Review on Comparative Study on Analysis and

Design of Multistoried Structure using Different

Codes
Surabhi A. Bambal *
P.G. Scholar
PRMIT&R, Badnera,
Amravati, Maharashtra, India
surabhibambal@yahoo.co.in

M.A. Banarase
Asst.Professor,
PRMIT&R, Badnera,
Amravati, Maharashtra, India
mabanarase@mitra.ac.in

Abstract- The structure is designed with sufficient strength to behave elastically during
earthquake. Seismic design of multi storied RC building is to withstand the ground motion caused
during the earthquake. In order to design an earthquake resistant structure an Engineer must
have a good knowledge about various seismic design codes.
In this paper literatures of various researches were studied. Those papers give more
information about the static and dynamic analysis done on various types of structures using
various codes. The use of software in seismic analysis will reduce the time consumption and
errors in analysis and design of the structure. The researchers used various country codes to
evaluate the seismic performance of the structure. The parameters such as displacement, base
shear, storey drift, time period, axial and shear force bending moment were studied. This work
aims at the comparison of various provisions for earthquake analysis as given in building codes
of Indian Code, American code, European code, New Zealand code is carried out by Response
spectrum analysis and modeled with the help of ETAB2015 software.
Keyword- Base Shear, Storey Drift, Time Period, Displacement, Seismic Analysis, Stiffness.
1.0 INTRODUCTION

arthquakes, Tsunamis, Landslides, Floods and

Fires are natural calamities, causing severe
damage and sufferings of persons by collapsing
the structures, cutting off transport systems, killing
or trapping persons, animals etc. Such natural
disasters are challenges to the progress of
development. However, civil engineers as
designers have a major role to play in minimizing
the damages by properly designing the structures
or taking other useful decisions. This includes
understanding the effects of earthquakes, the
behavior of the materials of construction and
structures and the extent to which structural
engineers make use of the knowledge in taking
proper decisions in designing the structures made
of reinforced concrete.
Earthquake resistant structures are capable
of resisting lateral and vertical forces acting on the
structures. But no structures can entirely survive
during earthquake without any damages.
* Corresponding Author

According to the codes, earthquake resistant

structures are designed to withstand expected
earthquake at least to occur once during the
design life of the structure.
The structure is designed with sufficient
strength to behave elastically during earthquake.
Seismic design of multi storied RC building is to
withstand the ground motion caused during the
earthquake. In order to design an earthquake
resistant structure an Engineer must have a good
knowledge about various seismic design codes.
The use of softwares in seismic analysis will
reduce the time consumption and errors in
analysis and design of the structure.
Reinforced concrete buildings are analyzed
and designed to meet the requirements of relevant
codes of practice. Such buildings designed as per
code provision will survive during an earthquake
with minor damages of structural elements. Many
of the countries have their own codes of practice

for Earthquake Resistant structures. The buildings

are designed and detailed as per codes.
Seismic codes are unique to a particular
region or country. They take into account the local
seismology, accepted level of seismic risk,
building typologies, and materials and methods
used in construction. Further, they are indicative of
the level of progress a country has made in the
field of earthquake engineering. Different national
codes vary significantly on account of various
specifications which govern the design force level.
The response reduction factor, as considered in
the design codes, depends on the ductility and
over strength of the structure. Building codes
define different ductility classes and specify
corresponding response reduction factors based
on the structural material, configuration and
detailing. Another important issue, which governs
the design and expected seismic performance of a
building, is control of the drift. Drift is recognized
as an important control parameter by all the
codes; however, they differ regarding the effective
stiffness of RC members. Further, the procedures
to estimate drift and the allowable limits on drift
also vary considerably.
Different codes differ not only with respect to
the design base shear but also employ different
load and material factors (or strength reduction
factors) for the design of members, and hence, the
actually provided strength in different codes does
not follow the same pattern as the design base
shear. This has a direct effect on the expected
performance of buildings designed using different
codes. Further, the other provisions of the codes
also indirectly govern the seismic performance. In
the era of globalization, there is a need for
convergence of design methodologies to result in
buildings with uniform risk of suffering a certain
level of damage or collapse. A first step in this
direction is to compare the expected seismic
performance of buildings designed using the
provisions of different codes.
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
Dr. S.V. Itti*, Prof. Abhishek Pathade** and
Ramesh B. Karadi*** studied on A Comparative
Study on Seismic Provisions Made in India and
International Building Codes for RC Buildings. This
study focuses on the comparison of the Indian
Code (IS) and International Building Codes (IBC)
in relation to the seismic design and analysis of
Ordinary RC moment resisting frame (OMRF),
Intermediate RC moment-resisting frame (IMRF)
and Special RC moment-resting frame (SMRF).

This study explores variations in the results

obtained using the two codes, particularly design
base shear, lateral loads, drifts and area of steel
for structural members for all RC buildings in both
the codes. Three dimensional model of the
building was prepared in ETABS. The size of
columns and beams were fixed by manual
methods. Further the size of beams and columns
they adjusted to achieve target deflection, since
OMRF Indian was having the maximum deflection
at the top story, the sizes of beams and columns,
i.e. (0.35 x 0.75m) and (0.75 x 0.75m) respectively
were fixed so that the deflection at the top most
story is within the permissible limit. The author
found that the, Base Shear, lateral loads and
displacements for OMRF, IMRF and SMRF of IS1893-2002 Code buildings are higher than that of
IBC-2006 Code buildings respectively for same
column and beam sizes. Due to these higher
forces generated in the structure, the structure
becomes stiffer and not flexible.
Yogendra Singh & Vijay Namdev Khose
(2012) studied A Comparative Study of Code
Provisions for Ductile RC Frame Buildings. In this
paper presents a comparative study of different
ductility classes and corresponding response
reduction
factors,
reinforcement
detailing
provisions, and a case study of seismic
performance of a ductile RC frame building
designed using four major codes, viz. ASCE7
(United States), EN1998-1 (Europe), NZS 1170.5
(New Zealand) and IS 1893 (India). An eight-story
RC frame building is considered for study. The
building is symmetric in both directions. The Story
height is 3.2 m for all floors. The 3D model of the
building is developed in SAP2000 (2010). Beams
and columns have been modeled as frame
elements. The columns are assumed to be fixed at
the base. The buildings are designed as per the
considered seismic codes and the corresponding
design codes. The design codes used are ACI
318M-08 (2008), EN1992 (2004), NZS 3101:Part 1
(1995) and IS 456 (2000), respectively. The
capacity curves of the SMRF building designed for
Indian code and IMRF building designed for
American code are close, as these are the only
codes which apply capping on the design period.
The buildings designed for other codes (New
Zealand and Euro code) have significantly lower
strengths than the buildings of comparable ductility
classes designed for Indian and American codes.
Seismic performance of an eight-story RC frame
building designed for different codes has been
compared and it has been observed that they
actually provided strength and expected

performance of the building is not following the

same hierarchy as the design base shear. Further,
there is significant variation in the strength
capacity of the buildings designed for different
codes. All the code designed buildings show Life
Safety or better performance level for DBE, but
show partial/full collapse at MCE. In most of the
cases considered in this study, the design was
mainly governed by the strength while drift was not
a governing criteria.
Asst. Prof. Mehul J. Bhavsar*, Asst. Prof.
Kavita N. Choksi*, Asst. Prof. Sejal K. Bhatt*,
Shrenik K. Shah**(2014) studied the Comparative
study of typical R.C. building using INDIAN
STANDARDS and EURO STANDARDS under
seismic forces. The Response reduction factor for
OMRF and SMRF is 3 and 5 respectively,
according to IS 1893.According to EC 8 it is 1.5,
3.9 and 5.85 for DCL, DCM and DCH respectively.
Hence, response reduction factor for EUROCODE
is higher than that provided in IS CODE. For
comparison, a residential building of G+7story is
taken under reference. Importance factor is taken
as 1 which is same specified in both codes. The
soil condition is taken as medium soil, according to
IS CODE provisions which are equivalent to soil
type B (PGA=0.35g) according to ASCE. (In
EUROCODE soil classification is described based
on ASCE code). Ductility class is SMRF for IS
1893 and DCM for EC 8 according to the study.
The story height is 3 m for all floors. Modeling of
structure, analysis and design is done on ETABS
software. This paper concludes that the design
base shear as per IS 1893 is lower as compared
to EC8 because of the high value of response
reduction factor. The allowable story drift as per
EC 8 is 1.5%.while as per IS 1893 is 0.4%.Due to
this maximum story drift as per EC 8 is higher than
IS 1893.The area of reinforcement required in
column is lower in EC 2 than IS 456. This is
because the modulus of elasticity is higher in EC
2. Also the maximum percentage of steel required,
suggested by IS 456 in the column is 6%, while
that suggested by EC 2 is 4%. Therefore, the
ductility of a column in EC 2 is controlled by the
modulus of elasticity while that in IS 456 is
controlled by an area of reinforcement.
Er. Pujan Neupane1, Er. Samyog
Shrestha2 (2015) studied Comparative Analysis
of Seismic Codes of Nepal and India for RC
Buildings. Both codes have their own design
response spectrum. The nature and essence of
the spectrum are similar in the two codes, but they
differ in normalization of the values of what has

been termed as Spectral Acceleration Coefficient

(Sa/g) in IS1893:2002 and Basic Seismic
Coefficient (C) in NBC105:1994. They had
observed that the story height of the RC building
does not play any major role in analyzing the
differences in the design seismic forces of the two
codes, so the results for the most popularly
adopted story height of 3m. As the base shear
gets distributed in the floor level differences in the
two codes, the effect of such difference is also of
concern because it is the seismic shear forces in
the floor level that governs the stresses in the
structural members rather than the base shear as
a whole. If the two codes followed the same base
shear distribution pattern, for all floor levels of a 10
story building, the seismic shears should have
been lesser in IS. It is also true that the story
shears for each floor computed using IS will be
higher when the building is lesser than 8 stories
(about 25 meters tall) in a site having soft soil as
well as when the building is of any story but in a
site with medium or stiff soil. According to the
author it is concluded that for RC buildings resting
on stiff or medium soil, the seismic demand as
computed using IS 1893 is always higher than
NBC 105. But, this should, strictly, not be
interpreted as any one code being faulty rather
both codes have their own design principles and
assumptions which considerably differ the seismic
capacity of the building being designed. More
importantly, these findings outline the lack of
harmony between the two codes which builds
skepticism on believing the numbers that the
codes prescribe. In a seismically active nation like
Nepal, it is a challenge to urgently stipulate
unambiguous rules and coherent code provisions
regarding earthquake resistant design, so as to
reduce earthquake related risk in the country.
Deeper research to make revisions if needed, and
implement a single well-justified seismic code in
Nepal without giving any place to other codes,
must be a top-priority in the policy level.
Silvio de Souza lima1, Luca Zanaica2,
Carmen Bucur3, Ana Aria4 (2013) studied on
Comparative Study of Codes for Seismic Design
of Structures. This paper presents a comparative
evaluation among some international, European
and American, seismic design standards. The
study considers the criteria for the analysis of
conventional
(residential
and
commercial)
buildings. A model for a standard reinforced
concrete building (Model Building) has been
developed to permit the comparison among codes.
This building has been modeled with two different
computer programs, SAP2000 and SOFiSTiK and

subjected to seismic input according to the several

seismic codes. In order to make possible the
comparison among the several standards, a
particular location has been carefully chosen. It is
supposed that the building is located in Rivesville,
South Carolina (ZIP code 29471), U.S.
Considering a 475 year return period, the design
ground acceleration, for rocky conditions, in this
location can be taken as ag = 0.15g. This relatively
small level of seismicity has been chosen is
ordered to make possible the comparison among
all the analyzed standards, since this is the
highest level of seismicity considered in the
Brazilian Standard. The comparison of the text of
the several analyzed seismic standards indicates
a general agreement regarding the desired main
characteristics of a seismic resistant structure:
simplicity, symmetry, uniformity, redundancies,
etc. An essential point generally focused as well is
the necessity that the structural design and
detailing should provide enough ductility for the
dissipation of energy in the non-linear range.

is done on 5 storey RC building which survived

without damage in earthquake (1997). The
building is designed properly for shear and
collapse. The building is modeled using Fiber
element model in SeismoStruct software. Hysteric
damping is predefined in the model while non
hysteric damping is 5% of tangent stiffness
proportional damping. The displacement is
calculated using N2 method. The torsional effect is
calculated using torsional correction factor by
amplifying the displacement results. In pushover
analysis, N2 method is performed by applying
Mass proportional force and Modal proportional
force. But the CSM method is done by applying
modal-proportional
load
patterns.
Top
displacements, lateral displacement profiles and
inter storey drifts were determined using both
methods. The CSM-FEMA440 was usually closer
to the time-history.CSM-FEMA440 gives accurate
procedure to calculate the target displacement. N2
method is the only method which gives the correct
torsional motion of the building.

Md. Rashedul Kabir et al [3] (2015) has

determined response of multi-story regular and
irregular buildings of identical weight under static
and dynamic loading in context of Bangladesh. In
this paper, a 15 storied regular shaped and
irregular shaped buildings have been modeled
using program ETABS 9.6 for Dhaka (seismic
zone 2), Bangladesh. The effect of static load,
dynamic load and wind load is analyzed. The
mass of the each building was considered to be
same. Displacement due to wind load is
maximised in all types of buildings. Static and
dynamic analysis gives less variation in
displacement. The displacement obtained from
static analysis is more when compared to dynamic
analysis. The displacement increases with storey
height. C shaped and L shaped structure has
higher displacement. Rectangular and irregular
shaped
structure
show
almost
similar
displacement against wind load as the total mass
is constant.

Dr. K. Subramanian1 and M. Velayutham2

(2012) studied on influence of seismic zone factor
and the international codal provisions for various
lateral load resisting systems in multi storey
buildings. The main factors which contribute for
the seismic load have been studied and dynamic
analysis results for various structural systems with
various zone factors are compared using various
international standards. To illustrate the various
seismic parameters governing the seismic forces
on the building, analytical study is carried out
using ETABS for the various structural systems
and the similarities and differences are presented
for various international standards. Buildings with
regular, or nominally irregular plan configuration
may be modeled as a system of masses lumped
at floor levels with each mass having one degree
of freedom, that of lateral displacement in the
direction under consideration. Seismic analysis is
performed using response spectrum analysis of IS
1893(Part 1):2002, UBC 1997, NZS 1170.5 2004
and BS EN 1998-1-2004 for the typical five storey
building to be located in different regions with
various lateral load resisting systems. Initial
modes are found to be in translation for all
structural system and excite more than 90% of the
total mass. Type II soil as per IS 1893(Part
1):2002, Type SD category as per UBC 1997,
Class C Shallow soil site as per NZS 1170.5 2004 and Ground type C as per BS EN 1998 -1 :
2004 are considered for the comparison study of
all the structural systems. Type II soil as per IS
1893(Part 1):2002, Type SD category as per UBC

C. Bhatt, R. Bento (2012) performed a

comparison between American and European
codes on the Non Linear Static analysis of RC
buildings. In this paper they explained about non
linear Static Procedure (NSP), which is a
performance based seismic design which behaves
sensible in seismic force than a strength designed
in force based philosophy. They evaluate
deformation in Global and Component level. N2
and Capacity spectrum method in FEMA 440, ATC
40 and EURO 8 is used. Static pushover analysis

1997, Class C Shallow soil site as per NZS 1170.5

- 2004 and Ground type C as per BS EN 1998 -1 :
2004 are considered for the comparison study of
all the structural systems. All codes of practices
include the effect of seismic risk, spectral content,
and importance of building, structural behavior and
soil/foundation for seismic load. To illustrate the
various seismic parameters governing the seismic
forces on the building, analytical study is carried
out using the modernized structural engineering
software package ETABS for various structural
systems and the similarities and differences are
presented for all four codes of practices.
3.0 CONCLUSION
The above research papers give following
conclusions

The building designed using Euro code

performs better comparing to Indian standard
(IS1893:2002) and American (ATC40 and
FEMA440) codes. Hence Indian and American
code needs improvement in performance
based design.
Studies are performed using different
methodology such as response spectrum
method, pushover analysis, time period
analysis. Hence results are different
respectively to the different codes.
References

[1] Dr. S.V. Itti*, Prof. Abhishek Pathade** and

Ramesh B. Karadi***, A Comparative Study
on Seismic Provisions Made in Indian and
International Building Codes for RC Buildings,
[2] Yogendra Singh & Vijay Namdev Khose
(2012), A Comparative Study of Code
Provisions
for
Ductile
RC
Frame
Buildings,15WCEE LISBOA 2012.
[3] Asst. Prof. Mehul J. Bhavsar*, Asst. Prof.
Kavita N. Choksi*, Asst. Prof. Sejal K. Bhatt*,
Shrenik K. Shah**(2014) , The Comparative
study of typical R.C. building using INDIAN
STANDARDS and EURO STANDARDS under
seismic forces, International Journal of
Scientific and Research Publications, Volume
4, Issue 12, December 2014
[4] Er. Pujan Neupane1, Er. Samyog Shrestha2
(2015) , Comparative Analysis of Seismic

Codes of Nepal and India for RC Building,

International Journal of Engineering Trends
and Technology (IJETT) Volume 28 Number
2 - October 2015
[5] Silvio de Souza lima1 , luca zanaica2, Carmen
bucur3, Ana aria4(2013) , Comparative
Study of Codes for Seismic Design of
Structures, Mathematical Modeling in Civil
Engineering
Vol.
9-No.
1-2013
Doi:
10.2478/mmce-2013-0001
[6] Md. Rashedul Kabir, Debasish Sen, Md.
Mashfiqul Islam ,Response of multi-storey
regular and irregular buildings of identical
weight under static and dynamic loading in
context of Bangladesh, International journal of
Civil and Structural Engineering, Volume 5, No
3, February 2015, pp 252-260
[7] C. Bhatt, R. Bento, A Comparison between
American and European codes on the Non
Linear Static Analysis of RC Buildings,
th
15 World
Conference
on
Earthquake
Engineering, Lisbon 2012.
[8] Dr. K. Subramanian1 and M. Velayutham2
(2012) , Influence of seismic zone factor and
the international codal provisions for various
lateral load resisting systems in multi storey
buildings,
ISET
GOLDEN
JUBILEE
SYMPOSIUM Indian Society of Earthquake
Technology Department of Earthquake
Engineering Building IIT Roorkee, Roorkee
October 20-21, 2012.
Authors Biography
Ms.
Surabhi.
A.
Bambal
obtained her B.E. degree from
Sant Gadge Baba
Amravati
University, Amravati. She is
pursuing h e r post-graduation in
Structural Engineering.
Prof.
Mayur
A.
Banarase
obtained his B.E. degree from
Sant Gadge Baba Amravati
University, Amravati and postgraduation
in
Structural
Engineering. He is working as
Assistant Professor in Prof. Ram
Meghe Institute of Technology
and Research, Badnera. He has published one
National and one International paper. H e h a s
two
years
of
industrial
experience.