/m2
LIVE LOAD
3 kN/m2
1.5 kN/m2
Load on floors (except roof floor)
Load on roof floor
2.2. Phase II: Seismic Analysis
Total 3 models (Type A, Type B & Type C) were analyzed and designed with old seismic code
IS:1893:2002 by static seismic analysis and then another 3 models (Type D, Type E & Type
F)were analyzed and designed with new seismic code IS:1893:2016 by dynamic seismic
analysis. For these seismic analysis, seismic parameters such as seismic zone, type of structure,
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1004
editor@iaeme.com
Ajay Kumar and Jagdish Chand
soil type etc remain same so that comparison between the buildings designed with old and new
code shall be done.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
During the present study, columns were being evaluated in terms of axial force, bending
moment, percentage of steel, deflection and beams for shear force and bending moment. The
results have been recorded from the post-processing of staad.pro connect edition and are being
represented in tabular and graphical form. Note that the columns were being designed for
critical load cases in staad.pro, therefore, critical load case may vary from column to column.
And results of beams (i.e. values of shear force and bending moment) were obtained from the
factored load case (1.5 D.L + 1.5 L.L).
Following are the results of 4 storey, 8 storey and 11 storey building analyzed with static
seismic analysis and dynamic seismic analysis.
3.1. Results of Type A and Type D Building
The values of structural parameters such as axial force (kN) and bending moment (kN-m) for
the columns of 4 storey building are being represented in table 4 and table 5 respectively.
Table 4 AXIAL FORCES (KN) IN COLUMN
Floor
Old Code (Type A)
New Code (Type D)
1
327.84
289.01
2
879.67
489.57
3
490.23
500.44
4
160.67
164.13
Figure 6 shows the % steel and it can be clearly seen that the new code (Type D building)
value is more than the value of old code (Type A building) and the maximum ratio (new code
value/ old code value) comes out to be 1.60.
Whereas, figure 7 represents the displacement (mm) of column. Due to dynamic seismic
analysis, it was observed that the maximum displacement value is 1.16 times higher than the
value obtained from static seismic analysis.
Figure 6 % of Steel in Column.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1005
editor@iaeme.com
A Comparative Study of Static Analysis (As Per Is: 1893-2002) & Dynamic Analysis (As Per
Is:1893-2016) of a Building for Zone V
Figure 7 Displacement in Column.
Table 5 BENDING MOMENT (KN-M) IN COLUMN
Floor
Old Code (Type A)
New Code (Type D)
1
420.76
589.49
2
272.77
309.48
3
263.02
305.07
4
190.67
200.52
Figure 8 and 9 shows the beam result i.e. values of shear force and bending moment
respectively. From the figures, it was concluded that type D building (new code) produces more
value than type A building (old code), approximately 1.07 times higher.
Figure 8 Shear force in Beam.
Figure 9 Bending Moment in Beam.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1006
editor@iaeme.com
Ajay Kumar and Jagdish Chand
After cost analysis, the cost of the concrete and steel is being represented in figure 10.
Therefore, the total cost of 4 storied building comes out to be Rs. 53.82 lakhs for type D
building and Rs. 49.35 lakhs for Type A building.
Figure 10 Total Cost of 4 Storey Building.
3.2. Results of Type B and Type E Building
The values of structural parameters such as axial force (kN) and bending moment (kN-m) for
the columns of 8 storey building are being represented in table 6 and table 7 respectively.
Table 6 AXIAL FORCES (KN) IN COLUMN
Floor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Old Code (Type B)
488.15
2670.98
2199.8
1718.28
1176.75
800.75
468.32
153.37
New Code (Type E)
719.21
2583.29
2122.61
1662.74
383.74
562.82
461.24
150.2
Figure 11 shows the % steel and it can be clearly seen that the new code (Type E building)
value is more than the value of old code (Type B building) and the maximum ratio (new code
value/ old code value) comes out to be 1.07.
Whereas, figure 12 represents the displacement (mm) of column. Due to dynamic seismic
analysis, it was observed that the maximum displacement value is 0.84 times the value obtained
from static seismic analysis.
Figure 11 % of steel in Column.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1007
editor@iaeme.com
A Comparative Study of Static Analysis (As Per Is: 1893-2002) & Dynamic Analysis (As Per
Is:1893-2016) of a Building for Zone V
Figure 12 Displacement in Column. Figure 13 and 14 shows the beam result i.e. values of shear force
and bending moment respectively. From the figures, it was concluded that type E building (new code)
produces more value than type B building (old code), approximately 1.1 times higher.
Figure 13 Shear force in Beam.
Figure 14 bending Moment in Beam.
Table 7 BENDING MOMENT (KN-M) IN COLUMN
Floor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Old Code
(Type B)
16.29
82.37
71.99
84.15
422.68
246.62
266.37
175.5
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1008
New Code
(Type E)
741.81
82.27
71.84
83.9
373.8
249.07
264.58
164.89
editor@iaeme.com
Ajay Kumar and Jagdish Chand
The cost of concrete and steel is being represented in figure 15. Therefore, the total cost of
8 storied building comes out to be Rs. 130.40 lakhs for Type E building and Rs. 120.51 lakhs
for Type B building.
Figure 15 Total Cost of 8 Storey Building.
3.3. Results of Type C and Type F Building
The values of structural parameters such as axial force (kN) and bending moment (kN-m) for
the columns of 11 storey building are being represented in table 8 and table 9 respectively.
Table 8 AXIAL FORCES (KN) IN COLUMN
Floor
Old Code (Type C)
New Code (Type F)
1
4873.65
1018.24
2
4378.21
4308.42
3
3835.73
3767.66
4
3276.51
3219.11
5
2707.53
2670.11
6
2222.25
2205.06
7
1738.4
1741.92
8
1266.21
310.24
9
786.21
512.67
10
441.8
461.56
11
143.64
152.19
Figure 16 shows the % steel and it can be clearly seen that the new code (Type F building)
value is more than the value of old code (Type C building) and the maximum ratio (new code
value/ old code value) comes out to be 1.30.
Whereas, figure 17 represents the displacement (mm) of column. Due to dynamic seismic
analysis, it was observed that the maximum displacement value is 0.9 times than the value
obtained from static seismic analysis.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1009
editor@iaeme.com
A Comparative Study of Static Analysis (As Per Is: 1893-2002) & Dynamic Analysis (As Per
Is:1893-2016) of a Building for Zone V
Figure 16 % of Steel in Column.
Figure 17 Displacement in Column.
Table 9 BENDING MOMENT (KN-M) IN COLUMN
Floor
Old Code (Type C)
New Code (Type F)
1
28.75
1012.59
2
90.24
90.11
3
80.82
80.59
4
92.85
92.5
5
68.54
68.25
6
85.89
85.51
7
82.12
81.7
8
97.72
59.21
9
234.5
260.85
10
189.82
214.26
11
131.21
156.46
Figure 18 and 19 shows the beam result i.e. values of shear force and bending moment
respectively. From the figures, it was concluded that type F building (new code) produces more
value than type C building (old code), approximately 1.07 higher.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1010
editor@iaeme.com
Ajay Kumar and Jagdish Chand
Figure 18 Shear Force in Beams.
Figure 19 Bending Moment in Beams.
After cost analysis, the cost of the concrete and steel is being represented in figure 20.
Therefore, the total cost of 11 storied building comes out to be Rs. 206.54 lakhs for type F
building and Rs. 195.36 lakhs for Type C building.
Figure 20 Total Cost of 11 Storey Building.
4. CONCLUSION
The present paper compares the results of static seismic analysis and dynamic seismic analysis
and following are the conclusions which were drawn from the study:
• For 4 storey building, maximum displacement in column in Type D is 1.16 times higher
than the maximum Displacement in Type A. And the total cost of Type D building
comes out to be 1.1 times higher than the total cost of Type A building.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1011
editor@iaeme.com
A Comparative Study of Static Analysis (As Per Is: 1893-2002) & Dynamic Analysis (As Per
Is:1893-2016) of a Building for Zone V
•
•
For 8 storey building, maximum displacement in column in Type E is 0.84 times higher
than the maximum Displacement in Type B. And the total cost of Type E building
comes out to be 1.08 times higher than the total cost of Type B building.
For 11 storey building, maximum displacement in column in Type F is 0.9 times higher
than the maximum Displacement in Type C. And the total cost of Type F building
comes out to be 1.06 times higher than the total cost of Type C building.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
S.K. Ahirwar, S.K. Jain and M. M. Pande, “Earthquake Loads On Multistory Buildings As
Per Is: 1893-1984 And Is: 1893-2002: A Comparative Study”, World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering 2008.
Amit V. Khandve, “Seismic Response of RC Frame Buildings with Soft Storey’s”,
International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 2012, Volume-2, Issue-3,
2100-2108.
Kiran Kumar, G. Papa Rao, “Comparison Of Percentage Steel And Concrete Quantities Of
A R.C Building In Different Seismic Zones”, International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology, 2013, Volume-02, Issue-07, 124-134.
B Sri Harsha, J Vikranth, “Study and Comparison of Construction Sequence Analysis with
Regular Analysis By Using Etabs” International Journal of Research Sciences and
Advanced Engineering, 2014, Volume 2, Issue 8, 218 – 227.
Umesh.R.Biradar, Shivaraj Mangalgi, “Seismic Response Of Reinforced Concrete
Structure By Using Different Bracing Systems” International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology, 2014, Volume: 03 Issue: 09, 422 – 426.
A.Sattainathan Sharma, G.R.Iyappan, J.Harish, “Comparative study of cost and time
evaluation in RCC, steel & Composite high rise building”, Journal of Chemical and
Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2015, Volume-8, Issue-4, 911-915.
Narayan Kalsulkar, Satish Rathod, “Seismic Analysis of RCC Building Resting on Sloping
Ground with varying Number of Bays and Hill Slopes” International Journal of Current
Engineering and Technology, 2015, Vol.5, No.3, 2063-2069.
Pralobh S. Gaikwad and Kanhaiya K. Tolani, “Review Paper on Dynamic Analysis of
Building”, International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, 2015, Volume-5,
Number-1, 974-975.
Tejashree Kulkarni, Sachin Kulkarni, Anjum Algur, M. H. Kolhar, “Analysis And Design
Of High Rise Building Frame Using Staad Pro”, International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology, 2016, Volume-05, Issue-04, 235-237.
K. Ramakrishna Reddy, Dr. S. Vijaya Mohan Rao, “Seismic Analysis of High Raised
Building by Response Spectrum Method”, International Journal of Advanced Technology
and Innovative Research, 2016, Volume-08, Issue-21, 4111-4118.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
1012
editor@iaeme.com