International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 4, Issue 12, December 2014 1

ISSN 2250-3153

Comparative study of typical R.C. building using

INDIAN STANDARDS and EURO STANDARDS under
seismic forces
Asst. Prof. Mehul J. Bhavsar*, Asst. Prof. Kavita N. Choksi*, Asst. Prof. Sejal K. Bhatt*, Shrenik K. Shah**
*
Department Of Civil Engineering,Shree Swami Atmanand Saraswati Insti. Of Technology-Surat.
**
B.E. Civil Engineering from Shree Swami Atmanand Saraswati Inst.Of Technology-Surat.

Abstract- In R.C. buildings, frames are considered as main 2) IS 1893 (Part-1):2002: Criteria for Earthquake
structural elements, which resist shear, moment and torsion Resistant Design of Structures
effectively. These frames are subjected to variety of loads, where
lateral loads are always predominant. Infrastructures of Gulf Although Indian Standards are sufficient for construction of
countries are always remarkable as they mostly follow EURO buildings in India, there are some International standards which
standards for construction development. In view of the demand contains some parameters that are not included in IS codes.
of such codes across the developing countries like India, an Infrastructures of Gulf countries are always remarkable. And it is
attempt is made to compare EURO standards with Indian observed that they mostly follow EURO standards for variety of
standards using structural software. structures. So such codes are very much important in developing
Countries like India. This paper adopts the Recent European
Index Terms- R.C. buildings, INDIAN standards, EURO Standards which are as follows:
standards, lateral forces, structural software.

1) EURO CODE 2 (EC 2): Design Of Concrete

I. INTRODUCTION Structures
2) EURO CODE 8 (EC 8): Design Of Structures For
R einforced concrete, as a composite material, has occupied a
special place in the modern construction of different types
of structures due to its several advantages. Due to its flexibility in
Earthquake Resistance
This paper extends the comparison further and presents a
form and superiority in performance, it has replaced, to a large comparative study of the expected performance of a multistoried
extent, the earlier materials like stone, timber etc. Moreover, its building under lateral loading using INDIAN AND EURO
role in structural forms like multistoried frames, bridges, STANDARDS by means of computer tools. Following
foundations etc. is enormous. With the rapid growth of urban discussions are made on some of the parameters which have a
population in both the developing as well as the developed due importance in seismic force.
countries, reinforced concrete has become a material of choice
for residential construction.
There are mainly two types of structures; II. RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR
1) Post and beam structure: Here, beam simply rests on top All modern national seismic design codes converge on the
of column. issue of design methodology. These are based on a prescriptive
2) Rigid frame structure: In this type of structure beam and Force-Based Design approach, where the design is performed
column are rigidly joined. A rigid frame structure is a structure using a linear elastic analysis, and inelastic energy dissipation is
made up of linear elements, typically beams and columns that are considered indirectly, through a response reduction factor (or
connected to one another at their ends with joints that do not behavior factor). Behavior factor, along with other interrelated
allow any relative rotations to occur between the ends of the provisions, governs the seismic design forces and hence the
attached members, although the joints themselves may rotate as a seismic performance of code-designed buildings. The response
unit. In India, for reinforced concrete structures, Indian standard reduction factor, as considered in the design codes, depends on
was introduced in the year 1953, which was further revised and the ductility and over strength of the structure. Building codes
implemented with the course of time. For lateral load, Indian define different ductility classes and specify corresponding
Bureau Standard has introduced criteria for earthquake resistant response reduction factors based on the structural material,
design of structures in 1993, which is under the stage of revision. configuration and detailing. Response reduction factor for OMRF
This paper adopts the Recent Indian Standards which are as and SMRF is 3 and 5 respectively according to IS
follows: 1893.According to EC 8 it is 1.5, 3.9 and 5.85 for DCL, DCM
and DCH respectively. So if it is compared SMRF with DCM
1) IS 456:2000: Code of Practice for Plain and according to Table 1 response reduction factor for EUROCODE
Reinforced Concrete is higher than that provided in IS CODE.

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 4, Issue 12, December 2014 2
ISSN 2250-3153

III. DUCTILITY CLASSES

EUROCODE 8 (EN 1998-1) classifies the building ductility
as Low (DCL), Medium (DCM) and High (DCH).IS 1893
classifies RC frame buildings as Ordinary Moment Resisting
Frames (OMRF) and Special Moment Resisting Frames (SMRF).

Table 1. Ductility classes according to various categories of

building

Category Ductility class

IS 1893 EC 8
Low
dissipative OMRF DCL
structures Fig.1 Graphical comparison of drift in X direction
Medium
As mentioned earlier, all the codes considered for the study
dissipative SMRF DCM
specify drift limits on the total (inelastic) displacement, except
structures
for the Indian code, which specifies drift limit on the elastic
High
displacement. Fig.1 depicts drift in x direction by adopting both
dissipative - DCH
codes for worst load combination.
structures
VIII. REACTION:
IV. DRIFT Estimation of reaction generated due to dead load and worst
load combination at the base of the building is shown below by
Drift governs the design and expected seismic performance means of graphical representation.
of a building. In various codes procedure to estimate drift is
varying considerably. Drift differ according to effective stiffness
of R.C members. Further, as discussed earlier, the drift may
govern the design in many cases, resulting in further
discrepancies in the actually provided strength. Therefore, in this
study, the seismic performance of a building designed for both
(i.e. EC 8 and IS 1893) seismic design codes have been
compared.

V. MODELLING
For comparison, a residential building of G+7 story is taken
under reference. Importance factor is taken as 1 which is same
specified in both codes. To have a similar hazardous level, soil Fig.2 Graphical comparison of reaction value using dl and
condition is taken as medium soil according to IS CODE worst load combination
provisions which is equivalent to soil type B(PGA=0.35g)
according to ASCE. (In EUROCODE soil classification is
describe based on ASCE code.)So, type B soil in ASCE is VII. AXIAL LOAD
equivalent to medium soil condition in India. Here, building type Axial load is increasing if we move from 7th story to base
is medium dissipative structure. According to Table 1 ductility level. Axial load is estimated by adopting both codes at various
class is SMRF for IS 1893 and DCM for EC 8.The story height is story levels.
3 m for all floors. Modeling of structure, analysis and design is
done on ETABS software.

VI. ANALYSIS OF RESULT

The seismic load according to the relevant codes has been
estimated and the building is designed for combined effect of
gravity and seismic forces, considering all the design load
combinations specified in each code. Poissons ratio may be
taken equal to 0 for cracked concrete as per EC 2(3.1.3.4).
VII. DRIFT:
Fig.
3 Graphical comparison of axial load at various story levels

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 4, Issue 12, December 2014 3
ISSN 2250-3153

VIII. MAXIMUM STORY DISPLACEMENT X. . REINFORCEMENT DETAIL OF PARTICULAR

There are differences among both codes in case of inter COLUMN
story drift also, but the differences are not as drastic.

Fig.6 Graphical comparison of area of reinforcement at

Fig.4 Graphical comparison of maximum story displacement
various story levels
in Y direction

IX. IME PERIOD XI. BASE SHEAR

By the comparison of results, time period is comparable

resulted by both codes. There are 12 modes among full height of
building.

Fig.7 Graphical comparison of base shear

Fig.5 Graphical comparison of time period(s) at various

modes

Fig.8 Graphical representation of bending moment diagram

of 3rd floor

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 4, Issue 12, December 2014 4
ISSN 2250-3153

REFERENCES
[1] Danial l. Schodek & Martin Bechthold, Structures, Phi publication
[2] Dr. V.L.Shah & Late Dr. S.R.Karve, Illustrated design of Reinforced
concrete Buildings
[3] Dr. V.L.Shah & Late Dr. S.R.Karve, Limit State Theory And Design Of
Reinforced Concrete, Structures Publication
[4] Duggal S.K., Earthquake Resistant Design Of Structures, Oxford
University
[5] EURO CODE 2: Design Of Concrete Structures
[6] EURO CODE 8: Design Of Structures For Earthquake Resistance
[7] Falak Parikh And Vimlesh Agarawal, Shear Strength And Column Depth
For RC Beam Column Joint Comparison Of Draft Code With Euro Code,
International Journal Of Civil And Structural Engineering
Research,Vol.2,No.3,August-2013
[8] IS 456:2000: Code Of Practice For Plain And Reinforced Concrete
Fig.9 Graphical representation of bending moment diagram [9] IS 1893 (Part-1):2002: Criteria For Earthquake Resistant Design Of
Structures
of particular column
[10] Maria A. Parisi, M.ASCE, The Eurocode For Earthquake-Resistant
Design: An Outline
[11] P.Bisch,E.Carvalho, Eurocode 8:Seismic Design Of Building Worked
XII. CONCLUDING REMARKS: Examples,Lisbon,10-11 Feb.2011
All the above parameters are compared by using both [12] Richard Fenwick,David Lau,Barry Davidson, A Comparison Of The
Seismic Design Requirement In The New Zealand Loadings Standards With
Standards under gravity loading as well as seismic loading. It can Other Major Design Codes
be observed from the results and graphs that variation in values [13] Yogendra Singh & Vijay Namdev Khose; Dominik H. Lang, A
of different parameters is dependent on the load combinations of Comparative Study Of Code Provisions For Ductile RC Frame Buildings,
both the code. This paper conclude that the design base shear as 15 WCEE, 2012
per IS 1893 is lower as compared to EUROCODE 8 because of
higher value of RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR. The
allowable story drift as per EURO CODE 8 is 1.5%.while as per AUTHORS
IS 1893 is 0.4%.Due to this maximum story drift as per EURO
First Author-Asst. Prof. Mehulj.Bhavsar, Mtech,CED-Shree
CODE 8 is higher than IS 1893.The area of reinforcement
swami atmanand saraswati institute of technology-surat,
required in column is lower in EC 2 than IS 456. This is because
[email protected]
the modulus of elasticity is higher in EC 2. Also the maximum
Second Author- Asst. Prof. Kavita N. Choksi, M.E., CED-Shree
percentage of steel required, suggested by IS 456 in the column
swami atmanand saraswati institute of technology-
is 6% while that suggested by EC 2 is 4%.Therefore, the ductility
surat,[email protected]
of column in EC 2 is controlled by modulus of elasticity while
Third Author- Asst. Prof. Sejal K. Bhatt, M.E.,CED-Shree
that in IS 456 is controlled by area of reinforcement. Variation of
swami atmanand saraswati institute of technology-
the modulus of elasticity with time can be estimated by:
surat,[email protected]
Fourth Author Shrenik K. Shah,B.E. Civil,CED--Shree swami
Ecm(t) = (fcm(t) / fcm)0.3 Ecm atmanand saraswati institute of technology-surat,
[email protected]

where Ecm(t) and fcm(t) are the values at an age of t days Correspondence Author- Asst. Prof. Mehulj.Bhavsar,
and Ecm and fcm are the values determined at an age of 28 days. Mtech,CED-Shree swami atmanand saraswati institute of
Where Ecm denotes secant modulus of elasticity of concrete and technology-surat, [email protected],09913675699
fcm denotes mean value of concrete cylinder compressive
strength.

www.ijsrp.org